Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:18:36 -0800: Hi, [snip] My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. But how do you know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? As much as you seem to wish I had said Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, I did not. What I did was list some obvious possible follow- on scenarios, in random order, including the possible scenario that Iran gets the bomb, or one is used, scenario (e). As much as it appears you would like to put words into my mouth and convert a *requested* prediction, provided in my case as a set of energy related scenarios and an associated guess at a maximum time to a bump, into an off topic ethno-political argument, I dislike it. I would much prefer to hear your (and other's) answer to the question, your predicted time line to the first serious bump in the energy road, and why: On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:51 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With all the energy info rhetoric eminating out of D.C. and news sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the energy industry? What is your predicted time line for the first really serious bump in the road ? Richard Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:22:20 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:18:36 -0800: Hi, [snip] My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. But how do you know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? As much as you seem to wish I had said Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, I did not. What I did was list some obvious possible follow- on scenarios, in random order, including the possible scenario that Iran gets the bomb, or one is used, scenario (e). As much as it appears you would like to put words into my mouth and convert a *requested* prediction, provided in my case as a set of energy related scenarios and an associated guess at a maximum time to a bump, into an off topic ethno-political argument, I dislike it. Horace if I misread your intentions while reading between the lines, then I apologize. I would much prefer to hear your (and other's) answer to the question, your predicted time line to the first serious bump in the energy road, and why: On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:51 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With all the energy info rhetoric eminating out of D.C. and news sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the energy industry? What is your predicted time line for the first really serious bump in the road ? Richard [snip] If people can refrain from fighting one another, then I think a gradual increase in the price of gasoline, and a concomitant increase in alternative fuels is more likely than an actual bump. With the tar sands in Canada and the shale oil in the US there is actually enough (more or less expensive?) oil to last for decades, during which time alternatives can be brought online. Though I don't like admitting it, there's a possibility that current price rises are being deliberately introduced in order to provide a price signal that will hasten the introduction of alternatives, and concurrently help to alleviate global warming. IOW someone may actually be doing some long term planning and manipulating the market accordingly. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:28:07 +1000: Hi, [snip] Good post Robin, I disagree on some points but a good post. We will see. I hope fusion will save the day as you do but its wise to consider the options. A few points: 1. If earth quakes could not dislodge oil and natural gas from the ground significantly why does anyone think CO2 will be as easily dislodged. Partly because the only way to get the CO2 down there is to drill down from the surface creating a hole in the cap-stone. This provides a weak point that is likely to fail during an earth quake. You might counter that we would notice this while drilling for gas. However gas production doesn't last forever. IOW frequently the production period of any given well is less than the mean time between serious quakes, so the chances of the two occurring simultaneously may not be very high. CO2 repositories OTOH have to last forever, so sooner or later they are bound to coincide with a major quake. Furthermore, methane is lighter than air, so when it does escape, it tends to rise up until it eventually mixes with the air and slowly oxidizes. CO2 is heavier than air, so it will hug the surface. 2. The wave power cables I'm talking about are true power system cables, facilitation for university and private projects, not a power link to Tasmania, same technology. The governments meager contribution to wave power. Perhaps there's a delay I'll look for the site data. Thanks. [snip] My somewhat sarcastic post is based on the simple idea that solutions exist, putting all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea, even cold fusion is a risk if it becomes our only solution. Maybe, but that would only happen over the long term anyway, as at present the many options available will all get tried, and some will make enough headway to provide a mix of options for a while. Eventually the best options will prove themselves as survivors. I agree the coal miners can work elsewhere and the coal companies can invest elsewhere. But some has them convinced that both the miners and the shareholders are too stupid to do anything but dig up dirty black stuff. The PM is also concerned about the balance of payments. Coal is the stable part of our balance of payments. I actually wrote to them pointing out that Australia could become a major exporter of Solar derived energy, with a bit of a push from government, but who listens to me? ;) As you know, we have vast tracts of desert country that would be ideal for Solar, and are good for little else. We could easily supply the entire planet with energy if need be. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 17, 2007, at 12:30 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Horace if I misread your intentions while reading between the lines, then I apologize. Likewise, if I misread your intentions I apologize too. If people can refrain from fighting one another, then I think a gradual increase in the price of gasoline, and a concomitant increase in alternative fuels is more likely than an actual bump. With the tar sands in Canada and the shale oil in the US there is actually enough (more or less expensive?) oil to last for decades, during which time alternatives can be brought online. Though I don't like admitting it, there's a possibility that current price rises are being deliberately introduced in order to provide a price signal that will hasten the introduction of alternatives, and concurrently help to alleviate global warming. IOW someone may actually be doing some long term planning and manipulating the market accordingly. I hope you are right. I do expect very long term, even with existing technology, coal, oil and gas will become exclusively dedicated to and far more valuable as raw materials for chemical processes and fabrication rather than for energy. It would be unfortunate if, for fear of losing profits, we rushed to burn it up in the final days of its use as a fuel. I still think all that is missing is the political will to convert the world to renewable energy. http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf (updated) http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf (updated) However, I now think maybe the solar tower concept is flawed, due to an overlooked venturi effect from wind in the pilot programs. I think it can be reborn in the form of wind walls, a stretched out version of the solar tower that gains most of its energy from an airfoil aided venturi effect. Equator facing walls would make good mounting surfaces for solar cells or solar collectors, especially in more polar lattitudes. Wind walls are ideal for citing on mountain ridges, and large ones can turn a class I wind location into a class IV location. It concerns me that the Australian solar tower pilot project, if still alive, is located far inland, instead of near shore where there is some wind. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] Horace Heffner wrote: The infrastructure of a country the size of Iran can probably be knocked out using a few 20 megaton bombs and lots of underground burst weapons followed up with periodic neutron bombs and conventional weapons. Why would it even be desirable to do this? What is it exactly about little Iran that has America so terrified? Surely you are no longer sucked in by the words of a President that has already proven that much of what he says is pure propaganda designed to mislead his own people? I would tend to agree with the thoughts of Robin. My thoughts on the matter is preemptive strike on the middle east was highly unintelligent. These people will NEVER forget. Our president bush created a living nightmare for future generations. Instead of spending what will soon approach ONE TRILLION dollars on this war my country should have spent such money on leading edge defense. Gee, how many scientists could you hire for one trillion dollars, lol. Here's a thought, what if our country would have never stuck our unintelligent aggressive nose in other countries business from the start. One great cost effective method is a challenge. Look who won the DARPA $2 million government challenge and what they achieved: http://news.com.com/Stanford+wins+2+million+in+robotic+car+race/2100-11394_3-5892115.html http://www.darpa.mil It's amazing what they achieved. Another great challenge was the X prize: http://www.xprize.org Anyhow, people baffle me! Perhaps politicians don't understand the law of cause and effect. Someone owes the poor younger generations the apology of a lifetime! Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 15, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: And your point regarding occupation is? I only asked what it meant, I didn't say you were wrong. I don't disagree with you that it would have that result. I do however disagree with the ethics, the legality, and with the original premise that any form of occupation is necessary to begin with. My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. My only intended involvement here was to predict possible scenarios, not consider ethics. Ethical or not, when any state starts an unlimited war then that war is unlimited. A small power has great disadvantages in such a war. Asymmetric conventional wars are more sensible for small power war mongers that insist on having their wars, and of course no war at all is way better. I agree with Horace, nuclear weapons are dirty, both to make and use. If you threaten another country with them, then don't be surprised if they hit you first. Robin was going on about the head Mullah in Iran being opposed to nukes, Ahmadidajad is a figurehead, the council of Mullah's is running the country. So if the Mullahs don't like it, they should silence Ahi, before one of the three countries that he's threatened with annihaliation does it for them. I assume that the Mullah's share the same ology that Ahi does, and if you believe that your god has commanded you to do the battle of Armageddon, then that's what your going to do. Later he posted: Once again, the Iranians have never made any such threat. How can they, they don't even have any nukes. All the media is full of is stories about how the US and Israel *think* they are trying to produce nukes. To me, it is blindingly obvious that this is just a rehash of the same excuse that was used to invade Iraq. Surely any thinking American must be able to see this too? Come on Robin, Ahi has repeatedly given speeches in which he has made illusions to Israel, Britain, and the USA disappearing. I've heard translations of him saying it! What do you think that means?. As for Osama Bin Laudin, I think that he's hiding out in a cave and has eschewed the use of any high tech gadgets which can be traced in real time. Pat Bailey just sent me a list, compiled by scholars for 9/11 truth, of alleged war criminals whom they contend brought us 9/11. IMHO, this is a complicated explanation for what happened. A simple explanation is that a group of Moslem terrorists attacked us. I'm willing to concede that they may have been advised to do it on the morning of that day, which coincided with a planned air defense excersize which involved turning off air defenses. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
Horace Heffner on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 wrote: ... Growing up I lived for years in the path of fallout from nuclear testing. Sure, lots of people probably have died from cancer from the tests, but the world goes on. Few think of it today. Robin wrote: This sort of reasoning leads to total annihilation of the human race. Sure the World may go on, but then again it also may not. There is a considerable difference between a few nuclear tests, and all out nuclear war. And even if a few hardy souls do manage to survive, what sort of a hell are they condemned to live in? ... On 15/6/2007 7:18 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. Harry wrote: It is unnerving and menacing, but it is no more or less stupid than the decision of some other nation's to posses the bomb. It would be stupid if they actually used one. Hi All, We can count on death, taxes, and the certainty of human stupidity -- at least once in a while. When I was a kid, I enjoyed the Frank Buck Bring 'em back alive movies. In one movie, Frank captures monkeys by drilling holes in coconuts that a monkey could put its hand in but could not remove its fist. He would put something the monkeys liked in the coconuts; and then he would walk around picking up monkeys because they would not open their fists. The Oil Gang, in pursuit of $80/barrel oil in 2007, reminds me of these monkeys. What kind of hell? Maybe, instead of 100 years of silence, the Oil Gang is about to treat us to 10,000,000 years of ice. We should not be surprised if the Iranian oil fields are bombed in 2007 -- a pretext for this action WILL BE FOUND! Jack Smith See Snowball Earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/snowballearth_transcript.shtml ``... (RUSSIAN COUNTDOWN) It was the 1960s, the height of the Cold War. The world was obsessed with calculating the odds of surviving a nuclear Holocaust. It was known that a series of massive nuclear explosions would create clouds of dust, smoke and soot. Sunlight would be blocked out. Hypothetically the Earth would enter a nuclear winter, a man-made ice age. In the Soviet Union finding out how severe this man-made ice age could be became the task for one climatologist. Mikhail Budyko was that man. PROF. MIKHAIL BUDYKO (State Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg): Long ago, probably 25 or 30 years, I compiled a number of studies which could be used to describe origin of ice ages. NARRATOR: What Budyko was to uncover would fly in the face of conventional wisdom. He would show how those predictions that the tropics couldn't freeze over were complacent and unfounded. Budyko knew that because the land and oceans are dark they absorb most of the heat coming from the Sun's rays and that is how our planet is warmed up; but sheets of ice are white. They reflect sunlight like a mirror, so an ice-covered Earth absorbs far less solar heat. During an ice age as the freeze spreads the Earth grows whiter, more heat is reflected away so less and less heat is absorbed and so the Earth grows ever colder. It means that potentially the Earth could be caught in a vicious circle of unstoppable freezing. Budyko converted this hypothetical scenario into a mathematical formula and that formula produced a terrifying prediction: the Earth's climate has a theoretical breaking point. As long as the ice sheets remain close to the poles the Earth is safe, but if the freeze continues, such as might happen in a nuclear winter, they could advance down to about where Texas is today. Once the freeze had reached that point so much of the Earth would be covered in white ice that over half the solar heat that normally warms the planet would be reflected back into space. At that point there wouldn't be enough heat left to warm up the Earth. Once this happens there could, in theory, be a runaway freeze, a freeze that nothing can stop. Temperatures plummet, ice sheets spread across all the continents, the oceans, and eventually even the tropics. If this was ever to happen the entire planet would be trapped in ice. There would be a snowball Earth. What was most disturbing about Budyko's calculations was that an Earth encased in ice would reflect so much solar heat it could never warm up enough to thaw, ever. A snowball Earth would mean a world entombed in ice for eternity. MIKHAIL BUDYKO: It was my opinion twenty years ago that such a system will be stable for very long time and possibly all life will disappear ... NARRATOR: To get out of the deep freeze what Kirschvink needed was a power that would stay hot, even when the whole planet had frozen over, something that Budyko hadn't thought of, something that could burn for ever, something like hell. JOSEPH KIRSCHVINK: Looking at an active volcano you realise that magma tens or hundreds of kilometres below the surface couldn't care less whether there was a thin layer of ice
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On 16/6/2007 3:21 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jun 15, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: And your point regarding occupation is? I only asked what it meant, I didn't say you were wrong. I don't disagree with you that it would have that result. I do however disagree with the ethics, the legality, and with the original premise that any form of occupation is necessary to begin with. My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. My only intended involvement here was to predict possible scenarios, not consider ethics. Ethical or not, when any state starts an unlimited war then that war is unlimited. A small power has great disadvantages in such a war. Asymmetric conventional wars are more sensible for small power war mongers that insist on having their wars, and of course no war at all is way better. I agree with Horace, nuclear weapons are dirty, both to make and use. If you threaten another country with them, then don't be surprised if they hit you first. Robin was going on about the head Mullah in Iran being opposed to nukes, Ahmadidajad is a figurehead, the council of Mullah's is running the country. So if the Mullahs don't like it, they should silence Ahi, before one of the three countries that he's threatened with annihaliation does it for them. I assume that the Mullah's share the same ology that Ahi does, and if you believe that your god has commanded you to do the battle of Armageddon, then that's what your going to do. Later he posted: Once again, the Iranians have never made any such threat. How can they, they don't even have any nukes. All the media is full of is stories about how the US and Israel *think* they are trying to produce nukes. To me, it is blindingly obvious that this is just a rehash of the same excuse that was used to invade Iraq. Surely any thinking American must be able to see this too? Come on Robin, Ahi has repeatedly given speeches in which he has made illusions to Israel, Britain, and the USA disappearing. I've heard translations of him saying it! What do you think that means?. He expects the governments which hold these three nations together to dissolve. Harry
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
Good post Robin, I disagree on some points but a good post. We will see. I hope fusion will save the day as you do but its wise to consider the options. A few points: 1. If earth quakes could not dislodge oil and natural gas from the ground significantly why does anyone think CO2 will be as easily dislodged. 2. The wave power cables I'm talking about are true power system cables, facilitation for university and private projects, not a power link to Tasmania, same technology. The governments meager contribution to wave power. Perhaps there's a delay I'll look for the site data. 3. I should have named Ahmadinajad, the Mullah you mentioned may not be able to stand up to him and his apocalyptic view of the future. 4. The compressed air car I mentioned is now a hybrid with a multifuel biofuel burner in the design. That triples the range and produces emissions so low the design has the International fuel emissions prize won already. see the aircar web site. My somewhat sarcastic post is based on the simple idea that solutions exist, putting all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea, even cold fusion is a risk if it becomes our only solution. I agree the coal miners can work elsewhere and the coal companies can invest elsewhere. But some has them convinced that both the miners and the shareholders are too stupid to do anything but dig up dirty black stuff. The PM is also concerned about the balance of payments. Coal is the stable part of our balance of payments. Longterm contract prices don't work well for agricultural commodities and metals. It does work for coal. solve that problem and the PM world switch sides in a minute I suspect. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:31:44 +1000: Hi, [snip] snip No, it's not even a desirable solution. The first time there's an earthquake where the CO2 is stored, the whole lot will return to the surface in one vast cloud, and being heavier than air it will settle across the surface of the ground in a layer meters deep, suffocating thousands in the process. Then it will slowly mix with the air, and we will be right back to square one. That's why there is no such thing as clean coal, and why those who seek refuge in it are delusional. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With all the energy info rhetoric eminating out of D.C. and news sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the energy industry? What is your predicted time line for the first really serious bump in the road ? Richard I'm an Aussy so D.C. is almost irrelevant and has been for some years now. We are looking at some major options including clean coal and we’re in a good position in terms of solar, etc. We have even combined the two solar coal gassification. The Capitalisation of the green energy sector only requires someone with a little brains to realise that a company that combines the emerging household energy technologies and mortgage finance beats Government subsidies hands down. In the ACT we have polititions writing legistation for green-energy buyback, running the meter backwards on solar, wind etc. We have a sugar industry that makes ethanol using no fossil fuel input at the factory and could do so at the farm level, ethanol powered tractors. We have one of the best wave power sites in the world at Bass strait and we are laying the first cables on that sea bed. If you look at Peswiki you see 3 to 5 new projects a day. Any one of which if fully developed could produce 20-30% of the worlds fuel requirments and 10% of its grid energy requirements. With 100+ projects each with the potential of meeting 10% of the demand we don’t have an energy crisis were heading for a solutions glut. We, here in Australia, have too many projects chasing the limited amount of venture capital our economy produces. Contrary to popular belief carbon taxes and carbon credits will not finance the key technologies. As government run programs they are risk averse lenders, And with many solutions here now it is a higher risk game. World wide we now have 6 ethanol technologies as well as, Butanol, methanol ~ dimethyle ether, biogas methane, Compressed air cars, a dozen new electrics a month, commercial solar cars hitting the roads. The question realy is What Energy Crisis! Govenments rarely lead but often follow when the time comes. We are in a R D boom right now. It is starting to deliver a huge crop of new energy technologies. An energy polyculture as diverse as any garden. Like the dotcom boom there are billions to be made and yes lost. Like the dotcom boom battles over compatabilty will rage (and that’s where the big buck are). Like the dotcom boom government demands for certain security measures, ie the public encryption/ clipper chip debacle, will some how kill the boom. I agree the middle-east will be a nuclear war zone soon if the hard line Mullahs in Iran get the bomb. Israel will not be the main target the Sunni cities will be. Israel may need to strike first and soon. Pakistan already has a bomb and is visibly teatering. Imagine a nuclear armed Pakistan run by President Osama Bin laden. He knows where the action is. If we see a real war in the middle-east oil will go to prices that will be spectacular but we now have hundreds of companies ready to go with solutions. If oil goes to $150 a barrel the debate about subidies would be over; the rush to clear the red tape will be on and those that stand in the way of the new green giant will be stomped on. The real battlelines will not be about oil; it will be Coal verses the hundreds of new energy technologies. The Coal miners will be a greater threat than the industry. Remember when Margaret Thatcher took them on people died. According to a news report the prime suspects for the dioxin poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, current president of Ukraine, are coal miniers from eastern Ukraine. They had access to dioxin and Yushchenko at the time of the poisoning and his pro-europe position was seen as an anticoal position because of Europe’s strong greenhouse stand. Conspiracies aside Viktor Yanukovych his main opponent is supported by the eastern ukranian coal lobby. Clean coal is a way to avoid such comnflicts but whether it can be financially viable is debated. In Order to defuse the coal/ greenhouse problem it needs to be very cheep. That’s a huge challenge. And if the US congress does something stupid that will just drive the USA to get a real parliament. ;-) I’m Ok Jack I’m half a world away.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 14, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: (e) Iran gets the bomb, or one is used, followed by nuclear warfare, I doubt that Iran would be that stupid. First they know as well as anyone else roughly what Israel has (not to mention that the US is just itching for an opportunity to test it's latest designs in the field). Even if Iran had a few bombs, that would never constitute a successful first strike capability. At best all they could hope for is that it would serve as a deterrent. Despite the fact that the Western media makes a meal of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, I seriously doubt that he is a fool. Not to mention that Iran would suffer exactly the same problem that Israel would, i.e. fallout from their own bombs. Even just the pursuit of nuclear weapons is stupid. It dooms the children of the society to grow up under the threat of sudden annihilation in a fireball or hail of neutrons. It places small countries with small arsenals at risk of complete annihilation within minutes, and greatly increases the chances of a preemptive strike. It eliminates the need for occupation. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:31:44 +1000: Hi, [snip] I'm an Aussy so D.C. is almost irrelevant and has been for some years DC will likely never be irrelevant. The US still the worlds richest market, and most powerful nation. now. We are looking at some major options including clean coal and were in a good position in terms of solar, etc. We have even combined the two solar coal gassification. The reason both the government and the opposition are jumping on the clean coal bandwagon is that coal is Australia's major export, and both sides of the house know that without it the Australian economy would go bust. This is typical of short sighted, ignorant politicians. Totally incapable of looking outside the box. Clean coal, isn't and never will be. Fusion will displace it before it even gets off the ground, and Australia's coal industry is going to go bankrupt. I am going to do my level best to ensure that it happens. The fusion industry that grows up to replace it will usher in an age of prosperity such as the Earth has never seen. The Capitalisation of the green energy sector only requires someone with a little brains to realise that a company that combines the emerging household energy technologies and mortgage finance beats Government subsidies hands down. In the ACT we have polititions writing legistation True, and with a little luck, one of those household technologies will be fusion based. Once it has been introduced, there will be no holding it back. for green-energy buyback, running the meter backwards on solar, wind etc. Solar stands a chance in this regard, wind none. Wind is better suited to off shore wind farms (way, way off shore). We have a sugar industry that makes ethanol using no fossil fuel input at the factory and could do so at the farm level, ethanol powered tractors. This remains to be seen. We have one of the best wave power sites in the world at Bass strait and we are laying the first cables on that sea bed. ...but as far as I know, those cables are to connect Tasmania to the mainland energy grid, not for the harnessing of wave power in particular (though I may be behind the times in this regard). If you look at Peswiki you see 3 to 5 new projects a day. Any one of which if fully developed could produce 20-30% of the worlds fuel requirments and 10% of its grid energy requirements. With 100+ projects each with the potential of meeting 10% of the demand we dont have an energy crisis were heading for a solutions glut. All of these are still in their infancy. It will take quite a while before they lead to a glut. That time will be shortened if the financial gradient is steep enough, IOW if both the initial investment cost is low, and the actual energy production cheap. We, here in Australia, have too many projects chasing the limited amount of venture capital our economy produces. Contrary to popular belief carbon taxes and carbon credits will not finance the key technologies. That will depend on where the ceiling is placed. Knowing our current government that will be so high as to be worthless, IOW whatever you do, don't hurt the coal industry. As government run programs they are risk averse lenders, And with many solutions here now it is a higher risk game. World wide we now have 6 ethanol technologies as well as, Butanol, methanol ~ dimethyle ether, biogas methane, Compressed air cars, a dozen new electrics a month, Any/all of the gasoline replacements may yet prove viable. Compressed air cars won't. Electrics probably not, as the only good one rely on lithium batteries, and these will remain expensive until fusion is introduced. At that point it will be produced reasonably cheaply as a desalination byproduct from sea water. However by then we may be running cars on fusion power directly, and not need the Lithium anyway. commercial solar cars hitting the roads. The This is a non starter. The surface area of a car just isn't big enough to collect enough solar power to be worth the effort, let alone the cost. question realy is What Energy Crisis! Govenments rarely lead but often follow when the time comes. We are in a R D boom right now. True. Necessity is the mother of invention. [snip] I agree the middle-east will be a nuclear war zone soon if the hard line Mullahs in Iran get the bomb. If you had paid attention to what they say, rather than the garbage fed to you on a daily basis by the war mongering western media, you would know that the head Mullah in Iran has actually forbidden them to get the bomb. Israel will not be the main target the Sunni cities will be. No one is going to be the target, because there isn't going to be any bomb, and even if there were, it would not be used as an offensive weapon. Too much chance of shooting yourself in the foot. Israel may need to strike first and soon. It wouldn't make any difference. In fact it would be counter productive, because such a strike
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:03:46 -0800: Hi, [snip] It eliminates the need for occupation. What does this mean? Regards, Horace Heffner Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:03:46 -0800: Hi, [snip] It eliminates the need for occupation. What does this mean? It means if you wipe out the population you don't need to occupy the country with massive amounts of troops. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:46:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:03:46 -0800: Hi, [snip] It eliminates the need for occupation. What does this mean? It means if you wipe out the population you don't need to occupy the country with massive amounts of troops. If you drop enough nukes to wipe out the country you have committed genocide and the land itself is useless as well because it is uninhabitable for thousands of years. (This already happened once before - see Ur). Furthermore, the jet stream will carry the fallout around the planet, and millions of your own population will also die of radiation poisoning and cancer. Perhaps needless to say, the perpetrators could well be among them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:46:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:03:46 -0800: Hi, [snip] It eliminates the need for occupation. What does this mean? It means if you wipe out the population you don't need to occupy the country with massive amounts of troops. If you drop enough nukes to wipe out the country you have committed genocide and the land itself is useless as well because it is uninhabitable for thousands of years. And your point regarding occupation is? (This already happened once before - see Ur). Furthermore, the jet stream will carry the fallout around the planet, and millions of your own population will also die of radiation poisoning and cancer. Perhaps needless to say, the perpetrators could well be among them. This is possibly not necessarily true. It is only necessarily true for lots of massive air blast weapons. Growing up I lived for years in the path of fallout from nuclear testing. Sure, lots of people probably have died from cancer from the tests, but the world goes on. Few think of it today. The infrastructure of a country the size of Iran can probably be knocked out using a few 20 megaton bombs and lots of underground burst weapons followed up with periodic neutron bombs and conventional weapons. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:25:03 -0800: Hi, [snip] It eliminates the need for occupation. What does this mean? It means if you wipe out the population you don't need to occupy the country with massive amounts of troops. If you drop enough nukes to wipe out the country you have committed genocide and the land itself is useless as well because it is uninhabitable for thousands of years. And your point regarding occupation is? I only asked what it meant, I didn't say you were wrong. I don't disagree with you that it would have that result. I do however disagree with the ethics, the legality, and with the original premise that any form of occupation is necessary to begin with. [snip] (This already happened once before - see Ur). Furthermore, the jet stream will carry the fallout around the planet, and millions of your own population will also die of radiation poisoning and cancer. Perhaps needless to say, the perpetrators could well be among them. This is possibly not necessarily true. It is only necessarily true for lots of massive air blast weapons. Growing up I lived for years in the path of fallout from nuclear testing. Sure, lots of people probably have died from cancer from the tests, but the world goes on. Few think of it today. This sort of reasoning leads to total annihilation of the human race. Sure the World may go on, but then again it also may not. There is a considerable difference between a few nuclear tests, and all out nuclear war. And even if a few hardy souls do manage to survive, what sort of a hell are they condemned to live in? Is this really such an inviting picture that we should invite it by casual use of weapons of mass destruction? The infrastructure of a country the size of Iran can probably be knocked out using a few 20 megaton bombs and lots of underground burst weapons followed up with periodic neutron bombs and conventional weapons. Why would it even be desirable to do this? What is it exactly about little Iran that has America so terrified? Surely you are no longer sucked in by the words of a President that has already proven that much of what he says is pure propaganda designed to mislead his own people? BTW if you are implying that an underground burst weapon is safer than an ordinary nuke, then consider that all weapons designed to do this have to enter through a hole in the surface, and the nuclear explosion itself is going to enlarge this hole and spew radioactivity into the air. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 15, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: And your point regarding occupation is? I only asked what it meant, I didn't say you were wrong. I don't disagree with you that it would have that result. I do however disagree with the ethics, the legality, and with the original premise that any form of occupation is necessary to begin with. My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. My only intended involvement here was to predict possible scenarios, not consider ethics. Ethical or not, when any state starts an unlimited war then that war is unlimited. A small power has great disadvantages in such a war. Asymmetric conventional wars are more sensible for small power war mongers that insist on having their wars, and of course no war at all is way better. [snip] (This already happened once before - see Ur). Furthermore, the jet stream will carry the fallout around the planet, and millions of your own population will also die of radiation poisoning and cancer. Perhaps needless to say, the perpetrators could well be among them. This is possibly not necessarily true. It is only necessarily true for lots of massive air blast weapons. Growing up I lived for years in the path of fallout from nuclear testing. Sure, lots of people probably have died from cancer from the tests, but the world goes on. Few think of it today. This sort of reasoning leads to total annihilation of the human race. Sure the World may go on, but then again it also may not. There is a considerable difference between a few nuclear tests, and all out nuclear war. And even if a few hardy souls do manage to survive, what sort of a hell are they condemned to live in? Is this really such an inviting picture that we should invite it by casual use of weapons of mass destruction? Of course not. But any use or seriously threatened use of such a weapon is almost certain to evoke an extreme response. That seems to me to be an obvious fact. Making such threats, or even positioning to make such threats, thus seems to me to be a stupid strategy. The infrastructure of a country the size of Iran can probably be knocked out using a few 20 megaton bombs and lots of underground burst weapons followed up with periodic neutron bombs and conventional weapons. Why would it even be desirable to do this? Maybe to avoid the need to occupy? Maybe a perceived need to make an example of the folly of the use of such an arsenal? A perceived need to defend in a circumstance where there are no longer any rules. A perceived need to stop the evil at any cost. The need to do what ever can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again for a very long time. What were the Romans thinking when they sacked Carthage? A nuclear response to a nuclear attack seems to me to be inevitable. What is it exactly about little Iran that has America so terrified? Maybe it's the lack of trade? Surely you are no longer sucked in by the words of a President that has already proven that much of what he says is pure propaganda designed to mislead his own people? BTW if you are implying that an underground burst weapon is safer than an ordinary nuke, then consider that all weapons designed to do this have to enter through a hole in the surface, and the nuclear explosion itself is going to enlarge this hole and spew radioactivity into the air. Yes, you are right, it is. Radioactivity will also be emitted from ground fractures for years, and any water tables polluted as well. But there is a big difference between Bikini and Chernoble when it comes to air pollution. Underground nukes would not be thermonuclear. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On 15/6/2007 7:18 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. It is unnerving and menacing, but it is no more or less stupid than the decision of some other nation's to posses the bomb. It would be stupid if they actually used one. Harry
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:18:36 -0800: Hi, [snip] My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like Iran. But how do you know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? All I have seen is western propaganda that says they are. Inspectors from the IAEA say there is no evidence of it. Jut as they said there was no evidence of such in Iraq. And they were right. My only intended involvement here was to predict possible scenarios, not consider ethics. Ethical or not, when any state starts an unlimited war then that war is unlimited. A point the US would do well to pay heed to. A small power has great disadvantages in such a war. True. Asymmetric conventional wars are more sensible for small power war mongers that insist on having their wars, and of course no war at all is way better. ...and the Iranians agree whole heartedly. The only question is whether or not Israel and the US will leave them alone. [snip] condemned to live in? Is this really such an inviting picture that we should invite it by casual use of weapons of mass destruction? Of course not. But any use or seriously threatened use of such a weapon is almost certain to evoke an extreme response. Once again, the Iranians have never made any such threat. How can they, they don't even have any nukes. All the media is full of is stories about how the US and Israel *think* they are trying to produce nukes. To me, it is blindingly obvious that this is just a rehash of the same excuse that was used to invade Iraq. Surely any thinking American must be able to see this too? That seems to me to be an obvious fact. Making such threats, or even positioning to make such threats, thus seems to me to be a stupid strategy. ...and it would be if it were true. BTW if the US really believes that Iran is trying to make nukes, then there is simple way to call them on it. Stop the war mongering (US fleets in the Persian Gulf), and then ask them to let the IAEA inspectors back in. If their nuclear program is indeed peaceful, then they should have no objections. [snip] BTW if you are implying that an underground burst weapon is safer than an ordinary nuke, then consider that all weapons designed to do this have to enter through a hole in the surface, and the nuclear explosion itself is going to enlarge this hole and spew radioactivity into the air. Yes, you are right, it is. Radioactivity will also be emitted from ground fractures for years, and any water tables polluted as well. But there is a big difference between Bikini and Chernoble when it comes to air pollution. Underground nukes would not be thermonuclear. Actually there is an even bigger difference. Deliberate underground tests are much deeper than would be achieved by a weapon, and the hole is always filled in before the test is conducted. Consequently an underground test is not a good analogy for a bunker busting bomb. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:51 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With all the energy info rhetoric emanating out of D.C. and news sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the energy industry? It is a case of much too little much too late. What is your predicted time line for the first really serious bump in the road ? It appears to me we probably don't have long to wait. If the surge doesn't work then trouble is imminent. Congress will force a pull out, maybe even sooner. Some obvious possible follow-on scenarios, in random order, include (a) destruction of oil infrastructure by civil war, (b) Iran running rampant in Iraq and elsewhere followed by international Middle East war (with or without us), (c) preemptive strikes against Iran nuclear facilities by Israel followed by who knows what, (d) general embargo of oil to the US out of general hatred of our culture and spite for our policies, (e) Iran gets the bomb, or one is used, followed by nuclear warfare, (f) a successful terrorist attack followed by rounds of retribution, and the election of a sudden dark horse demagogic war mongering president, a draft, etc., (g) disintegration, chaos, and genocide in Lebanon and the West Bank, followed by intervention by who knows and then by who knows and then by who knows..., (h) a general all out conventional Naval and Air strike on Iranian military and infrastructure in an effort to prevent or minimize any or all of the above for a while. And then there are the weather scenarios ... It is just a matter of months, no more than 18. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:51:10 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:51 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With all the energy info rhetoric emanating out of D.C. and news sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the energy industry? It is a case of much too little much too late. Agreed, but that's a direct consequence of the average intelligence of humanity. We always do too little too late. What is your predicted time line for the first really serious bump in the road ? It appears to me we probably don't have long to wait. If the surge doesn't work then trouble is imminent. Basically, it has already failed. Congress will force a pull out, maybe even sooner. Some obvious possible follow-on scenarios, in random order, include (a) destruction of oil infrastructure by civil war, Probable. (b) Iran running rampant in Iraq and elsewhere Improbable IMO. However indirect support for the Shia population in Iraq is probable. (c) preemptive strikes against Iran nuclear facilities by Israel followed by who knows what, They might want to, but Iran has learned from the bombing of the Iraqi reactor. Most Iranian sites are very well buried, which means that ordinary air strikes are unlikely to have much effect. Furthermore, Israel can't really use nukes, because of the likelihood of suffering from the fallout themselves. That ensures that their nukes are a last ditch defensive measure, not a tactical tool. (d) general embargo of oil to the US out of general hatred of our culture and spite for our policies, Very likely. (e) Iran gets the bomb, or one is used, followed by nuclear warfare, I doubt that Iran would be that stupid. First they know as well as anyone else roughly what Israel has (not to mention that the US is just itching for an opportunity to test it's latest designs in the field). Even if Iran had a few bombs, that would never constitute a successful first strike capability. At best all they could hope for is that it would serve as a deterrent. Despite the fact that the Western media makes a meal of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, I seriously doubt that he is a fool. Not to mention that Iran would suffer exactly the same problem that Israel would, i.e. fallout from their own bombs. (f) a successful terrorist attack followed by rounds of retribution, and the election of a sudden dark horse demagogic war mongering president, You missed the possibility of cancelled elections and a president that stays on forever as a dictator. a draft, etc., (g) disintegration, chaos, and genocide in Lebanon and the West Bank, Given that this is already happening, and the only side to benefit from it is Israel, it wouldn't surprise me in the least of it were Mossad lighting the matches. followed by intervention by who knows and then by who knows and then by who knows..., (h) a general all out conventional Naval and Air strike on Iranian military and infrastructure in an effort to prevent or minimize any or all of the above for a while. The air strike may well eventuate, and doubtless the reason you give is the excuse that would be used, however it wouldn't be the real reason. The real reason would be that the Siamese twins - the US and Israel (joined at the hip pocket) want complete control over all middle-eastern oils supplies, and elimination of any potential threat to Israel. It is just a matter of months, no more than 18. Then that's about how long we have to make CF commercial. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
