I am oh so sick of the dumbbell narratives of slowly phasing-in other energy sources.

[azul]

The corporate-owned media and financial pirates are lulling us all with the easy-does-it, don't-rock-the-boat BS oil stories of how we have to hunt it down and burn it all up before we can realistically switch over to expensive and untested energy sources. When we all are getting the clear picture that burning and obtaining oil is the source of much of the world's problems.


The imperative narrative that should be rolling over all this mad foot-dragging would be something like this:

Every barrel of oil burned now contributes to cooking the planet and supporting terrorist extremists, opposite the direction of a stable and peaceful world. We all should be abandoning this dead-end oil power as fast as possible and put all traction and effort behind using alternatives now. They work, and can easily work big given the proper investment and effort. This is the opportunity to create jobs and infrastructure to replace the defunct ones that we have ventured into at our peril.

We need to set a higher, more realistic price on gas to help with economic planning for businesses that are currently at the mercy of oil cartel and energy trader manipulations, and to use the higher taxes on gas to fund and subsidize sustainable, less destructive alternatives.

Say set the price at $5/gallon: the cost paid to pumpers and peddlers would vary $1-$4 to cover their costs and the difference to be the alternative funding tax.

Phase out oil as quickly as possible. National security and world wildlife crisis.

[Laelth]

1. You're right, of course, that we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

However, I think we're being fed the "phase it out slowly" plan because we have no socially acceptable, real alternatives. Wind power can't do it, and neither can solar. Biofuels are silly. If we turned every acre of arable land in the U.S. into fuel-producing land, we wouldn't produce enough energy to replace the energy we currently get from fossil fuels ... not by a long shot, and, on top of that, we'd create a global food crisis.

Really, we currently have no viable alternative to fossil fuels ... thus the "phase it out slowly" narrative is what we're being fed.

:dem:

-Laelth

[spag68]

2. alternative energy

You have been convinced that your statement is true. It is far from the truth, and is little more then propaganda. If all the subsidies that are given to coal, oil, and the nuclear power industry were used to install solar electric or solar thermal systems on individual homes, imported oil could be done away with in a very short time. You do understand that insurance against an accident at nuke plants is carried by the government and we are also responsible for fuel rod disposal. Big oil gets billions per year in tax breaks and pays such small royalties on oil from our land that it amounts to spit. Coal has been subsidized for years and we bear the cost of the land and water destruction they cause, or do you think it is a good thing for them to blow the tops from mountains. The power companies themselves have had distribution grids subsidized. Please research this stuff before you make a statement like that in the future. here on Long Island we as rate payers are still paying off the 8.5 billion boondoggle known as Shoreham Nuke plant that never put one watt into the grid.

[Laelth]

14. I have researched this, but I appreciate your respect for the truth.

The sun doesn't shine at night. We need power 24/7. Our battery technology is inadequate to make solar power work on any kind of large scale.

That's what I have discovered.

I agree, however, that there are vested interests in fossil fuels that do not want us to change. They are very powerful, and they will resist efforts to end our reliance on fossil fuels. I simply do not think solar power can solve our energy problems ... not right now, in any event.

And wind power is worse.

:dem:

-Laelth

[azul]

19. Research more. Guess how fast we could make and develop batteries

if there were billions and billions of damn dollars in grants and subsidies?

Have you seen the new lithium iron, that is Fe, and the lead iron, not acid, batteries? The lead battery would be a home stationary electic reserve for cheap, and the LiFe ones could ddrive around and plug into the grid as mobile storage. Like in the next couple of years.

And imagine, science breakthroughs through basic research:

------------

Physicist develops battery using new source of energy
nächste Meldung
13.03.2009
His discovery is a 'proof of principle' of the existence of a 'spin battery'

Researchers at the University of Miami and at the Universities of Tokyo and Tohoku, Japan, have been able to prove the existence of a "spin battery," a battery that is "charged" by applying a large magnetic field to nano-magnets in a device called a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ).

The new technology is a step towards the creation of computer hard drives with no moving parts, which would be much faster, less expensive and use less energy than current ones. In the future, the new battery could be developed to power cars. The study will be published in an upcoming issue of Nature and is available in an online advance publication of the journal.

The device created by University of Miami Physicist Stewart E. Barnes, of the College of Arts and Sciences and his collaborators can store energy in magnets rather than through chemical reactions. Like a winding up toy car, the spin battery is "wound up" by applying a large magnetic field --no chemistry involved. The device is potentially better than anything found so far, said Barnes.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/physicist_develops_battery_source_energy_129215.html

[Laelth]

21. Um ... the article you cite makes no prediction about when we might have such a battery.

In fact, it's existence has not even been independently verified. We're nowhere near ready to mass-produce such a battery. It may not even work on a larger scale.

I remain skeptical. If "We the People" of the United States are going to dump a lot on money into such a project, we should make sure that it will work, first.

:dem:

-Laelth

[azul]

3. I respectfully and fundamentally disagree. Start with solar

panels on every house and apartment and business in America. Say we get more efficient by 25%, a reasonable goal considering that California conserved to about 40% during the faux Enron energy crisis in 2000. Then, make the solar panels and battery storage for off hours, right here in the USA, to cover this energy requirement. How long would this take if we say put $500-1k onto the project tomorrow? I hold that the price would come way down and it could be done in less than 10 years.

Similar projects for transportation. Why should it have to take so long?

[spag68]

7. Solar

Solar is good enough right now, and it would not take 5 years even to make a difference. Conservation should be run as a parallel improvement. The most visible benefit would be jobs and plenty of them. Another benefit will be that the oil producers would never again have a strangle hold on us again.

[Jkid]

4. Here's something that no one is talking about: Conservation.

Conserving energy is the best way to make current fossil fuels and potential new energy sources last a lot longer. I'm not hearing any talk about energy conservation from President Obama.

[azul]

8. Conservation becomes a priority when built into the game:

Bill would require new Calif. homes produce energy

By STEVE LAWRENCE

If state Assemblywoman Lori Saldana has her way, buyers of California homes built a little more than a decade from now would not have to worry about paying big electricity bills. The homes would produce power themselves.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97HJING0.htm

-Buildings would have to be efficient if they are to be affordable. Get the architects something good to work with.

[billyoc]

5. $5/gal?! I gotta drive 2 hours to work every day, you asshole.

Wildlife crisis! :rofl:

[azul]

12. You made you bed....

friendly, aren't we?

[Occulus]

6. We definitely need more options (I'm blatantly plagiarizing one of my previous posts)

There's solar, true, and battery advances (like the one recently announced from MIT regarding lithium ion batteries, I believe), and several other viable choices. But what we really need is something that generates much more energy than those sources provide over a given course of time.

Fusion energy is, obviously, at least possible (unlike silly ideas like "zero-point energy"). The radiation from one great big obvious example of fusion energy silently crashes down upon our world every moment of every day. That form of fusion reaction, however, is caused by gravity and enormous heat and pressure, and occurs in an environment we don't (yet!) know how to replicate.

One of the people responsible for our nation's efforts toward fusion power thus far was Assistant Director Robert Bussard of the Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor Division in what was at the time known as the Atomic Energy Commission. He and Director Robert Hirsch founded the mainline US fusion effort, known as the Tokamak.

He also, more recently, made something else.

The Polywell reactor is a continuation of his research in this area. Briefly and oversimplified, the Polywell is, if Bussard's power output and power gain scaling laws are correct, the proverbial "magic bullet". A success with this form of reactor represents a fundamental change in human history and the definitive end of the petroleum era. If the Polywell design works as advertised, we will have cheap, relatively clean, nearly limitless energy- and I am not in any way engaging in hyperbole by stating it so baldly.

Meet WB-6 of this family of reactors:



Briefly and oversimplified (hope I get the concept right, as it's a bit complicated), the reactor creates an electrically charged potential well in the core of the device using magnetic fields. The coils (each one, individually) produce an electromagnetic field around themselves; these fields push against each other in such a way that the open "cusps" where the fields don't touch get squeezed shut (this is a scaled-up version of two small magnets meeting at points of equal polarity- N-N or S-S).

Here's an illustration of the reaction:



Boron-11 ions are fired into the core of the reactor; occasionally electrons circulate along the field lines. As the cusps become more and more closed, fewer and fewer electrons escape to recirculate. Additionally, more and more ions get fired into the core; you can see a simulation of that in this video. Eventually, they begin to fuse, releasing energy, then they actually split, releasing more. I believe helium is the "exhaust".

There is enough boron on the Earth to supply such reactors with fuel for several thousand years. I do believe it may actually be orders of magnitude higher than that.

Bussard, at the time of his death, was convinced this would work. Given he's certainly no kook, I'm willing to at least fully fund a Polywell yay-or-nay program with my tax dollars. Apparently, the US Navy shares some of that optimism- they've been bankrolling the research thus far.

You can learn about the lab doing the research here, the Polywell concept itself at the Polywell Wiki page, and discuss it at talk-polywell.org. I should add that the lab's director and others working on the project, some of whom worked with Dr. Bussard, are known to post on that last.

You can also find a wealth of information here.

Here's to hoping Bussard was right about the scaling laws of this thing. If he was, and we build it right, our energy concerns will be a thing of the past, in one fell swoop.

[spag68]

10. Fusion

I love this stuff and believe we should keep looking for the answers to make it work. My big bitch about it is that it still leaves the power in the control of the big time operators. Solar thermal and photovoltaics on individual homes gives us freedom from those who would control our lives. We may not be able to make 100% of our power needs on every home, but to get even close would mean independence from the money grabbers. Turn the power companies back into public utilities, and let them make a small profit for operating the grid. I know this sounds like socialism, but for many reasons we have to go that way or be swallowed up by the money class forever. fuck them I say.

[Occulus]

13. Ah- that's the beauty of Bussard's design

It's "cheap". No, not "I can do this in my garage" cheap- although fusors like the Polywell can be constructed by amateurs (they just don't get near net power)- but cheap, as in, any sufficiently well-heeled university, hospital, or city could conceivably build one. I think the lab working on this has quoted $200M as a figure encompassing the full research tree, including the final cost of the full-size net power prototype.

The one hitch is that this reactor type requires a kickstart to begin operation, but a traditional power plant- a small one; the lab uses batteries and house current, I think- is really not so big a deal.

Obviously, once it's built and (assuming it works) the kinks start getting worked out, the price will drop like a rock. It's not as though this requires terribly exotic materials; boron is plentiful enough on Earth alone that Bussard estimated we have several thousand years' worth of fuel. It really does not require too much boron to run.

My point is, these reactors are, in theory, cheap enough that a university, city, or hospital complex (or a large factory complex, like the auto plants in Detroit) could build one, have more energy for themselves than they could ever possibly use, and dump the rest of it into the grid, which would directly lower costs by hugely increasing supply. There is simply no reason to not build hundreds of these if the design works.

Finally, given that virtually all of the research is based on an open, public model, including public interaction, I just can't see this being stifled and restricted to the energy industry. In fact, I see this revolutionizing the energy industry.

I also badly want to be able to tell the House of Saud that we just don't need them any more, so go pound sand, but that's just me. ;)

[Canuckistanian]

9. Of course. But it will require sacrifice. And that won't do.

We've got to get used to the idea that we consume too much energy, period.

Until we realize that basic FACT, nothing will get done. And when the easy extraction of petroleum energy dries up suddenly, people will wonder why their leaders did nothing.

This will end up badly.

[spag68]

11. Canuckistanian?

That is very far out. I assume you are Canadian and if so, all you have to do is drill deep holes in the ground and use geothermal. Anyway I thought all you up there had plenty of good wood and great wood stoves to get along without the grid? Even in Canada PV will work with batteries to keep you PC and TV going. You don't need a fridg right, just stick stuff out on the porch, except for a few days a year. Now don't get mad, that's just bad joke making here on the last part.

[Canuckistanian]

16. We're a lot similar

Maybe we can use geothermal and wood (wood is NOT carbon-neutral), but the basics are the same. We both need to drive to work, heat our homes and expect electricity 24/7.

I hate the system we've got going right now, but what's the alternative?

I experiment with wind and solar, but I can't afford a totally off-the grid solution and neither can my neighbors.

What we need is government help, subsidies and inspiration.

And we're getting none of that from our oil-soaked Harper government.

Sometimes, I WISH I was living in California.

:hi:

[spag68]

18. California?

Don't be silly, you have it good up north, don't think it's better here. After all you have BC bud. The grass always looks greener and all that stuff. Everywhere has pluses and minuses. Do you have tornado's, hurricanes, and surely Canada is not going to fall off into the Pacific after the big one.

[azul]

15. Hello, blood for oil, already happening.

We should be after these idiot war mongers, that are doing the bidding of big oil, with pitch forks and torches.

Sacrifice? Soldiers and their families and innocent bystanders are doing the sacrificing for the benefit of the guzzlers and to keep us safe from the sun's power.

----------

Solar Thermal Race Heats Up in the Desert
Written by Craig Rubens


There’s a heated race taking place in the U.S. Southwest to build the next generation of solar thermal power plants — massive solar power systems that use the sun’s heat to generate power — and the finish line could be as close as 2009, when the companies start construction. The majority of the solar thermal capacity that will come online in the U.S. over the next five years will come from five solar thermal companies, according to a report from Emerging Energy Research (EER), which is tracking the concentrated solar thermal power “resurgence.” But while these five — Stirling Energy Systems, SkyFuel, Solel, Ausra and BrightSource Energy — are racing to the finish line, there are plenty of regulatory obstacles in the way.

http://earth2tech.com/2008/01/22/solar-thermal-race-heats-up-in-the-desert/


-Low tech solar thermals ready. And this article is part of the steady-as-you-go and slow with its "regulatory obstacles" narrative.

[Canuckistanian]

17. Thanks for the link

Bookmarking for later.

[hunter]

20. This *is* ending up badly.

Today I was chatting with some people about what sort of recession this will be, a "V" or a "U?" The consensus was a "U," and the most pessimistic (but for me) claimed a "D" as in depression.

I think in twenty years this economy will be an airplane at the bottom of a river. It will never fly again, and the only measure of success will be the number of passengers who survived the crash.

This economy flies on easy to extract and easy to refine oil. No easy oil and this economy crashes.

[azul]

22. And bows humbly to the sage:

Warren Buffett takes charge

Warren Buffett hasn't just seen the car of the future, he's sitting in the driver's seat. Why he's banking on an obscure Chinese electric car company and a CEO who - no joke - drinks his own battery fluid.

(Fortune Magazine) -- Warren Buffett is famous for his rules of investing: When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is usually the reputation of the business that remains intact. You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will. And perhaps most famously, Never invest in a business you cannot understand.

So when Buffett's friend and longtime partner in Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB), Charlie Munger, suggested early last year that they invest in BYD, an obscure Chinese battery, mobile phone, and electric car company, one might have predicted Buffett would cite rule No. 3 above. He is, after all, a man who shunned the booming U.S. tech industry during the 1990s.

But Buffett, who is 78, was intrigued by Munger's description of the entrepreneur behind BYD, a man named Wang Chuan-Fu, whom he had met through a mutual friend. "This guy," Munger tells Fortune, "is a combination of Thomas Edison and Jack Welch - something like Edison in solving technical problems, and something like Welch in getting done what he needs to do. I have never seen anything like it."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/technology/gunther_electric.fortune/index.htm

[Canuckistanian]

24. Sounds like Wang Chuan-Fu is someone to watch

Let's hope he doesn't have the morals of Jack Welch.

[dysfunctional press]

23. i would think that you'd have realized by now that it AIN'T gonna happen...

they'd rather figure out a way to block out the sun, than put a dent in the american way of life.