Energy Crisis?

[rocksteady]

I'm sure there could be one, but I'm not worried, as long as people keep thinking of stuff like THIS!! (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[vkut79]

Haha, I'm suprised that something like that works, although it seems scientifically plausible. At first I thought it would be a really wasteful process, but if you can separate out the coal that results also, maybe you can use that too?

[yondyr]

My understanding is always it takes a great deal of energy to process waste and the crunch is cost per calorie out. Microwaves use a lot of energy.. I suspect their figures are faulty, but if it used the fuel produced to operate the machine then it would avoid landfill.

[Lucid]

That's a neat machine. REALLY neat. But it won't solve the energy crisis. I just spent all semester doing a project on energy and fossil fuels for a class. There is an energy crisis. You should be worried. It is very likely that we hit our peak oil production several years ago and it's all down hill from here. So get comfortable with those gas prices and those energy bills until we figure something out.
And the biggest problem about the whole thing is that we are being sold these solutions (like ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells) that really aren't solutions at all once you learn about them a bit. All this "go green, think yellow" crap is ... well, crap.

But that doesn't detract from the coolness of that machine. Although I doubt it will go very far towards solving the energy crisis.

And in general, I tend to be optimistic about our power, as a species, to invent cool stuff and to adapt when we can't.

[OneBadMother]

We as a species are procrastinators: we don't really put effort into figuring something out until some big, tangible crisis happens. Since it hasn't happened with the energy crisis yet, not enough people are worried. I wonder if there ever will be any big, flashing warning light so that we can get ourselves in gear.

[yondyr]

It would be very inconvenient for most people to trade what they consider necessities for a less power consuming way of life. The dishwasher, the clothes dryer, the microwave, the freezer, the convenience foods, the ... you fill in the rest. Waiting for some you beaut new machine or fuel to revolutionise our power supply so that we can continue to consume at our present levels is putting off not solving. Who would care to live in a more primitive state?

[rwyatt365]

I applaud Mr Pringle for his invention, and I hope that he makes a lot of money and helps us clean up all of the waste products that this society creates. If he can turn trash into fuel then his efforts are worth considering.

I wonder if Mr Pringle has thought about siphoning off a portion of the output of his machine to drive a NatGas-powered electric generator so that it could be disconnected from the power grid? You know, make the machine self-sustaining? Since the gas recovered from his process is 17 times more than what is consumed (based on his estimates), I'm sure that is enough to compensate for the energy losses from a gas-fired, steam powered, electric generator. My guess is that his process would still result in a net positive energy output – Mr Pringle has invented perpetual motion (or, at least he has defied physic and is creating energy from nothing)! We should celebrate his genius and entrepreneurial drive.

Frank Pringle, you're my hero! :thumbsup:

[thegnat]

It would be very inconvenient for most people to trade what they consider necessities for a less power consuming way of life. The dishwasher, the clothes dryer, the microwave, the freezer, the convenience foods, the ... you fill in the rest. Waiting for some you beaut new machine or fuel to revolutionise our power supply so that we can continue to consume at our present levels is putting off not solving. Who would care to live in a more primitive state?

The problem is that people don't understand that we wouldn't live in a more primitive state. There is *all kinds* of potential to live in an even more efficient and better world if we give up fossil fuels as our primary source of electricity. As long as research doesn't get suffocated. Electricity doesn't have to be produced due to fossil fuels. Electricity can be produced by driving electrons from point A to point B.

The main problem we have now is that we're centered around gas as a primary fuel. If we were to say have hydrogen fuel cells as a car, then we'd have to change the gas stations completely.

Oh and another misconception: Gas companies won't go out of business. They can make plastics. There is *plenty* they can do with hydrocarbons. So any of their freaking out about this really is BS.

Also: we need to be less scientifically ignorant. I believe that is the root of our problems. Kids aren't encouraged to go into science. We're much quicker to believe a priest than a scientist. Are we in the Middle Ages? Are we the society that hassled Galileo? Told him he was wrong because it's not what the church said? I feel like that's what we're going back to. It's a shame. The Creation Museum? Kills me inside. Intelligent design? What is this world coming to? The United States needs their asses kicked into realizing we aren't the top country in science anymore. We need to realize that we're going back to a primitive society and that we need to progress *forward* and not backward. And as you said "who would care to live in a more primitive state?"

We do need to start with these types of machines and hybrids, etc. That's one step forward.

[rocksteady]

Amory Lovins: We must win the oil endgame (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)





rocksteady added to this post, 3 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Haha, I'm suprised that something like that works, although it seems scientifically plausible. At first I thought it would be a really wasteful process, but if you can separate out the coal that results also, maybe you can use that too?
just think, this is the beginning of the development of the Cornucopia Machine (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Lucid]

The problem is that people don't understand that we wouldn't live in a more primitive state. There is *all kinds* of potential to live in an even more efficient and better world if we give up fossil fuels as our primary source of electricity. As long as research doesn't get suffocated. Electricity doesn't have to be produced due to fossil fuels. Electricity can be produced by driving electrons from point A to point B.

The main problem we have now is that we're centered around gas as a primary fuel. If we were to say have hydrogen fuel cells as a car, then we'd have to change the gas stations completely.

Oh and another misconception: Gas companies won't go out of business. They can make plastics. There is *plenty* they can do with hydrocarbons. So any of their freaking out about this really is BS.

We do need to start with these types of machines and hybrids, etc. That's one step forward.

Hydrogen fuel cells have a lot more problems than just needing to redo our entire infrastructure. Like many alternative energies, they are very expensive. Apparently they need a big chunk of either gold or platinum to run. Not to mention the cost of the technology. :scared: So most people couldn't afford them even if they were readily available. I have seen hydrogen fuel cells used to power office campuses that operate 24/7 and that makes some economic sense, but only if they operate 24/7. The hydrogen battery was the size of 2 dumpsters.
Ethanol yields very little "new" energy. Meaning that the amount of energy needed to make ethanol is almost equal to the amount we get out of it. Also, a gallon of e-85 has a lower energy content than a gallon of gasoline. Just to name a few of the problems with it. There are many more.

I think you're right about the gas companies not going out of business. Not only would they make plastics and other things made from petroleum, but right now they make the majority of the e-85 on the market. But they will be losing profit.

So I'd say that the main problem we have now is that most of our other options aren't going to actually be able to meet our energy needs. One thing many people don't realize is that most of our energy goes to growing food.

However, I hear good things about algal biodiesel. And the electric car technology is improving and many car companies (such as Honda and, I think, GM) are looking into electric cars. Also, although it's expensive as well, photo-voltaic technology, which turns sunlight into electricity, is on the rise.

I read an article about a car powered by compressed air and electricity. Right now I think it can get up to about 40 mph. I'll see if I can find that article and post it here, too because it's neat.

[stasis]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's very difficult for me to be concerned about an "energy crisis" because there is vastly abundant energy all over the place. The impending crisis is a people crisis; socioeconomic in nature, and not technological or environmental. It is symptomatic of myopic, reactionary thinking and generally dim system-vision, in my opinion.

[Lucid]

It's very difficult for me to be concerned about an "energy crisis" because there is vastly abundant energy all over the place. The impending crisis is a people crisis; socioeconomic in nature, and not technological or environmental. It is symptomatic of myopic, reactionary thinking and generally dim system-vision, in my opinion.

There is vastly abundant energy all over the place. The problem comes from trying to figure out how we can use it.

I think you're right about it being a socioeconomic problem in nature. But if only the very rich can afford to heat their homes or use electricity... well I'd have a problem with that.
Although an outcome like that is worst-case-scenario. And isn't likely to happen (if at all) for 20 or 30 years at least.

[stasis]

There is vastly abundant energy all over the place. The problem comes from trying to figure out how we can use it.
I respectfully disagree. We already have the technological proficiency to effectively harvest this energy. To segue the illustration above into a solar power example, it is in some cases a straightforward matter of scaling up. What I meant by saying the problem is socioeconomic in nature is not that socioeconomic systems are where the damage would occour, although that is partially true, but rather that the malfunction of those systems is what would cause the crisis to begin with. In other words, people are causing the problem. This problem, though very real in possibility, is arbitrary and unnecessary. It is not imposed by the environment, and nor is it a consequence of a lack of human knowledge or human skill. I would argue that the characterizing of the "energy" crisis as a "technological problem" or a "resource problem" is an externalizing of the actual issue. A false diagnostic. And in some cases, even a scapegoat.

[yondyr]

< is on solar power

[Lucid]

I respectfully disagree. We already have the technological proficiency to effectively harvest this energy. To segue the illustration above into a solar power example, it is in some cases a straightforward matter of scaling up. What I meant by saying the problem is socioeconomic in nature is not that socioeconomic systems are where the damage would occour, although that is partially true, but rather that the malfunction of those systems is what would cause the crisis to begin with. In other words, people are causing the problem. This problem, though very real in possibility, is arbitrary and unnecessary. It is not imposed by the environment, and nor is it a consequence of a lack of human knowledge or human skill. I would argue that the characterizing of the "energy" crisis as a "technological problem" or a "resource problem" is an externalizing of the actual issue. A false diagnostic. And in some cases, even a scapegoat.

I think you raise a good point. But, with respect, I'm not sure it invalidates mine. We do have the technology for photo-voltaic energy. But it is one of the most expensive alternative energy sources currently on the market. So expensive as to be prohibitive for many people. The same is true with hydrogen fuel cells.
If we can't afford it, it won't help us.
My position might be better restated by saying that while we do have several viable technologies, the problem (in many cases) is in making them economical enough to be used by the majority of the population. That's why photo-voltaic energy can't entirely meet our energy needs. And similar problems (although there are more) occur with corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and, as I mentioned, hydrogen fuel cells.
I agree that this problem doesn't arise from the environment or (necessarily) the technology and I think the economic issue is possible to overcome, just as many of the technological issues are, but it is still a problem.

[stasis]

I think you raise a good point. But, with respect, I'm not sure it invalidates mine. We do have the technology for photo-voltaic energy. But it is one of the most expensive alternative energy sources currently on the market. So expensive as to be prohibitive for many people. The same is true with hydrogen fuel cells.
If we can't afford it, it won't help us. My position might be better restated by saying that while we do have several viable technologies, the problem (in many cases) is in making them economical enough to be used by the majority of the population. That's why photo-voltaic energy can't entirely meet our energy needs.
I think that the reason it is relatively expensive is its extremely small-scale implementation, and especially with regard to manufacturing and maintenance costs. Cell phones were extremely expensive once as well, and for similar reasons the economic issue is not in my opinion the technological base. My primary objection is not to invalidate what you're saying, but perhaps to resist the way you (and not you, really, but people in general) seem to approach this issue. If we were to split the issue into loose quantiles for the sake of simple analogy, I would call the linear development and deploy of the existing technology and its costs together a 15% concern, while the social inertia required to set that in motion on a large scale constitutes an 85% concern. And yet the dialogue does not start or center upon the poor systems-thinking or the general failure of reactionary planning. Instead that dialogue works to externalize, almost in a neo-anthropomorphic way, such that what is a social issue at root is portrayed as an environmental or technological one. And the failing in that is the unfortunate consequence of solutions being directed at something more symptomatic of the problem than at the problem itself.

[Lucid]

I think that the reason it is relatively expensive is its extremely small-scale implementation, and especially with regard to manufacturing and maintenance costs. Cell phones were extremely expensive once as well, and for similar reasons the economic issue is not in my opinion the technological base. My primary objection is not to invalidate what you're saying, but perhaps to resist the way you (and not you, really, but people in general) seem to approach this issue. If we were to split the issue into loose quantiles for the sake of simple analogy, I would call the linear development and deploy of the existing technology and its costs together a 15% concern, whilst the social inertia required to set that in motion on a large scale constitutes an 85% concern. And yet the dialogue does not start or center upon the poor systems-thinking or the general failure of reactionary planning. Instead that dialogue works to externalize, almost in a neo-anthropomorphic way, such that what is a social issue at root is portrayed as an environmental or technological one. And the failing in that is the unfortunate consequence of solutions being directed at something more symptomatic of the problem than at the problem itself.

I'd say that the problem is much more complex than just poor systems thinking, although that's probably a part of it. A lot of people think that either there is no energy crisis, or they are sold on the idea that hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol are going to solve the problem. Many people don't even think the problem applies to more than how we run our cars.

I mentioned in a previous post that I did a project on this issue for a class. As part of that class, we went to NREL (the National Renewable Energy Laboratories), which is in Golden, Co. and talked to their staff about cellulosic ethanol and solar energy. I know less about the solar energy because I focused on the ethanol issue, but I can tell you that the technology and materials for photo-voltaic cells are very expensive. This cost might come down eventually, but they seem to be a long way from that now. In the case of photo-voltaic cells, it's more than just the small-scale implementation, the crystals they use are very very expensive to manufacture. So I'd say that it's the other way around, it's small scale because of the expense, not expensive because of the small scale.

You state that you object to the way that I, and people in general, externalize the issue, incorrectly making it a problem about technology or environment, but I'd disagree with you that I'm really doing that. Reading my past posts, I do see that I address environmental and technological issues (and there are environmental and technological issues), but I'd say that the lack of basic knowledge people have about the issue is also a big problem (and I address this as well), and perhaps the root of all the other problems. With respect, it seems like because I didn't specifically mention this problem or address it, you're inferring that I don't think it's a problem, and that's just not the case.

I might add that, where I live at least, the poor systems planning you mention isn't as much of an issue as it might be where you live, (although I have no idea how it is where you live, so this is really just a guess). Colorado is second only to California in "go green" technologies and initiatives. We are home to NREL, several wind farms, Boulder (which has been "green" long before it was fashionable), and many many farms in the east that grow corn for ethanol. Right now our governor has made it a top goal of his to make Colorado the "leader" in this "go green" stuff. Whether that means anything or is just political hot air, is up for discussion, though. :) Habitat for Humanity here is now building "net zero energy" houses. Which basically produce as much energy as they use. In addition, we recently (2 years ago I think) passed an amendment mandating that a certain percentage of the energy produced by Xcel and our other energy companies must come from renewable sources. As a result, people who use photovoltaic systems in their homes get energy credits on their power bills. Again, how much of a difference any of this will make and whether or not it's merely window dressing is up for debate. But I think people here are very conscious of the issue. So it seems like the way people approach the issue is changing.
Although, this may be happening in your city as well, I'm not sure.

Having said all that, it seems like what we basically disagree on is the reason for the high cost of the technology and how much of a problem that high cost actually is.

[Caramel]

< Is powered by solar, wind and water energy.

The solar panels are on my roof. I think they are a nifty piece of technology and therefore cool.

I don't have a way of solving the energy problem, but I do have a way of reducing CO2. We should just all genetically enhance ourselves with plant genes, in order to carry out photosynthesis and produce oxygen. Haha ^^

[yondyr]

I envy you, Caramel, if I could I would integrate wind and water power, each taking up at a time where the other was less productive.