RE: ENERGY: Singularity on hold?

From: Spike (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 01:02:45 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "Re: Ted Steele and Lamarck"

    Robert J. Bradbury

    Subject: RE: ENERGY: Singularity on hold?

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Spike wrote:

    >>...progress is being strangled by low
    >> oil prices.

    >Spike, I understand (and completely
    >support wind power). *But* as I tried to
    >point out in my response to Anders my
    >car doesn't "run" on electricity! Nor
    >my home.

    I see your objection Robert. The transition
    I have in mind will take twenty to twenty five
    years, longer than a typical wearout cycle
    of our modern detroits.

    >> This world cannot make any real
    >>progress in energy production until we
    >> burn up most of the reserves. Cheapy
    >>oil is holding back progress.

    >Granted -- because we have had ~100
    >years to develop the infrastructure that
    >depends on oil and gas. So everything
    >that is involved is inexpensive at
    >this time. But there is no (significant)
    >infrastructure to produce fuel
    >cells that consume hydrogen.

    Ja, I don't really have fuel cells in mind,
    but rather good old fashioned series hybrid
    cars. All that infrastructure can be
    harnessed to build fully automated factories
    that assemble small internal combustion
    engines and electric motors for much cheaper
    than our current detroits. We thus provide
    the technology to allow developing nations
    to leapfrog the expensive development
    architectures, analogous to the way the
    developed world now provides cell phone
    tech that allows developing nations to
    jump straight to cheap and effective
    communications tech.

    Series hybrids have another benefit in that
    they can be effectively controlled
    externally, allowing smart roads to take the
    wheel and the brake, allowing cars to be
    operated at a distance of about a meter
    spacing, which reduces air resistance.

    > There are no pipelines to move hydrogen
    >around the country.

    Ja, and I would never recommend such a thing.
    If hydrogen is needed for some purpose, the
    way to move it is by copper wire pushing the
    energy around in the form of good old fashioned
    electricity, then cracking water at the site.
    That being said, I doubt that hydrogen is the
    way to handle energy.

    > There are power lines to move electricity
    > around but you, I think, would be one of the
    > first to recognize that even that system can
    > break down when prices spike...

    Sure, but free markets and decentralized
    generation solve those kinds of problems.
    Electricity production can be highly
    decentralized.

    >the question I'm trying to focus on is "How much >do we get set back if
    we hit the wall hard?"

    We don't hit the wall hard. That paper
    you cited goes on about peaking production,
    but the worst that happens is that we have
    no more production than the previous year.
    This isn't really hitting the wall hard.
    Its more just needing to develop alternatives,
    or rather gradually making existing alternatives
    more attractive.

    One seldom-mentioned advantage of so many
    Westerners driving SUVs and oversized trucks
    is that we have so much inherent potential
    to cut back on consumption without seriously
    impacting our lives. If fuel ever gets
    expensive, a lot of us could park our
    guzzlers and buy dinkymobiles.

    What if we all already had dinkymobiles?
    Then we really would hit the wall, eh? Its
    like the disadvantage of living a clean
    healthy lifestyle: one day you find yourself
    in the hospital dying of nothing. You have
    no bad habits to give up, you're just hosed.
    We have bad habits to give up. We hold them
    in reserve.

    >Give me an estimate of how many years you think
    >it would take to replace every gasoline fueled
    >vehicle in the country with a battery powered
    >electrical vehicle?

    Twenty years. Twenty five tops. Furthermore
    we do not need to replace *every* detroit.
    80 percent would be enough. In the mean time,
    having large vehicles on the roads has encouraged
    us to build really enormous really good roads.
    Then when we scale back down, think how wonderfully
    adequate those roads will be for all the dinky
    little cars.

    > And then estimate the hit to the economy while
    >that process takes place and everyone is spending
    >time and money fueling their obsolete vehicles in
    >a situation that may resemble the oil shortages
    >during the '70s.

    Granted there will be some pain. But we are
    a strong and clever species, and AI research
    will go on I can assure you. Compared to the
    70s, we have far better infrastructure to move
    bits instead of butts. I have noticed in my own
    field that faaar more work can be conducted over
    phonelines and optical fibers than was possible
    even 10 years ago.

    Three key tools have come along since the 70s,
    and it makes me a bit squirmy to realize
    Microsloth owns two of them: Powerpoint,
    Excel and email. Powerpoint alone has obviated
    much cross-country travel in the rocket science
    business: you email your sales pitch to the
    customer, then pitch it via videophone. No
    plane ticket, no hotel, ahhh life is goooood.
    Excel of course is the greatest engineering
    tool ever invented.

    >Spike -- I'd suggest you might be riding your
    > motorcycle a bit less when fuel for it costs
    > $10.00/gallon... Robert

    Well, more actually, since they get 40 miles
    per gallon, which is about 18 km/liter. {8-]

    Robert my old pal, do not lose your courage.
    We are standing on the threshold of a dream.
    We are truly on the eve of construction.

    spike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 01:09:35 MDT