From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 20:39:43 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Tymes [mailto:wingcat@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2003 11:11 AM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: Energy shortage
>
>
> --- Emlyn O'regan <oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au>
> wrote:
> > Some very pessimistic forecasting of the near future
> > wrt energy:
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/40473
>
> The problem with things like this is, they assume data
> that's mostly been false, but is hard to disprove.
>
> For instance, stating that economically viable natural
> gas deposits are mostly exhausted: such a claim has
> been made before, yet new discoveries opened up - and
> a slight increase in profit (higher price from
> scarcity, lower cost from new tech, take your pick)
> made more discoveries viable. But how does someone
> not in the oil industry (and thus suspect to having
> made-up data themselves) disprove this?
>
> Or more simply: bluntly stating that wind and solar
> can not, under any conditions, "replace even a portion
> of hydrocarbon energy" - despite the fact that they
> quite evidently have provided power that, had these
> technologies never been invented, would come from
> other sources, presumably including hydrocarbon
> energy.
I think he meant a significant portion. I don't know enough to comment on
this.
>
> I don't know how many times I've seen this argument
> before. I don't know how many times I'll see it
> again.
More :-)
>
> Still, there are some truths here, especially the bit
> about transmission capability not being built. Which
> just argues more for home-ready sources of power, like
> solar cells, that can be installed where the power
> will be used. (This can be in development, tax
> credits, or other things that lessen the cost to the
> end user.) One of my 2050ish pipe dreams is for
> helium-3 fusion, made possible in part by lunar
> mining, to become economical for home use: a
> completely automated fusion reactor capable of
> powering a standard home, no larger or costlier than a
> standard refrigerator, with enough fuel to last
> several years between servicing.
>
Nice pipe dream!
The biggest hole I always see in energy network setups is the lack of
facility for efficient storage of power generated in non-peak periods. I
suspect that's because no such facility exists. Imagine if it did, though...
solar power, for instance, becomes far more viable if you can actually store
it usefully for use during the night.
Why is storage of electricity so difficult? We seem to be plagued by it,
from the small scale (mobile devices, implants, always limited by cruddy
power storage capabilities), through to the large scale (no way to store
large amounts of power for when it is needed).
I found some nice info about Flywheel energy storage here...
http://rpm2.8k.com/basics.htm
and here
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/03/flywheel-energy-storage.html
It leaves me wondering about massive flywheel arrays the size of
conventional power plants, run up to speed off peak, and drawn from during
peak times. Is this an entirely impractical notion? I imagine the tensile
strength at the rim would have to be phenomenal for a fast spinning 3
story-high flywheel. Also, imagine one of those babies breaking loose!
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 20:51:24 MDT