From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 03:35:14 MDT
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Spike wrote:
> From: Adrian Tymes
>
> 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...
No it isn't, I've done the math. With respect to solar power
the claims are clearly incorrect.
> ...For instance, stating that economically viable natural
> gas deposits are mostly exhausted...
For "natural" gas deposits (within the North American continent)
his statements may be accurate. But as Greg has pointed out this
just creates an opportunity for LPG tankers.
> Of course, as prices go up, economically viable sources
> magically appear. I grow so very weary of the nattering
> nabobs of negativity. A hydrocarbon shortage
> would not stop economic growth, it would stimulate it.
Spike, without being able to fully determine the negative impacts
of things like increased forest fires, potential for negative
agricultural impacts (esp. in the midwest), etc. you CAN NOT
assert that the decline of hydrocarbons, or more importantly
the associated increase in atmospheric CO2 as we consume them
and the probable global warming as a result, would stimulate economic
growth! Down in CA the news may not be providing coverage as
we here in Washington watch parts of British Columbia burnt
to the ground (and it nearly happened to parts of a city nearby
to Seattle as well). Unpredicted consequences in complex systems
*are* a reality.
You just don't have sufficient information for a model at this
time that would allow you to make such a strong claim.
> If we had an industry which creates wealth and cannot
> be outsourced, such as blanketing the west with
> solar cells, windmills and the infrastructure to
> distribute all that free clean power, the economy
> would be stimulated to the verge of orgasm.
Hardly spike. The U.S. is mostly a service economy at this time.
That requires less infrastructure and more "trained minds".
Training such minds is not something one does "overnight".
> ...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.
The argument (made by the interviewee, not Spike) is *wrong*, just plain
flat out wrong. I've done the math. And it doesn't have to require "costly
infrastructure". It can be done with low technology solar ponds that produce
methane on some large fraction of the "rangeland" in the U.S. southwest.
> ...Still, there are some truths here, especially the bit
> about transmission capability not being built...
This much I agree with -- there should be a long term project to build
up infrastructure such as high-temp superconductor energy storage and
transmission capacity. It would be a wise move to adjust the regulatory
structure to support that. Its just like building up the national highway
system in the U.S. in the '50s and '60s.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 03:44:58 MDT