YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[mheslep]

Not by what the professor said, I've had this professor before, and know his propaganda that he spreads quite well.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Perhaps the biggest problem to solving the energy crisis is just to educate people about what the hell is actually going on.

Yep.

I've seen many projects get ridiculous amounts of funding, one or two I've been a part of, that are aimed at solving our current predicament but have absolutely no practicality to them what so ever. And yet, a lot of the developing technologies which will serve their purpose in the future are being belittled by arrogant people with stature. Finding the solutions to our energy problems may be difficult, but actually implementing those solutions may be near impossible if the technical community is divided.

So wouldn't it be more useful to point out where this U. professor is mistaken and propagandising, rather than going on about THE MAN (i.e. arrogant people with stature.)

 

[onebad1968]

I would begin with the building of about a 150 nuclear power plants.This could reduce electric bills helping american indusrty compete as well as putting more money in the hands of the consumer. The other large public project would be a high speed electric train system which would follow major interstates this would drastically reduce the wasteful use of tractor trailers to move many goods around the country.Just think of the fuel and pollution (as well as the cost) created moving freight by truck from coast to coast non stop.

 

[mheslep]

The other large public project would be a high speed electric train system which would follow major interstates this would drastically reduce the wasteful use of tractor trailers to move many goods around the country.Just think of the fuel and pollution (as well as the cost) created moving freight by truck from coast to coast non stop.

I don't believe high speed rail is available for freight (weight issues and stress on the tracks). That and efficiency issues aside for the moment, you mention cost. You've no doubt heard about the high cost of high speed rail compared to, almost anything else?

 

[onebad1968]

Certainly it is a costly plan but the trillions the fed has spent in the last year wouldve been a good start and would've put a lot of people to work.What is the cost of doing nothing? Certainly there could be a design that would address the perceived shortfalls of electric hauling freight even if it were a hybrid for the takeoffs etc.

 

[RonL]

Certainly it is a costly plan but the trillions the fed has spent in the last year wouldve been a good start and would've put a lot of people to work.What is the cost of doing nothing? Certainly there could be a design that would address the perceived shortfalls of electric hauling freight even if it were a hybrid for the takeoffs etc.

This might be the start of what you are talking about. Check through their website, a lot that looks good.
I have thought of buying stock, but something has made me hold off. They have always seemed to be needing the assistance of one man to keep them going (Carl E Berg), but the times seem right for them to take off.

Does anyone know anything about this company?



http://www.valence.com/applications/motive/electric_van_and_trucks

 

[onebad1968]

I almost forgot the other power generation idea... I say we use our largest natural source of renewable energy in the country where there's probably enough power to supply a vast amount of our needs completely renewable and Green...and doing so could very well be shown to be a very positive thing for the enviroinment in more than one way.I've thought this for years but the day may be soon approaching when we will actually get serious about it..what am i talking about? I am talking about drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?...

 

[RonL]

I almost forgot the other power generation idea... I say we use our largest natural source of renewable energy in the country where there's probably enough power to supply a vast amount of our needs completely renewable and Green...and doing so could very well be shown to be a very positive thing for the enviroinment in more than one way.I've thought this for years but the day may be soon approaching when we will actually get serious about it..what am i talking about? I am talking about drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?...

Too Simple! Too Easy! Too Dangerous!

Tampering with what is considered a MegaVolcano might trigger just the amount of change needed to break an otherwise stable condition.

 

[mheslep]

Too Simple! Too Easy! Too Dangerous!

Tampering with what is considered a MegaVolcano might trigger just the amount of change needed to break an otherwise stable condition.

Could you demonstrate how geothermal energy plants might have any impact on possible volcanic eruptions?

 

[gmax137]

... drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?...

'Simple' isn't the word I would use for this idea.

 

[RonL]

Could you demonstrate how geothermal energy plants might have any impact on possible volcanic eruptions?

Well it might have been a knee jerk reaction but I have broken a few pieces of ceramic kitchenware by putting cold water in a hot item.

I know about blowout preventers on high pressure oil wells.

The one thing that still makes me shiver is, the last swimming pool I excavated using an air ram rock breaker mounted on front of my Bobcat skid loader resulted in a breath taking event, There was a final depth of about 6" of lime stone to remove from the deep end and as I started impacting the breaker, the entire bottom dropped about a foot. I had fractured the top of a very small (thank goodness) cavern, having been in Carlsbad and a few caverns here in central Texas I shiver when thinking it might have been the top of a really big room.

The heat of the rock zones 3 and 4 miles down, anywhere, is pretty high.
Messing around the base of any volcano where the stress relief can cause a sudden fracture of the rock formation, seems to me like drilling holes in glass bottles, I have done plenty but have broke a few.

That might not be a good first hand engineering demonstration, but would engineers really be able to predict any possible outcome?? Thermal shock can be a powerful event.

 

[mheslep]

Well it might have been a knee jerk reaction but I have broken a few pieces of ceramic kitchenware by putting cold water in a hot item.

I know about blowout preventers on high pressure oil wells.

The one thing that still makes me shiver is, the last swimming pool I excavated using an air ram rock breaker mounted on front of my Bobcat skid loader resulted in a breath taking event, There was a final depth of about 6" of lime stone to remove from the deep end and as I started impacting the breaker, the entire bottom dropped about a foot. I had fractured the top of a very small (thank goodness) cavern, having been in Carlsbad and a few caverns here in central Texas I shiver when thinking it might have been the top of a really big room.

The heat of the rock zones 3 and 4 miles down, anywhere, is pretty high.
Messing around the base of any volcano where the stress relief can cause a sudden fracture of the rock formation, seems to me like drilling holes in glass bottles, I have done plenty but have broke a few.

That might not be a good first hand engineering demonstration, but would engineers really be able to predict any possible outcome?? Thermal shock can be a powerful event.

It's one thing to talk about man made wells and the violence of blow-outs, it is another to suggest that has anything to do with a colossal magma chamber 50 miles below Yellowstone. As for the we-dont-know-what-could-happen school of thought, well there is no end to where that can take you:

Drilling to hell

The Kola Superdeep Borehole was the source of a tabloid rumor, started by a Finnish newspaper, that Russian researchers had burrowed through to Hell. The story was reproduced by several American tabloids. It stated that 9 miles (14.4 km) down into the Earth's crust (1.4 miles deeper than the real borehole), the scientists reached a pocket of air with a temperature of 2000 degrees F. Intrigued, they sent down a heat-tolerant microphone. The microphone picked up the screams of the damned. The rumor was exacerbated when recordings of the alleged screams popped up on the Internet shortly thereafter.

 

[OmCheeto]

Drilling to hell

Why not just shove a tube down Kilauea's throat, with a cap on the end. When it get's down to the layer of molten gold, we just pop the end off the end of the pipe and let the gold pour all over the island. Once the system has equalized, we can cap the area, and extract all of the thermal energy. The now solidified gold will pay for the 300 years of debt we'd have accumulated trying to reach the layer of gold. Of course, over the course of 300 years, we'd have determined the thermal stress limits of rock and... wait... this isn't the lounge...

oh poop.

 

[RonL]

Hmmmmm! "Volcano Tappers, LLC".

If I was just a little younger

 

[WillWard]

Problems as I see them :
1) We all rely on energy at an unsustainable level
2) Population growth is massively underestimated when reported - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/09/population-unitednations

If you follow the above link, it is basically a report that is repeated heavily in the news, it states that population could hit 9 billion people by 2050.
If you look at the data they have used, they have figures from 1950 to 2009, over this 59 year period the average population increase is 1.7%, with a maximum of 2.05% in 1968 and minimum of 1.175% in 2009. Their projections work out as follows
2019 – 0.97% increase
2029 – 0.706% increase
2039 – 0.51% increase
2049 – 0.318% increase
2050 – 0.29% increase

I can't see how population increase will be smaller than it has been in the last 60 years, and continue to shrink for 40 years.

If you continue the estimations based on the previous 59 year average of 1.7% increase per year then you would have figures closer to the following:
2015 – 7.556 bn
2025 – 8.944 bn
2035 – 10.586 bn
2045 – 12.529 bn
2050 – 13.631 bn – if you continue to extrapolate figures based on a 40 year doubling rate (which we are experiencing thus far) – then:
2090 – 27.262 bn
2130 - 54.524 bn

Solutions :
1) - The obvious reduce carbon emissions etc. I think while efforts should be made to create energy with lower carbon footprints, massive re-education of people is hugely important. If fuels run out in the next decade or 2 people should be able to carry on surviving on what we have available

2) - Overpopulation is a serious problem, unfortunately every solution that actively solves the issue is in-humane, it naturally has to be.
I think efforts should be made to work out exactly how many people the planet can support, by means of maximum food output, and maximum power production. We are possibly very close to the figure of maximum occupancy of the entire world, and if we exceed that then the years following are going to be very difficult, anarchy in the streets etc. We will likely get very close to the limit, and then experience a year or 2 of poor crop yields and experience massive worldwide food shortages.
The next step once we know what maximum occupancy is would be to limit population. This seems a terrible thing, but the time will come that it has to be a "one in one out" society. The sooner people start thinking this way the better.

Also we should throw a massive solar collector in space over the north and south pole, this could collect energy to be transported to Earth somehow, and by blocking the sun from the ice caps this could help stop them melting and sort out the raising sea levels :)

 

[mheslep]

I can't see how population increase will be smaller than it has been in the last 60 years, and continue to shrink for 40 years.

Why not? The trend is declining growth rates, as you noted:

2.05% in 1968 and minimum of 1.175% in 2009.

Population growth rates are declining globally, and in fact population flat or even declining in many developed countries - Japan, W. Europe. That is, there's a strong correlation rate between development and population growth. Actually I expect the somewhat dated UN figure of 9b/2050 is high now, as they probably underestimated the surprising development rate in China.

 

[WillWard]

The figures of population increase go up and down during the 59 years they provide data for, but they are all increasing. Without trying to sound patronising, are you sure you are not confusing population flat with a non increasing level of growth.

If the population is no longer increasing then why are new houses still being developed at high rates? - will the value of our existing properties fall in coming years rather than rise? will banks start charging for storing money rather than paying out interest on it?

May i ask where you get your figures from, as i have no idea whether i am actually correct or not, but from the figures i have looked at it shows continual growth.
During the 59 year period i had figures for. At a few points over the period the rate of growth decreases, and then back up, the lowest it got was in 2009, but this wasn't the only dip, and it always came back up.

 

[WillWard]

Also, does the fact that you picked up on the figures in my comment, but said nothing about the huge solar collector blocking the sun from the artic, mean that you are in support of my idea?

:)

 

[mheslep]

The figures of population increase go up and down during the 59 years they provide data for, but they are all increasing. Without trying to sound patronising, are you sure you are not confusing population flat with a non increasing level of growth.

If the population is no longer increasing then why are new houses still being developed at high rates? - will the value of our existing properties fall in coming years rather than rise? will banks start charging for storing money rather than paying out interest on it?

May i ask where you get your figures from, as i have no idea whether i am actually correct or not, but from the figures i have looked at it shows continual growth.
During the 59 year period i had figures for. At a few points over the period the rate of growth decreases, and then back up, the lowest it got was in 2009, but this wasn't the only dip, and it always came back up.

Again I spoke to rates of growth, not to growth. The rate of world population growth has clearly decreased over the last 60 years, an indisputable fact. In some developed countries, the rate is actually negative.

Wiki will do for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The fastest rates of world population growth (increases above 1.8% per year) were seen briefly during the 1950s then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s (see graph). The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963.

Regarding developed and developing countries, here's China, with a clearly decreasing rate:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

Japan's population peaked in 2005
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...d+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN

Similar for Germany:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...d+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:DEUCollection of all the smaller EU countries. These populations trends are 'sustainable' essentially forever:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

 

[mheslep]

Also, does the fact that you picked up on the figures in my comment, but said nothing about the huge solar collector blocking the sun from the artic, mean that you are in support of my idea?

:)

Google or search PF threads for Space Based Solar Power. It's been discussed repeatedly.

 

[WillWard]

are you suggesting that the population of the Earth will simply level out?

I can't help but think we are very close to the point that growth simply won't be able to continue, if this has to be forced then a lot of things will change for a lot of people.

Back to my first point, if we know what the sustainable level of people is, including factors like poor crop yields in some years, then we can prepare before the inevitable overpopulation occurs

 

[russ_watters]

are you suggesting that the population of the Earth will simply level out?

Yes, that is the expectation.

Regarding the US, the internal propulation growth is already flat: The US gains population mostly because of immigration.

 

[azmio]

hey guys,

One thing that i have been noticing is that US and China worry so much about securing energy sources. Contrary to that, Germany and Japan focus more on getting more work output from lesser energy inputs. I don't recall hearing any country that synergizes both.

As energy consumption soars and natural resources deplete, the best way forward is in synergizing both the energy production and consumption. I believe that not many have tried this even though the synergy is a key to future energy sustainability.

 

[Char. Limit]

So, the derivative of population is negative? Or the second derivative is negative...

Well, I think we've already passed that point. The Earth was not meant to feed 12 billion people, as it will have to in the next fifty years...

Eventually, there will be hunger riots. THC said so.

 

[mheslep]

So, the derivative of population is negative? Or the second derivative is negative...

2nd is negative, i.e. the growth of population is slowing down; has been for some decades.

 

[mheslep]

Again I spoke to rates of growth, not to growth. The rate of world population growth has clearly decreased over the last 60 years, an indisputable fact. In some developed countries, the rate is actually negative.

Wiki will do for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


Regarding developed and developing countries, here's China, with a clearly decreasing rate:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

Japan's population peaked in 2005
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...d+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN

Similar for Germany:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...d+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:DEU
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

 

[mheslep]

James Woolsey, former CIA Director and now an energy advocate of the off-foreign-oil type, has an op-ed in today's paper. I link it here because as it happens I agreed with Woolsey's approach to the energy problem, and in this article I agree with him point by point and with the same priorities. To my mind the article is accurate in its premises and claims, and avoids any of the silly impractical distractions that often in appear in op-eds.

Woolsey Premise:
Upon petroleum reaching $125/bbl again, half the world's wealth will be controlled by OPEC nations (i.e. Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc)

Prescription:
1. Apply the latest electronic technologies to internal combustion engines to improve mileage.
2. Switch the trucking and bus fleet to natural gas, ala T. Boone Pickens.
3. Force petro products to compete with other fuels made from waste or algae. For instance, force all new gas-using vehicles to be flex fuel capable. Note that methanol can be made from natural gas at ~$1.20 a gallon.
4. Electrify automotive transportation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575168130469848598.html?KEYWORDS=woolsey#"

 

[Topher925]

Another step towards the realization of a hydrogen economy.

http://mobile.technologyreview.com/energy/25244/

 

[Abraham]

I'm actually tempted towards switching to nuclear engineering, or at least grad school in it. I think that the future of energy will depend on our ability to harness nuclear fusion.

 

[Topher925]

I'm actually tempted towards switching to nuclear engineering, or at least grad school in it. I think that the future of energy will depend on our ability to harness nuclear fusion.

Unless we want to live in the dark or destroy the planet, the majority of the supply of energy in the near future will almost undoubtedly come from nuclear energy.

 

[Redbelly98]

Unless we want to live in the dark or destroy the planet, the majority of the supply of energy in the near future will almost undoubtedly come from nuclear energy.

But surely you mean fission, whereas the previous post was referring to fusion.