YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[edpell]

wikipedia gives us

"Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25–30°C per km of depth in most of the world."

Seems like a great source for a community heat pump for heating in winter.

 

[OmCheeto]

wikipedia gives us

"Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25–30°C per km of depth in most of the world."

Seems like a great source for a community heat pump for heating in winter.

We talked a bit about this on https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632239&highlight=kilauea#post2632239".

Ha ha! I was just joking about the gold, and here I found someone who thinks there is a pot full down there!

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/innerfortknox"
Wood has calculated that 1.6 quadrillion tons of gold must lie in Earth's core.

Let's see, at the current spot price, that's $53,968,760,000,000,000,000,000, which works out to about $7.7 trillion per earthling.

Finally, I'll be able to afford an electric car, without having to make the damn thing myself.

But anyways, geothermal is a good idea. I'm curious why no one has tapped the energy from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent" yet. No drilling required. And if you have a blow out, the worst thing you get, is a bunch of seawater.

 

[OmCheeto]

Of course, I'm a huge fan of solar, and think I may have a convert:

I constructed a solar powered volleyball court watering system a couple of years back, out of 3 panels, 3 bilge pumps, and a slew of garden hoses, to get the water from the river, to the furthest court, about 100 yards away.

My friend Cal, who had a gas powered version, (which I have never seen), constructed the above system over the last year. I was quite impressed when I saw it yesterday.

I don't really know what this has to do the the US Energy Crisis, but I thought that maybe if people understood their options, it might be a good start.

Sometimes, it's not about brute force. Sometimes, it's about going with the flow.

(my Sunday Zen moment of the day.^.^.
Ommmm...
Thank you Astro!)

ps. Some of those eco-terrorists came through town the other day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWkHh4THIVc

 

[Astronuc]

The American Energy Innovation Council is pushing for more government and private investment in energy innovation.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/14/am-bill-gates-on-the-importance-of-energy-research-for-the-future/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/full-report

Interestingly, there are several organizations that use the phrase Energy Innovation or Energy Innovations in their title, e.g.,

http://www.energyinnovations.com/
http://www.seiinc.org/

 

[mheslep]

The American Energy Innovation Council is pushing for more government and private investment in energy innovation.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/14/am-bill-gates-on-the-importance-of-energy-research-for-the-future/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/full-report
...

Bad timing on their part for a PR campaign

Solyndra Bankruptcy Reveals Dark Clouds in Solar Power Industry

Solyndra had received $527 million in federal loans authorized by a program in the 2009 stimulus act.

 

[OmCheeto]

Bad timing on their part for a PR campaign

Solyndra Bankruptcy Reveals Dark Clouds in Solar Power Industry

Running a new business.

I plan on starting one when I retire. (1021 days. tick. tick. tick.)

SolarWorld
Revenue €1.305 billion (2010)
Operating income €192.8 million (2010)
Profit €87.3 million (2010)
Total assets €2.635 billion (end 2010)
Total equity €922.9 million (end 2010)
Employees 2,380 (end 2010)

Of course, it will not be based on 20th century thought processes.

And of course, I will require the services of a chemist, a mathematician, an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a marketing expert, an accountant, several software engineers, and a small army of technicians.

 

[Astronuc]

Bad timing on their part for a PR campaign

Solyndra Bankruptcy Reveals Dark Clouds in Solar Power Industry

Spectrawatt also closed down.

 

[mheslep]

Spectrawatt also closed down.

Yes there are others, but they didn't take half a billion in government loans down with them. AEIC is calling for "more government" on the tail of that lost taxpayer money, seemingly oblivious to the the Solyndra case.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes there are others, but they didn't take half a billion in government loans down with them. AEIC is calling for "more government" on the tail of that lost taxpayer money, seemingly oblivious to the the Solyndra case.

They should just give me all the goodies. I know how to run a business. (well, ok, not yet)

But it's difficult to analyze the problem in a mixed socio-economic mode world.

the Chinese government provided more than $30 billion, billion with a B, to their solar companies.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/14/140477571/how-to-u-s-solar-companies-compare-to-chinas"

How does an upstart U.S. company compete with 50 cents an hour wages, and getting 1/20th the financial backing that China provides?

This is actually why I posted the financial statistics for Solarworld, the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar panels: Profit €87.3 million (2010)

Hardly the profits of Exxon($11 billion), GE($14 billion), or a multiple of seasoned companies.

Some may question whether a communist country can compete with a capitalist country, but I have to ask, can our companies compete in such an environment?

 

[mheslep]

They should just give me all the goodies. I know how to run a business. (well, ok, not yet)

But it's difficult to analyze the problem in a mixed socio-economic mode world.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/14/140477571/how-to-u-s-solar-companies-compare-to-chinas"

How does an upstart U.S. company compete with 50 cents an hour wages, and getting 1/20th the financial backing that China provides?

Couple responses:

1. I have little faith in the accuracy of the finance figure from that source on China, and in any case the claim is collective to all Chinese solar, not one company.
2. The Solyndra case is a showcase example of why government should be at least reticent about funding industry.
3. In answer to your main question, see Apple. Do the high margin smart work here in the US, do the low margin repetitive labor there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage" , by far the largest in the world, and sell to the Chinese and every body else in the world who wants to make silicon wafers.
4. Keep Chinese job competition in mind the next time you see a politician who thinks the best thing for Fish and Wildlife Service armed federal agents to do is http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...9a26852ee014a8&biw=1280&bih=939&pf=p&pdl=500"

This is actually why I posted the financial statistics for Solarworld, the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar panels: Profit €87.3 million (2010)

See the '€' there? That's a German based company.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Couple responses:

1. I have little faith in the accuracy of the finance figure from that source on China, and in any case the claim is collective to all Chinese solar, not one company.

1. 
   
   

   Winning will require substantial investments. Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers," Poneman wrote.

   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/
   
   

   [*]The Solyndra case is a showcase example of why government should be at least reticent about funding industry.

   
   Why? Start-up industries always have a high failure rate. It doesn't matter if the investments are public or private. It is unfortunate but not earth-shaking that they bet on the wrong horse. Also, 0.5 billion of the 25 billion that went to renewable energy companies, is about 2%. Are you really surprised that we would lose 2% in high-risk investements? If the news doesn't get much worse, say if 5% of the total is lost to failures, 95% is a strikingly good success rate. Even 90% success would be a fantastic hit rate.
   
   

   [*]In answer to your main question, see Apple. Do the high margin smart work here in the US, do the low margin repetitive labor there.

   
   I have been in the thick of eliminating labor jobs with automation for the last fifteen years. When you automate, you create fewer but better jobs. Many forms of industry lend themselves to nearly complete automation. There are even "lights out" plants where, in theory, the plant can operate without any workers, however these have been problematic. But the point is that the relationship between production and labor continues to evolve. As this happens, foreign producers lose some of their advantage.
   
   As for your comments about enforcing laws against the use of illegal and protected wood products, are you suggesting that the same law doesn't apply to imports from China? What IS your point here; that we should lower our standards to those of foreign producers?

 

[Allenman]

I didn't finger through this entire thread yet, but wanted to see what you guys think about this for a plan.

-There are roughly 160 million telephone poles in the united states. If we were to begin trying to retrofit each one with either a small solar or small VAWT power station on top, that would be a substantial gain in renewable energy, even if they only produced 1kw each (they should be sized for the pole they are mounted on though). I'd estimate over the course of 10 years, this would cost roughly $500mil a year.

-Place electrolysis stations at various points on the grid to separate water and produce hydrogen for fuel in case there is an overload of renewable power. Over 10 years this may cost about $500mil a year.

-Require that all fossil fuel plants and waste-to-energy plants retrofit their exhaust to aid in the growth of algae for biofuels by the year 2021.

-Utilize some desert from Arizona and New Mexico to do large scale algae farming for biodiesel and ethanol. I don't know how much that would cost

-Subsidize the implementation of (more) biofuel gas stations, or conversion of existing gas stations to sell biofuels.

-Provide government research grants to those who are developing new energy saving devises and new ways of producing renewable energy. At least $200mil/year.


This is mostly on top of what is already being done.

 

[russ_watters]

How big of a solar panel are you talking about? I'm seeing a typical price for a 1.5 sq meter panel at about $330. 160 million of them over 10 years is $5 billion a year, just to buy the solar panel: no installation, no controls or inverter to connect it to the grid. So you'll probably need to double or triple that.

Such panels have a peak power of 230W. The sum of all the peaks would be 36,800 megawatts. Spread out and not tracking the sun, you'll probably really max out at a third of that; 12,000 megawatts, which is roughly equal to 12 nuclear reactors, at a cost of perhaps 15 nuclear reactors (which, of course, generate energy 24/7, not just during the day). It still might be worth doing, but it is marginal.

 

[OmCheeto]

...

See the '€' there? That's a German based company.

A German based company that a while back invested, um, $500,000,000 in my state.
They recently announced that they were shutting down their California based production facility, for financial reasons of course.

http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2011/09/solarworld_beams_all_productio.html"

And what was it I just posted on facebook?

Solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity was added in more than 100 countries during 2010, ensuring that PV remained the world’s fastest growing power-generation technology.

ref: http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf"

Solyndra cost the average American taxpayer about $5. Just imagine if everyone had invested $100 in the company. Then maybe China wouldn't be the worlds biggest manufacturer of solar panels. I'm glad Obama invited some kids to the white house who are smart enough to invent new things, rather than stand around with their http://www.whitewatercharters.co.uk/wrasse-fishing-photos.htm", like so many people seem to do nowadays.

(profanity toned down ala LisaB mode)

Almost all of my investments are in "Gore" like technologies. It pains me to see other countries leading the way.

But I would like to thank you for the AMAT tip. I've never seen a 102,000% increase in a stock before.

 

[danielandpenn]

I think it would be beneficial to use third world nations' agriculturally-poor land to construct energy fields, like CST fields or wind turbine fields. This way, they can trade energy for food and we have a fix for poverty and starvation, as well as improving environmental conditions.

 

[Allenman]

How big of a solar panel are you talking about? I'm seeing a typical price for a 1.5 sq meter panel at about $330. 160 million of them over 10 years is $5 billion a year, just to buy the solar panel: no installation, no controls or inverter to connect it to the grid. So you'll probably need to double or triple that.

Such panels have a peak power of 230W. The sum of all the peaks would be 36,800 megawatts. Spread out and not tracking the sun, you'll probably really max out at a third of that; 12,000 megawatts, which is roughly equal to 12 nuclear reactors, at a cost of perhaps 15 nuclear reactors (which, of course, generate energy 24/7, not just during the day). It still might be worth doing, but it is marginal.

Not all of them would require a solar panel. In most places it would be beneficial to find or test which would be more cost effective (solar or wind)... But yeah you're right; I think I did really low-ball that one...

 

[OmCheeto]

Not all of them would require a solar panel. In most places it would be beneficial to find or test which would be more cost effective (solar or wind)... But yeah you're right; I think I did really low-ball that one...

Ha ha! It does pay to do the math once in a while. 3 days after the start of the 2003 Iraq invasion, I wrote a one page, dual time-line, future history story, about how things might turn out. Here is a small excerpt:

January 17, 2009
...
Fearing another "War for Oil", as he termed it, President Powell funneled billions into photovoltaic technology companies. This, along with a $3/gallon gasoline tax, weaned America off of its foreign oil dependency within one year. Being able to travel for virtually nothing, the American people quickly amassed trillions of dollars in excess wealth. The rest of the world quickly followed America's lead.

President Powell, fed up with the politics of Washington, refused to run for a 2nd term.

...

I just ran the calculations, and a $3/gal gas tax would have generated $225 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. This would have paid for ~30 billion watts of PV panels back then. I just checked wiki, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies" (most of which are Chinese btw) only delivered about 10 billion watts of panels last year.

ps. My story was never meant to be made public, nor should you take it seriously, as it was just a stress reliever for me. But it is funny how many things I wrote have come to pass. "A black president? Get real..."

 

[OmCheeto]

I think it would be beneficial to use third world nations' agriculturally-poor land to construct energy fields, like CST fields or wind turbine fields. This way, they can trade energy for food and we have a fix for poverty and starvation, as well as improving environmental conditions.

It is interesting to see how symbiotic we are, as an economically disparate species. I might need you on my staff within the next 5 years.

Started in 1996, the programme has come as a god-send in a country of 145 million, where 80% people live in poverty and 70% have no access to grid electricity. They have to rely on highly polluting Kerosene oil and diesel generators for lighting and depend on bio-mass, wood, cow dung and crop residue for cooking, which not only create indoor pollution but, through misuse of resources, lead to deforestation, soil erosion and floods.

From a humble beginning of 228 homes in 1997, Grameen Shakti now powers over 135,000 homes, currently adding 5,000 homes every month using photovoltaic technology. Three million trees have been planted under the plantation scheme.

bolding mine

!

I have to go quickly, as my laptop is behaving quite as though as if it is possessed!

Ciao!

 

[sketch]

Groups of houses or apartments to share high power appliances such as vacuum cleaners, tumble driers, fridges and freezers etc.

More internal electrics to run on 12v, with the power supplied via small windmills and solar arrays.

Larger windmills to store higher voltage using capacitors or flywheels to store energy for use in the higher-powered equipment.

Allotments/vegetable patches/chickens/etc.

If you yield more produce then a reduction in rent or mortgage owed applies.

Simple really.

 

[Pkruse]

I see lots of suggestions that fit with sketch's ideas above, things that are all within our current level of technology. While these are technically feasible, I think we need to be realistic as to what is politically acceptable. (That also implies economically viable.) Engineers can develop all sorts of good ideas, but if the market can't sell it, it goes nowhere. Nothing that restricts our growth in living standard is acceptable to the majority of people today, and I don't see that changing.

So perhaps we can start with the assumption of how can we provide ever increasing amounts of energy at a reasonable cost and minimum or no effect on the environment. I see a huge amount of money being spent today researching many ideas that could bring that holy grail a little bit closer, but any research that is potentially economically viable is kept secret. The developers take great pains to make sure that nobody knows about it until they are ready to go to market, and even then they hold the details very close to their chests. Ideas with little or no potential economic potential get published freely, but that stuff just is not going to sell.

I personally would be very interested in carbon sequestering proposals, some of which look like they could very well result in a coal fired plant with near zero emissions. Some propose to completely redesigning the nuclear power plant to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown or other serious hazard, the recycling of nuclear fuel so it need not be stored for such a long time in large quantities, and how to make power with the spent fuel so it need not be stored at all. The power industry is currently investing heavily in gas turbines. How can we make those more efficient or less expensive? How can we use very low grade fuel, like land fill gas with only five percent methane? What about these new plasma systems for completely breaking down hazardous and non-hazardous wastes into clean fuel? All this represents research currently under way, but it is very difficult to get information on it. If anyone in this forum has expertise in these or similar ideas, let’s talk about it.

This thread is just too big to be useful. What do you folks think about starting separate threads for separate ideas?

 

[sketch]

Unless someone cracks cold fusion then there is a finite amount of energy and sorry but people will have to take a blow when it comes to the amount of power they use.

The fact that many live in apartment blocks in the US almost makes it easier in some ways than in other places and tbf we will all probably be fuc*ed when the gas hydrates go up anyway...

In the UK the massive rise in fuel prices should hopefully lead people to look for more green alternatives but the point is to respond to shortages and price rises before they reach the point where so many are in fuel poverty.

 

[mheslep]

Unless someone cracks cold fusion then there is a finite amount of energy and sorry but people will have to take a blow when it comes to the amount of power they use. ...

A blow? Unlikely.

 

[Topher925]

Sharing appliances and micro generation is all well and good initially on paper but people aren't willing to put up with the cost or tolerate the inconvenience. Between nuclear, solar, and wind, the entire planet could have a carbon free existence. There are currently no major technical barriers that say we can't. The reason we don't is because the economics and logistics don't make sense.

People think nuclear is too dangerous and its a big financial risk to build a plant. Plus we have a limited supply of Uranium and for what ever reason Thorium fueled reactors aren't being built. Solar is nice except you can't farm it where the demand is and its too economically and resource intensive to transport it great distances. Wind is great, especially off-shore, but people would rather accept the wrath of climate change than see a wind farm on their way to work in the morning. The cost of energy storage (be flywheel, hydraulic, or w/e) is very high and is also very necessary for non-baseload energy sources.

 

[mheslep]

Sharing appliances and micro generation is all well and good initially on paper but people aren't willing to put up with the cost or tolerate the inconvenience. Between nuclear, solar, and wind, the entire planet could have a carbon free existence. There are currently no major technical barriers that say we can't. The reason we don't is because the economics and logistics don't make sense.

People think nuclear is too dangerous and its a big financial risk to build a plant. Plus we have a limited supply of Uranium and for what ever reason Thorium fueled reactors aren't being built. Solar is nice except you can't farm it where the demand is and its too economically and resource intensive to transport it great distances. Wind is great, especially off-shore, but people would rather accept the wrath of climate change than see a wind farm on their way to work in the morning. The cost of energy storage (be flywheel, hydraulic, or w/e) is very high and is also very necessary for non-baseload energy sources.

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

 

[russ_watters]

I know it's late but since you replied recently...

Groups of houses or apartments to share high power appliances such as vacuum cleaners, tumble driers, fridges and freezers etc.

How would that help any? Sharing a vacuum cleaner or drier doesn't make you vacuum less or dry your clothes less, so it doesn't decrease the amount of energy you use.

More internal electrics to run on 12v, with the power supplied via small windmills and solar arrays.

What does running at 12V have to do with anything? It won't decrease the power used...

Larger windmills to store higher voltage using capacitors or flywheels to store energy for use in the higher-powered equipment.

Windmills don't store anything and voltage isn't something that is stored.

Simple really.

I'm sorry, but that post reads mosly like gibberish.

 

[russ_watters]

I see lots of suggestions that fit with sketch's ideas above, things that are all within our current level of technology. While these are technically feasible, I think we need to be realistic as to what is politically acceptable. (That also implies economically viable.) Engineers can develop all sorts of good ideas, but if the market can't sell it, it goes nowhere. Nothing that restricts our growth in living standard is acceptable to the majority of people today, and I don't see that changing.

That's a real toughie. You're right that as a matter of technology most of our energy issues are solvable without too much effort. But political will drives the US to make half its electricity with coal, while expressing fear over global warming. It is irrational and I don't know if/what will change it.

 

[Pkruse]

Yes, Russ. We as engineers need to become very creative to develop new solutions that are politically and ecconomically acceptable. We need to figure out what the people want, and then give it to them. They want an every increasing standard of living with zero impact on the planet. We will never attain that idea, but I believe we can approach it much more closely than we in the past have thought possible. We do know how to resolve all the World's problems from a technical point of view, but rehashing what we already know endlessly with little chance of actually selling it is not productive. We need to find simething that sells.

I have zero hope that fusion will solve our problems within my life time. When I talk about nuclear, I don't even bring fusion up. But our old plants were developed as they were because at the time we needed to make bomb fuel. We could have designed them differently, but we did not for that reason. Some of my friends in the industry talk about all sorts of wonderful ideas whereby they could develop entirely new designs from the ground up that would have zero possibility of a melt down, which would eliminate the problem of storing spent fuel, and which would be many orders of magnitude safer and less expensive than we have today. All this is technology that we could jump on and develop today, but first we need to develop the political will with funding that follows. It would be great if some of those working along these lines would post their ideas here, where we could develop a critical mass of thinking to stimulate further development, but they keep to themselves because their ideas are potentially very profitable and they don't want anyone to steal their ideas.

I myself work for a company that would fire me if I posted proprietory material here. So I'm one that is limited in that same way. But I'm seeing much more funding cut loose to develop these ideas, some of which will change the whole tone of this thread if we repeat it ten years from now. Between the various parties seeking new green technology, more than a billion dollars of research money is being spent in this direction. Some of it is government money, but much of it is private venture capital. When you see private sources funding research, you know it has at least a good probability of becoming productive and profitable--ideas that we can actually sell and the people will use.

 

[Topher925]

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

I'm in favor of a 100% solar powered hydrogen economy. But since we have to live in the real world a combination of nuclear and solar (but mostly nuclear) is the best bet for the near term. I think 20 years from now hydrogen fueled plug-in hybrids will become the staple for transportation with the source of hydrogen coming from high temperature electrolysis, solar thermochemical hydrogen generation, and natural gas.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting read concerning the economics of renewable energy: "Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust".
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_solyndra/

I thought that the first photo might be photoshopped, but if one searches Google images for "wind turbine fire", one fines some numerous images of wind turbines on fire.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What do you favor as a replacement for liquid fossil fuels, that make economic and logistical sense?

If we can get artificial photosynthesis to operate on an economically viable industrial scale we could produce carbon-neutral oil by combining carbon from CO2 with hydrogen from water. This would have the advantage of not requiring a large retooling of our existing oil-based infrastructure.

 

[mheslep]

Yes I've been following some of the efforts: inorganic w/ Lewis (CalTech) and Nocera (MIT); biologic w/ Joule Unlimited and Venter. Lewis has already identified materials efficient and cheap but not robust to the corrosive environment of hydrolysis. Nature deals w/ the same problem by continually rebuilding the photoplasts, if at some energy cost.

For this reason I favor the biologic solution from Joule w/ its direct hydrocarbon engineered organism. Their approach eliminates the harvest and lipid conversion step (direct conversion), eliminates the 'gunk' build up associated with algae that has crashed some prototype systems, eliminates biomass feed stock transport problems, eliminates the fresh water resource problem (at least 19 mbbl/day) associated with all other biofuel efforts. Joule claims they can do 20,000 gallons/acre-year of hydrocarbon in a peer reviewed journal. They rely on bio-solar enclosures which has proved too expensive in the past, so they have that hill to climb.* If they succeed, then 7 million acres replaces all US oil imports, 15 million replaces all US oil period. That's a fraction of the land dedicated to just US corn ethanol in 2011.

*For instance, if the cost target is $2/gal, then they have to build an acre of enclosures, operate, and pay land taxes off $40,000/acre/year. If the cost of the enclosure is only $2/sq ft then an acre of enclosure costs $86K. Of course farmers make a living off $1000/acre/year, but they don't have to cover the dirt with plexiglass.

PS: The above is, I think, the best approach for liquid fuels. I still favor electrified, battery based, transportation over combustion and its inevitable byproducts whenever possible.

 

[turbo]

My wife and I are "fixing" the energy crisis in our own way. We burn properly seasoned wood in an efficient steel, fire-brick lined stove. I have never had to clean the chimney, because the hot fires strip out all the tar and creosote.

This weekend, we are replacing the last two problematic windows with brand-new double-hung windows with vinyl frames and IR-reflective glass. Winter is a good time to do such replacements, since the companies that do that sort of work are always looking for ways to keep their employees busy in the slack season.

My wife and I bought this place 6 years ago and had the oil tank filled because we didn't have a decent supply of seasoned hardwood at the time. We still have over 1/4 of that tank of oil, and I have been nursing it along with 911 to avoid sludge. We are using the furnace on cold nights (especially when I'm not feeling well, which is frequently recently) trying to draw down that tank. Eventually, I'll order maybe 100 gallons of oil, and who knows how long that will last...

 

[mheslep]

My wife and I are "fixing" the energy crisis in our own way. We burn properly seasoned wood in an efficient steel, fire-brick lined stove. I have never had to clean the chimney, because the hot fires strip out all the tar and creosote.

This weekend, we are replacing the last two problematic windows with brand-new double-hung windows with vinyl frames and IR-reflective glass. Winter is a good time to do such replacements, since the companies that do that sort of work are always looking for ways to keep their employees busy in the slack season.

My wife and I bought this place 6 years ago and had the oil tank filled because we didn't have a decent supply of seasoned hardwood at the time. We still have over 1/4 of that tank of oil, and I have been nursing it along with 911 to avoid sludge. We are using the furnace on cold nights (especially when I'm not feeling well, which is frequently recently) trying to draw down that tank. Eventually, I'll order maybe 100 gallons of oil, and who knows how long that will last...

What kind of wall construction/insulation do you have? Any upgrades planned? I've upgraded my windows too, and air sealed the attic, but I can't find away to easily upgrade 2x4 framed w/ cedar shingle walls to the new super insulated design (double wall or 2x6). Might as well knock the place down first. Meanwhile an IR temperature gun shows a lot cold temps on those walls.

 

[turbo]

What kind of wall construction/insulation do you have? Any upgrades planned? I've upgraded my windows too, and air sealed the attic, but I can't find away to easily upgrade 2x4 framed w/ cedar shingle walls to the new super insulated design (double wall or 2x6). Might as well knock the place down first. Meanwhile an IR temperature gun shows a lot cold temps on those walls.

We live in a house made of ~6" poplar logs. We added 1" of foam insulation to the roof before installing a metal roof.

Sometimes, it would be nice to have the place a little bit warmer in the winter without stoking the stove, but adding studs and insulation to the outer walls would destroy the appearance of the place. As it is, I have to be careful not to stoke the stove when the outside temperature is freezing or higher, because it gets really hot in here. Extra insulation would require us to buy a much smaller wood-stove to avoid getting roasted out.

I enjoy splitting, stacking and seasoning hardwood that has only sequestered carbon for maybe 40 years instead of burning #2 heating oil (~$3.60/gallon right now). I could cut the wood off our 10 acres, but I prefer to buy the wood from my niece's husband, who runs a bulk-firewood operation in the spring/summer. That saves me a lot of work and risk. My footing is not so great after I had a stroke, so running a screaming chainsaw on steep side-hills (about the only terrain on our property) is not an attractive option.

 

[mheslep]

As it is, I have to be careful not to stoke the stove when the outside temperature is freezing or higher, because it gets really hot in here. Extra insulation would require us to buy a much smaller wood-stove to avoid getting roasted out.

You might consider an HRV for that problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
Sealed up homes still need to turn the air over, and I expect you'll get a more even room temp as a benefit. Not sure how much duct work you'd need to add.

 

[turbo]

The only duct-work we have is connected to the oil furnace, and this place is so small that ducting would be overkill. We burn less than 5 cords of seasoned hardwood/year, so our heating energy costs are negligible. As summers have gotten hotter and hotter, we need more air-conditioning, but hopefully the new windows will cut back that cost, too.

My youngest uncle is a (semi-retired) HVAC guy, and he's pretty darned sharp. When he saw these last two problematic windows, he said "Replace them, and they'll pay for themselves in a few years." I know he's right, and shouldn't have waited this long to swap them out, but there always seemed to be other priorities cropping up. Still, replacing drafty old windows pays more than keeping money in savings accounts.

 

[Artus]

It's official now. We have passed the Peak Oil and there is not evident solution:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/nature-journal-study-peak-oil/

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's official now. We have passed the Peak Oil and there is not evident solution:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/nature-journal-study-peak-oil/

It is neither "official" nor clear. These arguments have happened before, we should wait until it is clear to conclude or discuss the rationale for the recent conclusions, not take them as fact.

 

[Most Curious]

Lift ALL restrictions on oil and gas production / refining nationwide.

CEASE all exports of energy. To include crude and refined product as well as gas. Possible exception for batteries.

Eliminate trading of ALL futures contracts of energy.

Defund the EPA and scatter those responsible for the outrageous damage they have done!.

Cease all "alternative energy" dreams and subsidies, including tax breaks. All research to be privately funded. I wish them well but see no need to fund their pipe dreams.

Kill all building of hybrid cars which in fact ADD to pollution.

Suspend the clean air act until such time as all job killing, cost increasing provisons are removed.

Eliminate all efficiency standards for things like vehicles, light bulbs, home heating etc.

Remove alcohol contamination from gasoline and bio contamination from diesel fuel.

Give a tax break for construction of new coal fired generating plants and advanced nuclear plants. To aid construction, eliminate income taxes for those working on the projects.

IMMEDIATELY resume nuclear fuel reprocessing for the valuable material otherwise wasted and to reduce the volume of high level waste to be stored.

Build such new electrical transmission lines as necessary. Grant maximum of 14 days for all NIMBY actions and hearings. No more roadblocks to sighting of transmission lines, coal and nuclear plants, refineries and nuclear waste disposal sites to name only a few.

Am I serious?? You better believe I am! Our "energy crisis" has been created by politics. Our current economic funk can also be traced to the treasonous acts of the EPA, DOE and congress to mention only a few of the crimminals involved.

 

[Abraham]

Lift ALL restrictions on oil and gas production / refining nationwide.

CEASE all exports of energy. To include crude and refined product as well as gas. Possible exception for batteries.

Eliminate trading of ALL futures contracts of energy.

Defund the EPA and scatter those responsible for the outrageous damage they have done!.

Cease all "alternative energy" dreams and subsidies, including tax breaks. All research to be privately funded. I wish them well but see no need to fund their pipe dreams.

Kill all building of hybrid cars which in fact ADD to pollution.

Suspend the clean air act until such time as all job killing, cost increasing provisons are removed.

Eliminate all efficiency standards for things like vehicles, light bulbs, home heating etc.

Remove alcohol contamination from gasoline and bio contamination from diesel fuel.

Give a tax break for construction of new coal fired generating plants and advanced nuclear plants. To aid construction, eliminate income taxes for those working on the projects.

IMMEDIATELY resume nuclear fuel reprocessing for the valuable material otherwise wasted and to reduce the volume of high level waste to be stored.

Build such new electrical transmission lines as necessary. Grant maximum of 14 days for all NIMBY actions and hearings. No more roadblocks to sighting of transmission lines, coal and nuclear plants, refineries and nuclear waste disposal sites to name only a few.

Am I serious?? You better believe I am! Our "energy crisis" has been created by politics. Our current economic funk can also be traced to the treasonous acts of the EPA, DOE and congress to mention only a few of the crimminals involved.

Everything will come at the cost of the environment. I don't think eliminating those who oversee the protection of it---however muddled or inefficient these departments are---will help us survive as a species. I'd rather live in the dark and breathe clean air, than live in "modernity" and breathe the poisoned air.

An important question is why we have a looming energy crisis at all. Perhaps we should find an answer to a lifestyle crisis that is clearly driving an energy crisis. Just a thought.

 

[Topher925]

An important question is why we have a looming energy crisis at all. Perhaps we should find an answer to a lifestyle crisis that is clearly driving an energy crisis. Just a thought.

I've thought about this a lot. There was never an energy crisis 200 year ago because people lived different lifestyles and the technology which consumes large amounts of energy hadn't been created yet. Solving the energy crisis is rather simple, just revert back to the lifestyles of Ben Franklin and its problem solved. This would obviously never happen but I think it is a very practical solution.

This of course raises another question; is it really worth doing? Man kinds time on Earth is finite no matter which way you look at it. Is it better for humanity to exist as long as possible, or to achieve as much as possible. Without the consumption of energy and pollution of the planet we would never go to Mars, there would be no LHC, and we would have to give up on our search for a theory of everything.

I think there's a practical solution somewhere there in the middle but there's no telling if we'll ever find it.

 

[mheslep]

There were energy crises hundreds of years ago. People denuded the forests of Europe for fuel and building materials, and were well on the way to doing so in the Americas until Coal came along. In the early 19th century it was said that a man had to travel 50 miles from Boston center to find a tree fell-able for firewood.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This of course raises another question; is it really worth doing? Man kinds time on Earth is finite no matter which way you look at it. Is it better for humanity to exist as long as possible, or to achieve as much as possible. Without the consumption of energy and pollution of the planet we would never go to Mars, there would be no LHC, and we would have to give up on our search for a theory of everything.

I think there's a practical solution somewhere there in the middle but there's no telling if we'll ever find it.

I think the interesting point to think about is if it is possible to build a clean, sustainable, high energy civilisation without going through the dirty, non-sustainable phase. I'm not so sure however we could have done a better job already, we could have converted mainly to nuclear power and mass produced renewables for example.

Inevitably we will have to convert to a clean, sustainable and high energy system. Clean because we don't want to cause any more ecological damage (for practical and aesthetic reasons), sustainable because if not we just delay the problem and high energy because we have to maintain our current level of infrastructure as well as coping with the developing world electrifying.

On the subject of growing levels and ease of renewable power according to this new scientist article the cost of solar panels have quartered in the last four years. This doesn't surprise me as in the UK there's been something of a gold rush for home solar power, a few years ago the only solar panels I saw on buildings were corporate show-offs or university institutions. Now there are solar panelled roofs everywhere, there are probably a few dozen in my small town alone. It doesn't sound like much (and it's not) but the cost is now low enough for the above average wealth family and if they keep coming down soon it will be affordable for the majority of people. Obviously there are problems with solar power like not producing power at night or on a cloudy day but it is a great supplement and an intensive for people to nail the storage problem.

 

[mheslep]

Part of that solar expansion in the UK must be due to the UK's large solar feed-in tariff. The cost of PV panels have dropped by ~half in the developed world over the past four years, but not the installed cost and not the cost per kWh (though they too are falling), especially not in the higher latitudes. London's year round average daily insolation is ~2.7 kWh/M^2, compared to ~7-8 kWh/M^2 in Phoenix. Furthermore London gathers most of that energy during its long summer days, and in the winter collection falls off to nothing, up to 40X less than in the summer, unlike Phoenix. I agree the solution is storage as Ryan says, but currently long term storage is much more cost effective with solar thermal-hot water than PV.

 

[Topher925]

There were energy crises hundreds of years ago. People denuded the forests of Europe for fuel and building materials, and were well on the way to doing so in the Americas until Coal came along. In the early 19th century it was said that a man had to travel 50 miles from Boston center to find a tree fell-able for firewood.

I did not know this. OK, guess there's only one solution then. Massive population reduction of man kind. So who wants to start WWIII?

 

[Topher925]

I think the interesting point to think about is if it is possible to build a clean, sustainable, high energy civilisation without going through the dirty, non-sustainable phase. I'm not so sure however we could have done a better job already, we could have converted mainly to nuclear power and mass produced renewables for example.

I think converting mainly to nuclear and mass producing renewable energy farms is what we should have been doing once we realized the implications of fossil fuels. It would be nice if we could even start doing that now but things seem to be going in the opposite direction. Japan and Germany are planning on completely eliminating nuclear power and replacing it with coal for the short term. I wonder what their plan is if renewable sources don't come to fruition in the next 15 years.

 

[mheslep]

I did not know this. OK, guess there's only one solution then. Massive population reduction of man kind. So who wants to start WWIII?

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

 

[Jakoeb]

Which would do what, take the developed world back to 19th century technology and population where the answer was to mow down the natural landscape? I think the best approach is to get the developed world on the same track as the developed: trending down in energy use per head.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...region&tstart=950504400000&tend=1234587600000

I'd also like to see fossil fuel energy use per capita in developed countries, which must be falling even faster.

Yeah maybe the WW3 is not a real option here. But the fact is that there's just going to be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, that's the way to go.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yeah maybe the WW3 is not a real option here. But the fact is that there's just going to be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, that's the way to go.

I doubt this will be necessary. Population booms and constant growth are a characteristic of developing countries. In undeveloped countries mortality is very high, in developed countries the need for many children, the price of raising children, widespread contraception and (most importantly IMO) equal rights for women.

All that is needed to decrease population growth to near nothing is to establish these things.

 

[mheslep]

...But the fact is that there's just going to be too many of us in a couple of decades or a century. Sooner or later we're going to have force some kind of population control laws. For example in China, parents are only allowed to have one child. IMO, that's the way to go.

I disagree:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...90000000&tend=1298869200000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

Replacement birth rate is 2.1