Energy

[H1]

Recently we lost our power for over a week due to an ice storm. After three days of heating the home with a wood burning stove I proceeded to locate a generator after calling all of the local home centers I found that home depot in Allentown PA just recieved 40. After immediatly jumping in my car and driving an hour only 15 were left. A 6250 watt gererator consumed about 6 gallons for a twelve hour period. Mutch more costly than our monthly utility bill. If the world supply of fossile fuel depletes the northern climates would be uninhabitable for the winter months. I can't imagine burning that wood stove 24/7 for the winter months plus it would not take long to deplete the trees. I believe that energy should be a highest priority for our government. Maybe $80.00 a barrel oil will spur new developments.

[Richard Hull]

Like I have posted before, $5.00 a gallon gas will not phase some of the snobish 6 figure salaried folks. If the rush to hybrids continues by the avant garde and ultimately catches on in the middle class then $5.00/gallon gas wouldn't really impact these folks much either.

We'll just have to see how much the public will take before the real energy search begins.

When I was growing up, we lived in an old two story wood frame house built in 1903 with zero central heat. We had a large Quaker State oil stove in the central living room downstairs. we shut of all rooms other than that large room with its registers to the two upstairs bedrooms and only lived in 40% of the dwelliing during the winter. The bathroom had zero access to heat and baths were rapid events in the worst of the winter.

Modest to tiny living spaces may become the norm in the future.

The solution to everything other than transportation is electricity. That is what must never stop flowing.

Richard Hull

[AnGuy]

>The solution to everything other than transportation is electricity. That is what must never stop flowing.

Electricity could never replace heating oil. We can barely transport sufficient electricity as it is. The instructure cost to use electricity for heating would be astronomical.

However Coal could be used. Although Large scale use and delivery would be a huge problem. When Coal fueled the world, the population was a tiny fraction compared to today's population. I suspect the answer would be very large apartment complexes with very tiny apartments heated using a coal fired steam plant. I think this would be far more feasible that trying to deliver coal to tens of millions of homes. Plus it would be easier to deliver other living staples (Food, clothing, water, etc) to a large group of people, packed in a small area, then if they are spread all over the place.

>We'll just have to see how much the public will take before the real energy search begins.

Well, initially I think we will first experience a global recession before Gas reaches $5.00 a gallon. People will cut back consumption before it reaches that price, decreasing demand. Any significant global recession could hide oil peak for perhaps a decade. Back in 2000 there was an oil supply issue, but the recession of 2001 and the Sars epidemic in Asia cut demand so that the prices fell significantly until 2004. If a recession starts soon, every will forget about oil peak, while they worry about thier jobs and cut back spending and consumption. This is why I think I may have up to decade before it gets ugly, but I could be wrong.

[Adam Szendrey]

Living in tiny holes in a huge block cramped full of people, with almost zero free living space? What kind of living is that? It's annoying enough to live in a flat in a house where others live. If our future is to become true slaves of our own **** up economy (whoops , that may be the present....) which is the result of the common human behaviour (being a primitive species), i don't want to be part of it....I will never truly understand (probably) why we humans live like this (in the past, the present, and the future)...it's insane...nevermind, it's late night here, had to purge my rumblings .
Btw...what 'bout small local fission plants? Using one of the safe reactor types (which have a negative thermal coefficient). Fission will sooner or later be accepted, as we run out of alternatives...
To be honest,i have no idea what the world will look like int 20 years...should be exciting, something sudden and unexpected might come along, we can never know, right?
Right?

Adam

[Edward Miller]

Coal releases more nuclear material (uranium) into the air that all the fission power plants combined. I just finished reading the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. I highly recommend it. Summary: societies that destroy the environment they require for survival soon die out.

[Richard Hull]

Man just will not go away due to even massive environmental collapse. Likewise, a massive global nuclear exchange or the worst raging pandemic imaginable couldn't take us out. The result might just be a more planet friendly 6 million world wide population, perhaps.

Of course, there are the recent "sky is falling" predictions (asteroids, commets, super volcanoes, mag field shifts and disappearances, etc.).

Should we wake up, energy wise, Fission will be our savior. Coal is a big plus option if fision is cast aside and if fusion or some other "out of the blue" source isn't found. If it gets where coal is the choice, we have about 300-500 years worth of it at hand.

Unless we are a lot more crafty than I give us credit for, the great "thinning of the herd" is coming at us in some form like a freight train. Adam, should he survive, or if it occurs in his lifetime, might have no problems with cramped living spaces in the end. I hope I am doin' th' dirt nap before it hits.

Richard Hull

[Adam Szendrey]

Assuming the worst case scenario....
Living space might not be a problem in the end....but what will the remaining population do? Will we learn? Or will we start a war over resources, and the ruins of our civilization?
I might not have a problem with living space, but i suspect that would be the least of my concerns then...again, assuming a worst case scenario.
If i'm lucky (am i...) i will live for another 60 years or so. A lot of things can happen in that time.

Adam

[Paul_Schatzkin]

I am reasonably certain I can survive the deluge, should it come during my lifetime. My qestion is: without high-speed Internet, HDTV and TiVo, why would I want to?

--PS

[Alex Aitken]

We currently pay around $6 US per gallon, 80% of that is tax.

RH, maybe you meant 6 figure salary, 5 figures is only 10 000+.

We can build containers that will hold liquid nitrogen without serious loss for weeks, somehow I think with modern methods we could insulate a house at the north pole so well it could be heated with a candle.

I think energy will get more expensive, its almost inevitable, when oil runs out plastics may become expensive enough to be fashonable again and people will complain it used to be burnt for cheap power. Fission is safe is done well, but fission on a budget may always be messy and when the cost of decomissioning is added it will probably always be more expensive than the power we buy now. Assuming noone cracks fusion in the next 100 years fission may be the only long term solution. Personally I see breeders as the best bet, but these are the least safe intrinsically.

[AnGuy]

>We can build containers that will hold liquid nitrogen without serious loss for weeks, somehow I think with modern methods we could insulate a house at the north pole so well it could be heated with a candle.

Unlikely. First off is the cost. How much does that LN dewar cost? Now imagine the cost if it was the size of a home.

Homes (at least in the US) are inadquately insulated. The first place to start is replacing single pane windows. The second think is to put more insulation in the walls (not so easy).

You will never be able to heat a home with just a candle, but its probably feasible to reduce heating costs by 80% to 90% with better insulation and more efficient furnaces. Although all that effort is going to have a substantial cost. It takes energy to upgrade homes to make them more efficient.

>when oil runs out plastics may become expensive enough to be fashonable again

When oil shortages do arrive, few will thinking about fashion. Most will be focused on getting food on the table and keeping thier jobs. There are tens of millions of jobs in the US that are dependant on cheap oil. Those jobs will disappear forever. Even many of those multi-millions working in finance or high tech will become jobless, and won't be concerned with fashion either.

>Fission is safe is done well....

Unfortunately Fission will never be able to replace the energy production from oil and Ngas. We would need to build about 50,000 fission plants (globally) to replace oil and gas. I think its technically unfeastible. Plus, poor countries will take short cuts that lead to enviromental disasters and probably a few meltdowns to boot.

>Personally I see breeders as the best bet, but these are the least safe intrinsically.

I don't believe anyone has yet built a successful commerical breeder plant yet. As far as I know the only country that is seriously persuing breeders is India. Everyone else abandoned the technology. Pehaps India will get lucky and solve all of the problems holding them back from commerical use.


>Assuming noone cracks fusion in the next 100 years fission may be the only long term solution.

I think the US and other countries with large coal reserves will make coal the primary source for electicity generation. While there is strong support for the enviroment in the US, I think when push comes to shove, that support will be abandoned. I have no doubt the third world and emering economcies (like china and india) will have no problem burning coal or anything else.

Its ironic that the greens can't wait until the oil runs out, and that that can't see that its end represents an global enviromental disaster.

[Richard Hull]

I 100% agree on coal. It will be used! As we choke on it,the fission nukes will look less nasty. Breeders especially the thorium cycle systems may just be dusted off as an idea whose time has come.

I am confident that we, in the US., will use oil well past the $5.00/gallon mark regardless of rationing. The Europeans are doing it already and are happy as clams. (within limits).

As of this wiritng I have never paid $2.00/gallon for gas in my life. (I pump only regular) I can see doing it this year though.

I remember in my youth getting the stuff at the local Spur or Tank Car stations during gas wars for 21.9 cents/gallon as I tooled up in my 64 Lincoln Convertable with its thirsty 430 cu in mill. ( I have owned and restored over 20 of those monster Lincolns 59-69)

I now drive a collection of "Rice Rockets", mostly mid to late 80's Toyotas, Honda, and Nissans. Emotionally, I miss those massive 2.6 ton Lincolns, but their time is past.

We are seeing a final transition from oil to .........whatever.

Richard Hull

P.S. I did mean six figure salaries. Thanks. I have corrected the error.

[3l]

Hi Folks:

The sunglasses of the twentieth century are finally coming off.
In this country we still do silly things.
But that is slamming to a halt.
Centralised energy will be one of them.
The costs of generation vs delivery costs will tip over in the next five years. Economies (?) of scale will fade away as fuel costs escallate. 99% of all utilities generated go to large urban centers.
the remaining percent is to the suberbs surounding the city. Nearly all transport costs stem from the delivery to support these cities..ie workers..goods...industry.
My conclusion is that centralized cites will fall away as the major
centers and decentralized support and housing will rule the day.
With terror strikes on major hubs like New York, Atlanta and La, security issues will prompt an irrevocable exedus from the cities.
That will stop the mad dream of sprawl dead in it's tracks.
Houses will change all together.
Wooden nineteenth century houses will be out ...metal buildings with loads of insulation in.
Houses will be multigenerational and a load safer than the wooden fire traps presently being thrown up like topsy.
I predict houses will be built with walls insulated with blown fiberglass fiber with outside walls insulated with 4 to 6 feet of insulation. That way you get all the benefits of underground living without tons of dirt pressing on your building. All utilities will be done on site. Septic ,water pumping,
electricity, heating...all solar powered.
12 volt systems will rule the roust....
with a few 110 volt items on the inverter.
This is my plan for the next few years.
Buy land way outside the city. (30-40 miles.)
This precludes tax hikes as a city grows.
Plan for zero utilities and buy the cheaper land that has no access to power. Way cheaper!

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech

[Mike Veldman]

I like your ideas for the future Larry. I've had the drop out of society bend since returning from military service in 75, even had a start on it until I decided to move three states away twenty plus years back, now I'm doing it again. I've always planned to live self sufficient in a place I could heat with a candle and cool with an ice cube. But I'm just not too sure that's the way of the near future for most folks. As an interesting example. My current home is 100% hydronic solar heat with woodfired backup and a little propane boiler unit for those possible long stays away from home in the brief cold season. The final backup is electric but will only run when the backup power generator runs. I designed and built this system in a modular fasion and retrofitted it into the house with an eye to removing it when I sell. What's funny about that is I had the place appraised recently with an eye to the future. The house appraises well being a 2700'sq custom home on two acres surrounded by yuppie homes. What's funny is the appraiser telling me that the solar heat is a detriment and will drive the price down. Of course that matters not since I'd planned to remove it all anyway, but still, an interesting comment.

mike

[htmagic]

> I've always planned to live self sufficient in a place I could heat with a candle and cool with an ice cube.

So get a Stirling engine. Some will run off the heat of your hand and if you put it on an ice cube, it will run but backwards! Use the Stirling engine to generate electricity. As long as there is a temperature differential between a heat source and heat sink, it will run. Some companies are starting to think hard about Stirling engines and some are even using them for heat pumps and micro-cogeneration.

[Richard Hull]

Steriling engines are cool, but for real energy they are really bad. It is important to realize that the energy input is inefficiently translated to mechanical energy and that the energy out is related to temperature gradient.

Large delta T's and massive surface areas in huge sterlings are required to get even marginal, usable shaft energies. The stirling is much like the electrostatic motor in that its uses are very limited and don't compare well with most any other source of shaft energy in current useage. For special apps or where you have massive amounts of waste heat from another process, a stirling can be used for simple tasks. Specialized working fluids can reduce sizes, but there is still that energy input versus output issue that is the snag.

If one has 20 hp of waste heat that is localized, a 6 hp sterling might be fashioned. Unfortunately in most engineering scenarios, 20hp of waste heat is considered a serious leak or design flaw and a waste of energy. it typically demands better engineering of the original heat source losses with attempts to save and cap that 20hp of waste heat and not religate it to stirling engine fodder.

Richard Hull