| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » www.rolf-martens.com: US, UK stay in Iraq; "green" kills in |
|
Page 1 of 19 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| LongmuirG |
 Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mr. Martens --
Perhaps there is something here that you can explain to the rest of us.
You are a self-declared Marxist and proponent of nuclear power. The
kind of person who writes in the London Independent (or gets quoted
approvingly) is a closet Marxist, or at least a closet Nomenklatura
"wannabe". You must have assured yourself that nuclear power is not
incompatible with a Marxist worldview. So what makes the Closet people
at the Independent oppose nuclear power? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rolf Martens |
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <7_LYf.51158$d5.207275@newsb.telia.net>, rolf.martens@comhem.se
says...
[quote:8ff933d8b2]
In article <1144008347.742728.171680@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
Mr. Martens --
Perhaps there is something here that you can explain to the rest of us.
You are a self-declared Marxist and proponent of nuclear power. The
kind of person who writes in the London Independent (or gets quoted
approvingly) is a closet Marxist, or at least a closet Nomenklatura
"wannabe". You must have assured yourself that nuclear power is not
incompatible with a Marxist worldview. So what makes the Closet people
at the Independent oppose nuclear power?
Hello LongmuirG,
[/quote:8ff933d8b2]
(See other recent posting.)
My reply to you is now at my homepage too, with some
writing errors edited out, as item NWBC 145 in my section
"News with brief comments".
Rolf M. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LongmuirG |
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mr. Martens --
Thanks for investing the time to explain some of the background on
Marxism, pretend-Leftists, and nuclear power. Very interesting -- at
least to those of us with a genuine concern for the future of the
common man.
Your piece reminded me of a comment by a US political reporter, Brit
Hume, who observed that "All politics is Junior High [School]". He was
referring to the adolescent habit of forming cliques, in-groups, and
worshipping the alpha-male (or alpha-female) -- which unfortunately
also describes the political process in much of the western world.
The hypocrisy of the "limousine liberals" is notorious -- living in
gated communities (to keep out the poor); working in luxurious
wood-paneled offices; jetting around the world in fossil-fueled planes
to oppose developments that might improve the living standards of the
"little people". Yet no matter how obvious their hypocrisy becomes
(think of super-rich pretend-leftie Teddy Kennedy opposing offshore
wind power near his palatial estate on Cape Cod), they can still rely
on unquestioning support from the left-wing "Amen corner".
Maybe we should not call that chorus "left-wingers", which implies that
they have a coherent political philosophy. Maybe we should simply call
them "juveniles". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott A Crosby |
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Apr 2006 05:07:53 -0700, xnichols@hotmail.com writes:
[quote:1014b2dc9e]Until there is no chance of another Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island, until
there is a safe method of disposal for nuclear waste, until we can be
sure that nuclear power stations won't be swamped by rising sea
levels during the coming century, I would suggest that the technology
is far too dangerous to be a solution to the world's energy needs.
Wind Power and Solar Power offer a far safer and almost limitless
source of energy into the future. Using these already well proven and
improving technologies, we can exploit our oil and coal reserves for
thousands of years into the future, but limit their exploitation to a
level that the natural processes for sequestering carbon from the
atmosphere can deal with.
[/quote:1014b2dc9e]
Would you care to tell me where I can find an affordable source of 1.2
TW of reliable electricity, which will grow over the next century to
be 6TW as the rest fo the world improves their standard of living?
If the electricity source is unreliable, its use will be limited. If
it is expensive, it won't be affordable --- there's a reason that
pensioners tend to die in heat waves. Maybe we could ration
electricity so only the rich have it?
Now, what do *you* propose is the least-worst place to get it?
You seem to be advocating rationing. In that case, who gets gasoline
and electricity? First-worlders? Third worlders? Who gets to *decide*
who gets a ration.
Obviously, the only winners will be those with influence and power.
If you're for democratization of energy, you have no choice but to
find a plentiful source of energy cheap enough that everyone can have
their share.
Scott |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:50 am |
|
|
|
|
These are the figures for potential Renewable Energy sources: -
(Figures in Terawatts; 1TW = 1*10^12 watts)
Resource base TW Recoverable resource TW
Solar radiation 90,000 1,000
Wind 300-1200 10
Wave 1-10 0.5-1
Hydro 10-30 1.5-2
Tidal 3 0.1
Biomass 30 10
Geothermal 30 ?
(Current World energy demand is around 12 Terawatts per annum).
Scott A Crosby wrote:
[quote:c10d8ad555]On 6 Apr 2006 05:07:53 -0700, xnichols@hotmail.com writes:
Until there is no chance of another Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island, until
there is a safe method of disposal for nuclear waste, until we can be
sure that nuclear power stations won't be swamped by rising sea
levels during the coming century, I would suggest that the technology
is far too dangerous to be a solution to the world's energy needs.
Wind Power and Solar Power offer a far safer and almost limitless
source of energy into the future. Using these already well proven and
improving technologies, we can exploit our oil and coal reserves for
thousands of years into the future, but limit their exploitation to a
level that the natural processes for sequestering carbon from the
atmosphere can deal with.
snip
If you're for democratization of energy, you have no choice but to
find a plentiful source of energy cheap enough that everyone can have
their share.
Scott[/quote:c10d8ad555] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LongmuirG |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
xnich...@hotmail.com denied that he is now, or has ever been, H2-PV
Now. He also revealed the source for his outdated numbers:
[quote:6bac2cb730]The reference is cited in footnote 2 to the first post in the thread
"Renewable Energy"
[/quote:6bac2cb730]
'nuff said! When "xnich" speaks, the little people had better pay
attention to his footnotes in other threads.
He (or she) also opined:
[quote:6bac2cb730]Your main problem appears to be that you don't like the political
stereotype you think your debating with. This stereotype is someone
you've created in your own head
[/quote:6bac2cb730]
Would that were the case! Your casual expectation that the peons are
going to hang on your every footnote suggests that you are a typical
Nomenklatura wannabe. But if you are a serious student of energy --
and not just another elitist intent on using faux environmentalism as a
tool for grinding the poor into the ground -- then you might want to
look around at the punters on your side. Remember good socialist
Stalin's expression "useful idiots"? If you really are serious about
energy, you might want to think about how to distinguish yourself from
them.
One way would be to learn more about nuclear energy. It is not the
ideal answer, but it may be the least unacceptable option. Nuclear
energy is probably a key component of keeping that historical anomaly
which underpins modern civilization -- access to energy which is
plentiful, reliable, affordable, and unobtrusive.
Since your red-herring about nuclear proliferation went nowhere in this
discussion, you have fallen back to the usual watermelon concerns about
nuclear "waste". But what is nuclear "waste"? It is material which is
releasing energy. There is a word for that -- Fuel! Treating nuclear
"waste" as a problem instead of an opportunity is simply bad
engineering.
Forgive me for putting a reference into the body of the text, instead
of hiding it in a footnote to another thread. Read "The Nuclear Energy
Option", by Prof. Bernard L. Cohen, Plenum Press NY (1990). It is
relatively brief, clear, & objective, with lots of references to the
literature. If you really are a student of energy, it will give you
lots to think about -- might even change your opinion! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rolf Martens |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1144407041.891869.324560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
xnichols@hotmail.com says...
[quote:2f3cffb466]
These are the figures for potential Renewable Energy sources: -
(Figures in Terawatts; 1TW = 1*10^12 watts)
[/quote:2f3cffb466]
Sorry, but the actual potential for "renewable" energy
sources is zero, zilch, nothing.
Those called "renewable" by some ignorant people are
all dependent on the sun, which has only a finite
lifelength and does not come with a spare cartridge
either.
Effective is nuclear energy, for which (even for fission)
there's enough uranium and thorium for millions of years.
An idiocy to pretend that certain very expensive and
impractical energy sources would have "an advantage"
of "renewability".
Rolf M. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rolf Martens |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1144423202.920581.8760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
[quote:c6135529e4]
xnich...@hotmail.com showed the limits of his understanding once again:
These are the figures for potential Renewable Energy sources: -
[snip]
(Current World energy demand is around 12 Terawatts per annum).
Actually, current global energy demand is closer to 15 TeraWatts --
your figures are out of date. No surprise there.
So, according to your (unsourced) numbers, the "Recoverable resource
TW" from wind is 10 TW.
Taking this really slowly now -- "10" is less than "15" or even "12".
By your own (unsourced) figures, there is not enough available wind
energy to replace even current energy demand.
And remember that current energy demand should go up by a factor of 2
or 3, just to bring a 21st Century living standard to all the poor
people in world.
And then it might have to go up by another factor of 2 because of the
low energy amplification of "renewable" energy sources -- we have to
put a lot more energy in per unit of energy back out than with high
amplification sources like fossil fuels; that means we need to produce
a lot more "total" energy to have the same amount of usable "net"
energy as with fossils.
So let's take a round number, and say that the world really needs to be
able to supply 100 TW from "renewables". Your (unsourced) figures
claim that wind might supply 10 TW -- that is 10% of the need.
Why am I going on & on about this in such boring details? Because a
certain "xnich...@hotmail.com" grandly claimed in a post further back
up this thread:
"Wind Power and Solar Power offer a far safer and almost limitless
source of energy into the future."
Since "10 TW" from wind is not "almost limitless", you were either (a)
spewing the usual watermelon eco-hypocrite elitist progressive liberal
anti-human nonsense, or (b) you were obfuscating that you are nothing
more than the sadly-misnamed H2-PV Now in another of his many guises,
pushing the delusion of solar power.
[/quote:c6135529e4]
Hear, hear!
On these simple facts, both Marx adherents and non-ditto can agree.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rolf Martens |
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1144436762.958603.127120@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
LongmuirG@aol.com says...
[quote:48235d177d]
xnich...@hotmail.com denied that he is now, or has ever been, H2-PV
Now. He also revealed the source for his outdated numbers:
The reference is cited in footnote 2 to the first post in the thread
"Renewable Energy"
'nuff said! When "xnich" speaks, the little people had better pay
attention to his footnotes in other threads.
He (or she) also opined:
Your main problem appears to be that you don't like the political
stereotype you think your debating with. This stereotype is someone
you've created in your own head
Would that were the case! Your casual expectation that the peons are
going to hang on your every footnote suggests that you are a typical
Nomenklatura wannabe.
[/quote:48235d177d]
That seems to be the case, yes. Some other things suggest that too.
[quote:48235d177d]But if you are a serious student of energy --
and not just another elitist intent on using faux environmentalism as a
tool for grinding the poor into the ground -- then you might want to
look around at the punters on your side. Remember good socialist
Stalin's expression "useful idiots"? If you really are serious about
energy, you might want to think about how to distinguish yourself from
them.
One way would be to learn more about nuclear energy. It is not the
ideal answer, but it may be the least unacceptable option.
[/quote:48235d177d]
I for one hold it to be "the ideal anwser".
[quote:48235d177d]Nuclear
energy is probably a key component of keeping that historical anomaly
which underpins modern civilization -- access to energy which is
plentiful, reliable, affordable, and unobtrusive.
[/quote:48235d177d]
It's not an anomaly at all, I hold. After those people who rule the
world today have been overthrown and put into prison, respectively,
for some of them, probably hung, and the vast majority rules, that
will be the normal state. One that devlops inte even more plenty too.
[quote:48235d177d]Since your red-herring about nuclear proliferation went nowhere in this
discussion, you have fallen back to the usual watermelon concerns about
nuclear "waste". But what is nuclear "waste"? It is material which is
releasing energy. There is a word for that -- Fuel! Treating nuclear
"waste" as a problem instead of an opportunity is simply bad
engineering.
Forgive me for putting a reference into the body of the text, instead
of hiding it in a footnote to another thread. Read "The Nuclear Energy
Option", by Prof. Bernard L. Cohen, Plenum Press NY (1990). It is
relatively brief, clear, & objective, with lots of references to the
literature. If you really are a student of energy, it will give you
lots to think about -- might even change your opinion!
[/quote:48235d177d]
It seems to me to be rather optimistic to hope for that.
But B L. Cohen (whom I haven't read) is probably good in the subject.
One website which I've been recommending is that of John McCarthy,
and I seem to remember him quoting from that writer on uranium
resources, for instance.
John McCarthy: The Sustainabilty of Human Progress:
http://www.formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LongmuirG |
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The sadly-misnamed H2-PV Now responded:
[quote:ad0261aaba]These days you find solar panels along highway call boxes,
street lights, many building rooftops. It's everywhere, through
residential neighborhoods to large public buildings.
[/quote:ad0261aaba]
You are absolutely right. There are a few places where photovoltaics
are in use as a practical solution to a problem -- as well as all those
other places where photovoltaics are used only because the taxpayer is
subsidizing them directly, through tax policy, or through mandates.
The oil industry does indeed use photovoltaics, frequently at wellheads
for data monitoring & transmission. It is cheaper to put in a
photovoltaic panel & a battery than to run a power line half a mile
just to provide a few amps. No question there are niche uses where
photovoltaics make sense today. However, that it not what we are
discussing here. We are talking about TeraWatt-level large scale power
supplies. And photovoltaics are simply not a player on that level.
If photovoltaics had the potential that you suggest, then why are they
not providing most of the power in Egypt -- which needs the power, has
lots of open space, lots of sunshine, no EPA or (unbeheaded)
environmentalists to get in the way? Why aren't the deserts of Saudi
Arabia covered with photovoltaic installations -- they have everything
that Egypt has, plus more money than you can shake a stick at? It
would make sense for Saudi to use photovoltaics for domestic use, and
export more revenue-earning oil.
There is a simple reason why photovoltaics are not being used for large
scale power generation in places where it would make sense -- simply,
the technology is not there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott A Crosby |
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 7 Apr 2006 03:50:41 -0700, xnichols@hotmail.com writes:
[quote:e0e6bffa3b]These are the figures for potential Renewable Energy sources: -
(Figures in Terawatts; 1TW = 1*10^12 watts)
Resource base TW Recoverable resource TW
Solar radiation 90,000 1,000
Wind 300-1200 10
Wave 1-10 0.5-1
Hydro 10-30 1.5-2
Tidal 3 0.1
Biomass 30 10
Geothermal 30 ?
(Current World energy demand is around 12 Terawatts per annum).
[/quote:e0e6bffa3b]
This is a useful table, now lets think it through:
Hydropower is already proven. Wave+Tidal are, AFAIK, more hypothetical
because there are very few production plants. In any case,
Hydro+Wave+Tidal add up to 25% of current demand. Wind or Biomass,
individually, would only barely equal current demand, and, together,
would equal no more than a third of our future demand. (60TW, 6
billion people * 10kW/person)
Biomass would require signifigantly more cropland be dedicated to
growing energy crops (probably requiring pesticides and
fertilizer). More importantly, those thousands of square miles of land
would \be a monoculture farm instead of be natural wilds.
Wind is unreliable. Solar is unreliable and very expensive.
Fepeating the part you snipped:
If the electricity source is unreliable, its use will be limited. If
it is expensive, it won't be affordable --- there's a reason that
pensioners tend to die in heat waves. Maybe we could ration
electricity so only the rich have it?
You never did answer the question: What is the least worst place to
get energy?
Scott |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LongmuirG |
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Scott A Crosby wrote (in part):
[quote:6142af1adf]Hydro+Wave+Tidal add up to 25% of current demand. Wind or Biomass,
individually, would only barely equal current demand, and, together,
would equal no more than a third of our future demand. (60TW, 6
billion people * 10kW/person)
[/quote:6142af1adf]
Agreed -- global energy supply would have to be several times the
current level, in order to provide today's 4.5 Billion underserved
human beings with a standard of living similar to that of the
approximately 2 Billion human beings in developed countries. Of
course, in the decades it will take to accomplish that, the current
global population of 6.5 Billion will grow to 9 Billion or more --
pushing energy demand up even further.
But let's not forget what may be the biggest driver of increased energy
demand as the world transitions beyond fossil fuels -- the growing
energy input required by the energy supply industry itself.
Good data is hard to come by, but for the sake of discussion let's
guess that today's fossil fuel industry returns about 10 Btu for each 1
Btu invested in it. In a 60 TW world powered by conventional fossil
fuels (if they were available), about 6 of those TW would be required
to support the energy supply industry itself, leaving 54 TW for net
use.
Even through the haze of poor data, it is clear that any
post-conventional fossil energy source will have much lower energy
amplification -- even if that replacement were un-conventional fossil
fuels such as tar sands or shale oil. Again, for the sake of
discussion, lets guess that the replacement energy sources on average
return 2 Btu for each 1 Btu invested in them. To provide the same 54
TW of net energy, the world would need to produce 108 TW in total --
about 7 times current global energy production.
Against that scale of demand, most so-called 'renewables' sink into
insignificance. Photovoltaics might some day be able to supply energy
at that level, in some far distant future after a number of major
technical breakthroughs. But today the only viable technology with
sufficient identified resources to provide a long-term large-scale
energy supply is the nuclear breeder reactor. Which helps explain what
China & India are doing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott A Crosby |
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10 Apr 2006 14:42:57 -0700, "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> writes:
[quote:dba3644119]Scott A Crosby wrote (in part):
But let's not forget what may be the biggest driver of increased energy
demand as the world transitions beyond fossil fuels -- the growing
energy input required by the energy supply industry itself.
[/quote:dba3644119]
I think that this depends on exactly where you draw the lines. I can't
envision any technology that has a low energy amplification being
widely used, for exactly these reasons.
[quote:dba3644119]Even through the haze of poor data, it is clear that any
post-conventional fossil energy source will have much lower energy
amplification -- even if that replacement were un-conventional fossil
fuels such as tar sands or shale oil. Again, for the sake of
discussion, lets guess that the replacement energy sources on average
return 2 Btu for each 1 Btu invested in them. To provide the same 54
TW of net energy, the world would need to produce 108 TW in total --
about 7 times current global energy production.
[/quote:dba3644119]
There's also a semantic nuance. Lets hypothesize that 100PJ of coal is
mined --- at a cost of 5PJ of energy. That coal is converted to oil,
at a cost of 10PJ. Do we count the energy amplification as 100PJ/5PJ
or 100PJ/15PJ? What about if we switched to internal combustion
engines using coal slurry directly? 100PJ/5PJ or 100PJ/15PJ?
[quote:dba3644119]Against that scale of demand, most so-called 'renewables' sink into
insignificance. Photovoltaics might some day be able to supply energy
at that level, in some far distant future after a number of major
technical breakthroughs. But today the only viable technology with
sufficient identified resources to provide a long-term large-scale
energy supply is the nuclear breeder reactor. Which helps explain what
China & India are doing.
[/quote:dba3644119]
AFAIK, we don't *need* breeder reactors, as we have at least a few
decades of once-through fuel supplies already identified. And, unlike
oil, uranium ore has so many cheap high-grade supplies already known
that it hasn't had much prospecting.
I remember reading that India is choosing breeder reactors because
they have domestic supplies of Thorium not Uranium. Thorium can't be
fissioned, however, it can be bred into U233, which can be
fissioned. The political necessity to be domestically self-sufficient
in nuclear fuel means that they have the technical necessity of using
breeders.
Scott |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LongmuirG |
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
H2-PV Never, or maybe xinch, or possibly one of the others in the
stable wrote (in part):
[quote:fe1b7d216a]Good data is not hard to come by. Google will fill up your empty head.
[/quote:fe1b7d216a]
Yes, lads. It looks like you have identified your problem right there!
Neither the Internet nor Google have any kind of filter to screen out
nonsense. Just look at the kinds of things that H2-PV Boring puts up
on the system! Remember the Golden Rule -- always engage brain.
The boys in the band went on to claim:
[quote:fe1b7d216a]The return on investment is one acre of PV returns 1050% the first year
in gross energy production capacity.
[/quote:fe1b7d216a]
Well, that explains why photovoltaics are so profitable. That explains
the long line of politicians promoting new taxes on super-profitable
photovoltaics. That explains why all the subsidies and mandates for
photovoltaics were cancelled years ago. That explains why the
south-west of the US is overrun with merchant power producers, pumping
MegaWatts out of their huge photovoltaic arrays and pumping taxes into
State & County governments. Remember -- always engage brain. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Lancaster |
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LongmuirG wrote:
[quote:17350b9b21]The obvious explanation for the Chinese not employing photovoltaics on
a vast scale is that photovoltaics are still a number of major
technological breakthroughs away from being a serious large-scale
energy source.
[/quote:17350b9b21]
Conventional Silicon pv panels are presently a net energy sink and do
not have the remotest prayer of ever becoming a net energy source.
Not one net watthour of silicon pv electricity has ever been produced.
Newer CIGS technology may get us as much as ONE THIRD of the way towards
renewability and sustainability.
See various entries in http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp and the
tutorial at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:47 am
|
|