Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
I know Dan and you have been raising the issue at every opportunity, but
the general population has such a poor knowledge of
science it's falling on deaf ears. Cassandra had the same problem.

France may be "electricity independent because it has 70 - 80% nukes, but
over 70% of their unranium is processed and imported from Manitoba Canada and
the rest comes from Mother Russia!

Dan, it's been a good while since you've heard anything other than
"we're basically pretty screwed" out of me. You haven't heard
anything different today. I am a member of the peak oil doomer choir
at this point, due to the fact that I just plumb ran out of arguments
to the contrary, all mine got shot down in a blaze of glory and the
worst case scenarios started happening. They have been happening now
ever since hurricane katrina which *should* have been the "market
signal" per the hirsch report, and STILL nothing is happening to
mitigate. Not too little too late, that would imply something, but
NOTHING.

What I am saying is that this is our option, no other exists, either
exploit every possible resource for tomorrows fix of oil, while
simultaneously developing X,Y, and Z at full tilt, or get ready for
some load shedding. The load shedding has in fact already begun, it
is what is behind the never-ending slide in the us economy, The world
economy comes next, and the wait will not be long.

On Mar 28, 7:19 pm, "Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote:
-- "Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.03.27.21.24.33.902678@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:00:39 -0300, Len McLaughlin wrote:

Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad
show a freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400
miles on a gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me.
This seems like a group that could clear up the confusion. Any
takers? -lm

Listen closely. It's 400 ton-miles per gallon.

==================
I figured I must be missing something but I'll be ready if I see/hear it
again. I knew that steel on steel gave the least friction but never
really though about the shadow effect or never heard the 10/1 ratio. I
thank everyone for their thoughts and input. If we could really clean up
coal and re-design the steam engine to increase efficiency, it would be
good-bye energy crisis....... for a while. -lm



thing is, if you include sequestration in coal, the eroei goes to shit.
The steam engine does need to be revisited, however, what REALLY needs
research time is batteries. The combined cycle is approaching
thermodynamic maximums in terms of efficiency so there REALLY just isn't
much room for improvement.

reallistically, there isn't exactly an energy crisis. There are 2 energy
crises.

1 is a grid energy crisis due to global warming and opposition to nuclear
energy. This one could *easily* be solved by STOPPING THE BASELESS
OPPOSITION OF NUCLEAR! BTW, build windmills too, as fast as you can,
they're great, but you can't run a grid on them, you need the nuclear too.

2 is a liquid fuels crisis. this one is *hard*. The problem here is that
the worlds infrastructure (particularly the US, but basically the
industrialized world) is constructed with abundant oil as a requirement.
This problem is far less tractable and far more immediate.

Solving 2) involves the following steps, 1, build nuclear power plants in
QUANTITY! use the energy to do the following. Remove coal power
generation from the electric grid. use the coal production thus freed up
in ctl plants. While you're doing that, abandon suburbia as a bad job and
start in with the apartment buildings. While this is all going on, work
hard on development and deployment of PHEVs, this will naturally increase
grid load enormously, so you'll need more nuc plants.

When I support nuclear, it's not because I think it's perfect or that all
the bugs are worked out, it's because the options are nuclear or death.
The sooner more people accept that everything has risks and drawbacks the
sooner we can start to solve these problems.

I know Dan and you have been raising the issue at every opportunity, but
the general population has such a poor knowledge of
science it's falling on deaf ears. Cassandra had the same problem.

France may be "electricity independent because it has 70 - 80% nukes, but

bill wrote:

Dan, it's been a good while since you've heard anything other than
"we're basically pretty screwed" out of me. You haven't heard
anything different today. I am a member of the peak oil doomer choir
at this point, due to the fact that I just plumb ran out of arguments
to the contrary, all mine got shot down in a blaze of glory and the
worst case scenarios started happening. They have been happening now
ever since hurricane katrina which *should* have been the "market
signal" per the hirsch report, and STILL nothing is happening to
mitigate. Not too little too late, that would imply something, but
NOTHING.

What I am saying is that this is our option, no other exists, either
exploit every possible resource for tomorrows fix of oil, while
simultaneously developing X,Y, and Z at full tilt, or get ready for
some load shedding. The load shedding has in fact already begun, it
is what is behind the never-ending slide in the us economy, The world
economy comes next, and the wait will not be long.

Hi Bill,
Yea, the numbers stink. And what really gets me is that there are a lot
of very smart people in high places that do understand the implications
of the numbers. Some that have known for a long time, like decades. Lots
of folks that understand the implications of our economic condition.
There must be folks up there that see the bigger picture. Yet this is
not addressed publicly. Boggle.

And you know well that when you start hearing this stuff it is just
natural to reach into your lifetime experience that we can treat energy
as limitless. People reach naturally for 'it must be wrong'. And most,
unlike you, just won't look at the numbers. Belief is so much simpler.

Then there are the likes of CERA. And that the USGS, IEA and the EIA
blindly use the numbers from CERA. It is another boggle. From that, they
publicly predict that production will rise to 120 mb/d by 2025. Anyone
that takes a good look knows this is a blatant lie. The reason that the
EIA has gotten the price of oil so wrong over the last several years was
because of CERA. But they keep using the source.

Then there is holding up 'The Limits to Growth' like a trophy about
being wrong. Because it is 'common knowledge' that they were wrong. Here
is a well done article on this study:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3551

Great article.

Why the world is so out of control....?

That would be out of the slaves control.

Did you see google yet? startling...

http://www.google.com/
(offer only available on Saturday.)

Best, Dan.

On Mar 29, 1:08 pm, Roy Batty <royba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
I know Dan and you have been raising the issue at every opportunity, but
the general population has such a poor knowledge of
science it's falling on deaf ears. Cassandra had the same problem.

France may be "electricity independent because it has 70 - 80% nukes, but
over 70% of their unranium is processed and imported from Manitoba Canada and
the rest comes from Mother Russia!

which doesn't really matter. if those sources went away, they could
source from niger or australia, or they could refine from sea water,
or work a little harder to mine their own. Uranium at $25,000/kg
increases the cost of electricity by 1cent/kwh, there's no hint of a
shortage at that price, it refines from coal ash at 150/kg, sea water
at $200/kg, plain old granite at $300/kg, at $25,000/kg,

The French nitrogen cooled reactors are pretty neat.