| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Energy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Energy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 19:07

"....The Paris-based International Energy Agency forecasts that Indian power supply and demand will have to grow five-fold over the next 40 years to fuel its recent pace of economic growth...."

One of the last sentences in this Globe and Mail piece was the most thought provoking. I think this will be the central factor in our energy future. How many of the hundreds of millions in what used to be called the third world will continue to struggle for a middle class, consumerist lifestyle, something at least approaching that of the west, if not matching it, and how many in the west will cling to a high consumption way of life? If most or all do, with only a nod here and there to conservation and the environment, then a crunch may be coming.
 
But who will blink first? Those that are poor today want their cut of the pie, and indeed why not? Others have revelled in material goods, through no special merit of their own for the most part, so why not? Many in the first world, particularly the US, but also in other places, don't accept the idea of limitations. They cling to technological fixes, conspiracy theories, and presumed political maneuvering. Some OPEC countries have backed themselves into a corner, having come to rely on the revenues of oil to keep the populace content and docile. They are not only adverse to turning down the taps, but even subsidize fuel consumption for their own as another readily available perk to keep citizens happy, and thoughts away from reform and/or revolution.
 
As of yet, there is no proven system that can provide not only today's power requirements, but perhaps double or triple this in the near future. Coal and nuclear may be exploited to the maximum, but I have to wonder here how this might go if we have a few more dramatic weather events. Interesting times....
 
 


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 07 Aug 2012 at 19:10
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 21:30
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

How many of the hundreds of millions in what used to be called the third world will continue to struggle for a middle class, consumerist lifestyle, something at least approaching that of the west, if not matching it, and how many in the west will cling to a high consumption way of life? 

The middle class (assuming the term is meaningful and not just a slogan) will always be the middle class no matter how impoverished or wealthy. Class has nothing to do with this topic.

 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 22:52

Originally posted by ralfy ralfy wrote:

Originally posted by Me Me wrote:

Hydrogen, such as fuel cells, is a developed technology ready to go. People argue about as if there are no alternatives to hydrocarbons. That simply isn't true. Entrenched laziness is the only thing keeping petroleum on its pedastool. A Solar-Thermal Hydrogen economy is achievable and simpler than a coal-oil one. The only thing it lacks is an economy of scale.

Completely wrong. A "solar-thermal hydrogen economy" requires petrochemicals. That's the reason why what we think is "achievable and simpler" has not been put in place. What's keeping "petroleum on its pedastool" isn't "entrenched laziness" or similar nonsense but energy returns and petrochemicals.

Err, even after reading your reply to Penguin questioning this statement I still have to query it.
Are you talking about the plastics? Yes, they are petrochemicals, but that is not a problem. We are not burning them and releasing CO2, and we are not about to run out of oils - or sugars - that we can use to synthesise plastics. Especially if we stop burning them!
There is no need for carbon based fuels in a solar-thermal-hydrogen economy. I don't understand what your evidence is or what point your trying to make by insisting that there is.
Quote It's not just running a car "on bloody gunpowder" but making one with "bloody gunpowder." Of course, we can make one "if we wanted to," but very likely not on the scale that we have right now.

With that, trust me, the claim that cars are sustainable "isn't going anywhere."


People aren't going to give up travelling at motor-car speeds, and frankly, your going to have to elaborate why making cars is a problem. What is it you don't like and why?
Quote
Quote Doesn't matter. You don't need to eliminate oil, and unless you think we're going to give up plastics it won't happen. You need to reduce consumption, and particularly burning. Oil is, in the long term, renewable too. And it can be fabricated from sugars.

I am not referring to eliminating the use of oil or of plastics. If any, I am actually giving the same argument, which is why peak oil is inevitable.

Your third sentence is contradicted by your first two.

Your fourth sentence is not relevant as we can't wait "in the long term."

For your last sentence, you need to consider energy returns.


Point 1 - so what if peak oil is inevitable? This just increases the price and makes other forms of energy more competitive.

Point 2 - you do not need to eliminate plastics to substantially reduce demand. There is no contradition. 92% of extracted oil is burned. Only 4% is plastics, and 4% agricultural products. Burning is a waste.

Point 3 - yeah ok.

Point 4 - my point is plastics will always be around, even if oil does run out completely. Oil can be synthesised from plants, the cost may go up substantially but it won't disappear.
Energy returns are lower from solar (hydrogen has 3 times the energy density of petrol by mass) but we can run solar forever. If the sun stops shining we've got bigger problems than no electricity.

Quote It's not a solution but something that we will have to use with other sources of energy to deal with peak oil. That's because of a problem involving an "energy trap":

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/[/quote]
Read it. That's just my point about entrenched laziness.

I'm not saying that we won't lose a few civilisations along they way. That doesn't even really bother me, it happens all the time. This trap only works if people don't understand the long term effects, once one country does, the trap ceases to work. What would you rather, to pay $2 now and get nothing, or $8 now knowing you'll get $10 back tomorrow?

Besides, the article contradicts your argument. It says Wind has equal energy returns to Oil.

Quote The use of prices is ultimately worthless because money can be created easily.

By definition prices are not worthless. A price is a measure of worth.
[quote]The current crisis is proof of that, and that only involves a credit crunch, something which will look like a walk in the park compared to a resource crunch, for which no money creation can solve.

False. Feed, clothe, and house Engineers and a resource crunch - at least an easy one like energy - can be solved.
Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

How many of the hundreds of millions in what used to be called the third world will continue to struggle for a middle class, consumerist lifestyle, something at least approaching that of the west, if not matching it, and how many in the west will cling to a high consumption way of life?

Who cares? That's an economic question not a energy one.
The west has only attained a decadent and consumerist lifestyle by exploiting the hundreds of millions. If the roles reverse and westerners are forced to accept poverty in order to sustain a wealthy Asia then tough. That's how history works.
The rich can maintain their lifestyle by making sure they stay rich.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2012 at 18:03
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

How many of the hundreds of millions in what used to be called the third world will continue to struggle for a middle class, consumerist lifestyle, something at least approaching that of the west, if not matching it, and how many in the west will cling to a high consumption way of life? 

The middle class (assuming the term is meaningful and not just a slogan) will always be the middle class no matter how impoverished or wealthy. Class has nothing to do with this topic.

 
 
I used the term middle class simply to represent those that have the ability to consume and use resources at a rate that is significant in historical terms. If very large numbers of people are consuming high levels of energy resources in the future, billions rather than tens of millions, then this must surely be a factor in energy supply.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2012 at 18:52
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

.

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

How many of the hundreds of millions in what used to be called the third world will continue to struggle for a middle class, consumerist lifestyle, something at least approaching that of the west, if not matching it, and how many in the west will cling to a high consumption way of life?

Who cares? That's an economic question not a energy one.
The west has only attained a decadent and consumerist lifestyle by exploiting the hundreds of millions. If the roles reverse and westerners are forced to accept poverty in order to sustain a wealthy Asia then tough. That's how history works.
The rich can maintain their lifestyle by making sure they stay rich.

Yes, except that it is not likely to work this time around. Exploiting and polluting were easy when there were only a relative few on earth, but today the stakes are higher. Even if the west were to accept poverty (highly unlikely, at least not without a few fireworks), the billions in Asia and elsewhere eager to experience ownership of cars, refrigerators, air conditioning, and all else they had previously been denied, are going to run hard up against the limits of the environment and the resources available to them. Even the wholesale conversion of westerners to spartan environmentalism will not be enough to avoid the effects of global warming and dwindling energy resources. Their numbers do not represent a large enough proportion of the world to have enough effect. They cannot support a wealthy Asia in environmental terms.
 
There is already evidence that the burning of coal and oil are changing weather in ways that may be very dangerous, and that the supply of oil and gas may slip below demand if current trends continue. These things were unheard of 50 years ago; unimaginable 100 years ago, when the west was enjoying its time in the sun. Those in the developing world face a different future than what westerners experienced during their industrial development.
 
In fact we are already seeing the outline of the future taking place. The west is generally cutting back on energy use, although this is modest, as to be expected in democratic socities where many disagree with policies, and will go their own way. Many in poorer regions cannot wait to get their first car, or other energy consuming toy. China is building freeways as fast as cement can be poured, and has superceeded the US as the largest car market. India has designed its own cheap car for the masses. Venezuela encourages maximun energy use with 18 cent a litre gas. What politician is going to tell them they must be content with a bicycle and a generally low consumption lifestyle, as they watch the cavorting of the rich on TV and the internet?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2012 at 00:08
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
The middle class (assuming the term is meaningful and not just a slogan) will always be the middle class no matter how impoverished or wealthy. Class has nothing to do with this topic.
I used the term middle class simply to represent those that have the ability to consume and use resources at a rate that is significant in historical terms.
I know that's what you're doing. I just wish you wouldn't. It muddles things up. Most of the world's population is working class and below (underclass, effective serfs...)  I'm pretty sure that majority uses most energy resources en gros even if not per capita. If not I'd like to see some evidence of it (if I thought it was relevant, which I don't). 
Quote
 If very large numbers of people are consuming high levels of energy resources in the future, billions rather than tens of millions, then this must surely be a factor in energy supply.
Of course. I just don't see any justification for calling them 'middle class'. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2012 at 13:47
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Yes, except that it is not likely to work this time around. Exploiting and polluting were easy when there were only a relative few on earth, but today the stakes are higher. Even if the west were to accept poverty (highly unlikely, at least not without a few fireworks), the billions in Asia and elsewhere eager to experience ownership of cars, refrigerators, air conditioning, and all else they had previously been denied, are going to run hard up against the limits of the environment and the resources available to them. Even the wholesale conversion of westerners to spartan environmentalism will not be enough to avoid the effects of global warming and dwindling energy resources. Their numbers do not represent a large enough proportion of the world to have enough effect. They cannot support a wealthy Asia in environmental terms.
 
There is already evidence that the burning of coal and oil are changing weather in ways that may be very dangerous, and that the supply of oil and gas may slip below demand if current trends continue. These things were unheard of 50 years ago; unimaginable 100 years ago, when the west was enjoying its time in the sun. Those in the developing world face a different future than what westerners experienced during their industrial development.
 
In fact we are already seeing the outline of the future taking place. The west is generally cutting back on energy use, although this is modest, as to be expected in democratic socities where many disagree with policies, and will go their own way. Many in poorer regions cannot wait to get their first car, or other energy consuming toy. China is building freeways as fast as cement can be poured, and has superceeded the US as the largest car market. India has designed its own cheap car for the masses. Venezuela encourages maximun energy use with 18 cent a litre gas. What politician is going to tell them they must be content with a bicycle and a generally low consumption lifestyle, as they watch the cavorting of the rich on TV and the internet?


Yeap. Pretty bad perspective. But it is wrong because of the following: you assume oil will be consumed as today in the future. It won't be like that at all.

The ecological catastrophe model just doesn't make sense. The problem is not pollution itself, but the outdated technology of the internal-combustion engines. That's the obsolete technology that must be replaced, and doing that all the air pollution problems are gone as well.
Replacement? Hydrogen or electricity, either or both. And today we are in the edge of the change. So, why to worry so much about the future? Oil producing countries will have to eat theirs oil in a while.





Edited by pinguin - 09 Aug 2012 at 13:47
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2012 at 17:44
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Yes, except that it is not likely to work this time around. Exploiting and polluting were easy when there were only a relative few on earth, but today the stakes are higher. Even if the west were to accept poverty (highly unlikely, at least not without a few fireworks), the billions in Asia and elsewhere eager to experience ownership of cars, refrigerators, air conditioning, and all else they had previously been denied, are going to run hard up against the limits of the environment and the resources available to them. Even the wholesale conversion of westerners to spartan environmentalism will not be enough to avoid the effects of global warming and dwindling energy resources. Their numbers do not represent a large enough proportion of the world to have enough effect. They cannot support a wealthy Asia in environmental terms.
 
There is already evidence that the burning of coal and oil are changing weather in ways that may be very dangerous, and that the supply of oil and gas may slip below demand if current trends continue. These things were unheard of 50 years ago; unimaginable 100 years ago, when the west was enjoying its time in the sun. Those in the developing world face a different future than what westerners experienced during their industrial development.
 
In fact we are already seeing the outline of the future taking place. The west is generally cutting back on energy use, although this is modest, as to be expected in democratic socities where many disagree with policies, and will go their own way. Many in poorer regions cannot wait to get their first car, or other energy consuming toy. China is building freeways as fast as cement can be poured, and has superceeded the US as the largest car market. India has designed its own cheap car for the masses. Venezuela encourages maximun energy use with 18 cent a litre gas. What politician is going to tell them they must be content with a bicycle and a generally low consumption lifestyle, as they watch the cavorting of the rich on TV and the internet?


Yeap. Pretty bad perspective. But it is wrong because of the following: you assume oil will be consumed as today in the future. It won't be like that at all.

The ecological catastrophe model just doesn't make sense. The problem is not pollution itself, but the outdated technology of the internal-combustion engines. That's the obsolete technology that must be replaced, and doing that all the air pollution problems are gone as well.
Replacement? Hydrogen or electricity, either or both. And today we are in the edge of the change. So, why to worry so much about the future? Oil producing countries will have to eat theirs oil in a while.



 
The hydrogen fuel cell was pioneered some years back now (here in Vancouver), but has still to make the big time. Despite lots of funding and various experimental ventures, there are still issues to be resolved. We have a hydrogen fuel cell bus in the city I live in- just one- for demonstration purposes. It may be a long haul before there are any more- if there are. So too with other alternative technologies, like solar panels. They have made progress, but not enough to replace what now exists. Wind farms can provide a significant proportion of small, pastoral regions like Denmark, but how about the industrial megaplexes of the Pearl River delta, or huge urban regions like Tokyo or Mexico City?
 
To look at it from another perspective, there are many in the world who do not give a damn about energy or pollution. What they do care about is the fact that until very recently, their history has been one of struggling to survive on small plots of land, and having little or nothing- certainly nothing approaching the lifestyles they see in the more favored parts of the world. They want a reasonably consumptive life, and there are strong political imperatives to provide this for them. China will not be able to provide SUV's and shopping malls for the populace without burning huge amounts of oil and coal, at least for the foreseeable future, yet that is what people want.
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2012 at 12:08
Well Germany - a nation not noted for their flights of fancy - are on a programme taking them to 100% renewable energy.  Solar and wind can be stored as methane and pumped storage, so that deals with the variability issue.
 
The cost of wind is now comparable with coal.  Solar has a way to come down - it is still  too expensive at those latitudes but nevertheless solar is already a big part of the solution.
 
Already renewables generate 20% of electricity and remember Germany is a big manfucaturing nation, so proportionally it uses a lot more electricity than most countries.
 
I don't see any reason why we can't move quickly to 100% renewables.
 
However the latest news on LENR suggests that all other energy forms may soon be redundant.
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2012 at 14:08
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The hydrogen fuel cell was pioneered some years back now (here in Vancouver), but has still to make the big time. Despite lots of funding and various experimental ventures, there are still issues to be resolved. We have a hydrogen fuel cell bus in the city I live in- just one- for demonstration purposes. It may be a long haul before there are any more- if there are. So too with other alternative technologies, like solar panels. They have made progress, but not enough to replace what now exists. Wind farms can provide a significant proportion of small, pastoral regions like Denmark, but how about the industrial megaplexes of the Pearl River delta, or huge urban regions like Tokyo or Mexico City?


Well, the main limitation of hydrogen is storage. However, with new techniques of storage, such as Alydro, may be the problem is over.

 
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


To look at it from another perspective, there are many in the world who do not give a damn about energy or pollution. What they do care about is the fact that until very recently, their history has been one of struggling to survive on small plots of land, and having little or nothing- certainly nothing approaching the lifestyles they see in the more favored parts of the world. They want a reasonably consumptive life, and there are strong political imperatives to provide this for them. China will not be able to provide SUV's and shopping malls for the populace without burning huge amounts of oil and coal, at least for the foreseeable future, yet that is what people want.


Don't forget that China is a third world country, and still it is leading the development of electric cars. So, I don't agree on that either.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2012 at 18:25
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Well Germany - a nation not noted for their flights of fancy - are on a programme taking them to 100% renewable energy.  Solar and wind can be stored as methane and pumped storage, so that deals with the variability issue.
 
The cost of wind is now comparable with coal.  Solar has a way to come down - it is still  too expensive at those latitudes but nevertheless solar is already a big part of the solution.
 
Already renewables generate 20% of electricity and remember Germany is a big manfucaturing nation, so proportionally it uses a lot more electricity than most countries.
 
I don't see any reason why we can't move quickly to 100% renewables.
 
However the latest news on LENR suggests that all other energy forms may soon be redundant.
 
 
"Taking them to" is the essential phrase here David. Life is taking me to a place of wisdom and wealth, but it is unsure how much I have moved along that road so far, and where the horizon is exactly.
 
Using your figures, Germany is still reliant on fossil and nuclear fuel for the remaining  80% of needs. That's a long way to go. There is a large political urging in the move to renewables in Germany, with the Fukashima incident a powerful recent motivator. That's fine for as far as it goes, but is not sufficient to solve technical problems. Cost is a factor for sure, but only one of many. The cheapest fuel use is probably burning dirty coal, but of course there are serious issues with this.
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2012 at 18:33

Captain - They are installing huge amounts of solar and wind.

"The federal government has set a target of 66 GW of installed solar PV capacity by 2030, to be reached with an annual increase of 2.5–3.5 GW." (wikipedia)
 
 
They actually installed about 6Gw in 2011 I think it was.   With typical teutonic efficiency as we say here, they marching towards the target.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2012 at 18:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The hydrogen fuel cell was pioneered some years back now (here in Vancouver), but has still to make the big time. Despite lots of funding and various experimental ventures, there are still issues to be resolved. We have a hydrogen fuel cell bus in the city I live in- just one- for demonstration purposes. It may be a long haul before there are any more- if there are. So too with other alternative technologies, like solar panels. They have made progress, but not enough to replace what now exists. Wind farms can provide a significant proportion of small, pastoral regions like Denmark, but how about the industrial megaplexes of the Pearl River delta, or huge urban regions like Tokyo or Mexico City?


Well, the main limitation of hydrogen is storage. However, with new techniques of storage, such as Alydro, may be the problem is over.
 
Storage and production- it takes energy to create hydrogen, which must come from somewhere. If it's just needed for your car and mine, not a problem. If its powering the world's vehicle fleets, that's  a lot of energy.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


To look at it from another perspective, there are many in the world who do not give a damn about energy or pollution. What they do care about is the fact that until very recently, their history has been one of struggling to survive on small plots of land, and having little or nothing- certainly nothing approaching the lifestyles they see in the more favored parts of the world. They want a reasonably consumptive life, and there are strong political imperatives to provide this for them. China will not be able to provide SUV's and shopping malls for the populace without burning huge amounts of oil and coal, at least for the foreseeable future, yet that is what people want.


Don't forget that China is a third world country, and still it is leading the development of electric cars. So, I don't agree on that either.
 
Electric cars still need energy for production, and for the substantial replacement of batteries. More significantly, they must be regularly recharged from an energy source. 500,000,000 Chinese plugging in their cars overnight is going to require a massive amount of energy. Maybe this will come from a combination of renewables and burning coal and oil. These are currently all very problematic however, from technical, supply, and environmental perspectives. A few more dramatic weather incidents may well tamp down the desire to burn more coal or oil, and injecting the effluent underground is suspected to be, but not a proven, technology. Renewables, to date, have not demonstrated the ability to meet the desires or a billion or more middle class arrivals (sorry Graham- let's call them workers with newly realized resources that the expenditure of which may be problematic for the environment in ways previously unknown).
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 11:38
Please, don't be so pessimistic with respect to human ingenuity. The fact is, it took centuries to develop the internal combustion car since the first time a steam car was build, I believe in the 18th century. So, it would be amazing if the solutions are found at once.
At least, a large number of scientists and engineers are working to tackle the problems head on. I could be many new technologies will appear thanks to that efforts.


Edited by pinguin - 11 Aug 2012 at 15:08
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 12:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Please, don't be so pessimistic with respect to human ingenuity. The fact is, it took centuries to develop the internal combustion car since the first time a steam car was build, I believe in the 18th century. So, it would be amazing if the solutions are found at once.
At least, a large number of scientists and engineers are working to tackle the problems head on. I could be many new technologies will appear thanks to that efforts.
Yes, it's amazing to think Cugnot had a working steam driven road vehicle in the late 18th century.
 
I think most of you will be v. surprised over  the next year or two about what is happening with cold fusion now known as LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) energy.
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 18:00
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Captain - They are installing huge amounts of solar and wind.

"The federal government has set a target of 66 GW of installed solar PV capacity by 2030, to be reached with an annual increase of 2.5–3.5 GW." (wikipedia)
 
 
They actually installed about 6Gw in 2011 I think it was.   With typical teutonic efficiency as we say here, they marching towards the target.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Good start, hope they can keep it up. What we see in the world today though in the way of global warming and pollution was created in great measure by the older industrial powers of the west, in a world economy tiny in comparsion to the present one. And the future economy, if current trends are anything to go by, and the impatient masses in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and others all claim their California-like existence, with mini vans and convenience stores, with be vastly greater than todays. Will the planet and its resources hold up? There's the question. China alone is 16x the size of Germany in population. What will be the break even point where enough of those get to participate in the "middle class" lifestyle, or close proximity, and few enough are left in poverty that they are not enough to bring down Chinese society? Too many of the former and the earth's environment and energy supplies could be in peril, too many of the latter and ongoing instability and revolution could be the result.
 
My guess is that Europe and North America will continue to improve in terms of energy efficiency, Europe because they have enough existing infrastructure to make in work, and North America because we have slack in the system due to so much waste. But those two areas are now a minority in the world, and changes there will not be enough to make a definitive difference.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 18:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Please, don't be so pessimistic with respect to human ingenuity. The fact is, it took centuries to develop the internal combustion car since the first time a steam car was build, I believe in the 18th century. So, it would be amazing if the solutions are found at once.
At least, a large number of scientists and engineers are working to tackle the problems head on. I could be many new technologies will appear thanks to that efforts.
I think there will be new inventions, but we also have the "Tragedy of the Commons" scenerio here. What is good for all is not necessarily good for some. The west, after an orgy of consumption, can see the wisdom of cutting back. Places like China and India must achieve a balance between giving their masses some sort of reasonable existence, and at the same time not trashing the world's environment. Such authorities are likely willing to push the envelope much further in order to achieve some harmony.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 00:21
Yours is a western-centric view. You can't expect Chinese live poorer than westerners, particularly when the West is sinking economically, right now. Today, the engine of the world is China. While the U.S. get deeper in trouble feeding its fantasy of military power and glory, and Europe don't know what to do to pay the bills.
China will grow, but unlike the West, the Chinese are smart enough to avoid giving theirs money to foreigners. Expect they will go for hydrogen or electric cars.




Edited by pinguin - 12 Aug 2012 at 00:22
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 01:31
There is no prospect I think of humanity seriously scaling back its consumption - quite the reverse. Consumption of goods, health services and so on will rise inexorably until population decline starts to bring it down after maybe another 50-100 years.
 
So how will we be able to afford that?
 
1. Green energy.  Green energy (wind,  solar, energy from waste, wave, hydro, tidal, geothermal etc), though possibly* a little more expensive than hydrocarbon, can easily meet fix the hydrocarbon gap. LENR energy will soon (next 5 years) be coming on stream. This is a development from cold fusion and will essentially solve all our energy needs.
 
2.  All transport can be electrified if necessary, reducing need for hydrocarbons to zero.
 
3.  Many materials can subsitute for plastics e.g. glass, cardboard, fibreglass, bamboo, plastics from plants etc.
 
4.  Agricultural production is changing - leaving aside genetic engineering (which I don't favour) there is polytunnel production, hydroponics, farm towers, biotanks, lab meat...all sorts of developments which mean we will be able to hugely increase production without the need for new farmland.
 
5. The cost of space launches is declining rapidly (in the last five years we have gone from $20,000 a tonne to $2000) .  The likelihood is the cost will decline rapidly further over the next 20 years.  At that point asteroid mining and mining on other planets becomes doable.  That way we can fulfil all our needs for metals without despoiling our planet.
 
6. Robot production will hugely increase labour productivity so many goods can be produced far more cheaply.
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 06:02
No 6 is true, but presents what may be the bigger problem - a massive increase in unemployment leading to a downward spiral into depression, necessitating a shift to a new relationship of income to work, which most people will find it hard to accept.

Along the way of course depression may ease pressure on energy resources, but at considerable social cost. 


Edited by gcle2003 - 12 Aug 2012 at 06:03
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 08:30
Depression is only lack of creativity. Tell the great historical figures of industry and development, like Edison, Ford or Franklin Roosevelt about "economic depression"... Those figures didn't believe in economics hocus pocus and boloney. Instead they created NEW sources of wealth. That's the way to do it.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 13:28

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

The hydrogen fuel cell was pioneered some years back now (here in Vancouver), but has still to make the big time. Despite lots of funding and various experimental ventures, there are still issues to be resolved. We have a hydrogen fuel cell bus in the city I live in- just one- for demonstration purposes. It may be a long haul before there are any more- if there are.

The issues with fuel cells are resolvable issues. That are minor in comparision to the issues that have already been solved or cannot be solved with oil.
Your fuel tank needs to be 3 times larger? So what.
Storing hydrogen for a long time is difficult? So don't. Make it at point of sale.
You need energy to make hydrogen? Irrelevant. Hydrogen is a battery. So is oil. Oil is not a source of energy, and neither is Hydrogen. They store energy from the sun. They are portable fuels. In the case of oil it stores a tiny fraction of the energy from the sun that hit the leaves of plants millions of years ago.

To produce 1kWh of hydrogen fuel from water you need 1.3kWh of electricity. That is very acheivable.

Synthesising hydrogen fuel from water is half of photosynthesis. The only superior option in my opinion is to go the whole hog - synthesise hydrocarbons from CO2 and H20. This is also possible, but has not yet been done industrially (unlike hydrogen, which is very developed).

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-07CO2split.asp

(Article may interest you Penguin

You'll notice that I've been saying Solar Thermal-hydrogen the whole time. In any sustainable system we can only tap sources of energy as they happen. Not historical sources. The sun is the source of the energy.

Quote So too with other alternative technologies, like solar panels

Photovoltaics does, solar thermal does not.
Quote What they do care about is the fact that until very recently, their history has been one of struggling to survive on small plots of land, and having little or nothing- certainly nothing approaching the lifestyles they see in the more favored parts of the world. They want a reasonably consumptive life, and there are strong political imperatives to provide this for them. China will not be able to provide SUV's and shopping malls for the populace without burning huge amounts of oil and coal, at least for the foreseeable future, yet that is what people want.

Oh how orientalist of you.
China will leave you behind if your not careful. They are seriously investing in alternative anergy. THeir goal for wind was 10 GW by 2010, in 2009 they hit 26 GW (enough to power the whole of Australia). In 2010 they had 200 GW of Hydro - enough to power Canada more than 3 times over. In 2010, they annouced they were spending 5 trillian yuan (over $833 billion US$) on alternative energy. Nearly one quarter of chinese power comes from non-carbon non-nuclear sources and in a country the size of China that's a hell of a lot.
China isn't the country that will be caught short on energy. It'll be the US.

http://www.good.is/post/china-gets-over-a-quarter-of-its-electricity-from-clean-energy-sources/
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90862/7076933.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Pinguin's right. From an Engineering standpoint alternative energy is not a problem.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 13:41
Wow. China can power two India's on hydro. Most of the EU on renewables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 14:40
The final solution to harvest solar energy in unlimited quantities: power satellites. This is a project of NASA, called SPS-ALPHA. The idea is to develop very light satellites, like this one that weights only 400 pounds but can delivers thousands of kilowatts to the ground. Just imagine a large number of these satellites and the energy problems of earth will be solved.





Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 21:14
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Depression is only lack of creativity.
What do you mean 'only'?

Anyway the problem is how to handle the results of that creativity. No point in producing things with ever less human input without figuring some way people can buy those things.

Quote
 Tell the great historical figures of industry and development, like Edison, Ford or Franklin Roosevelt about "economic depression"... Those figures didn't believe in economics hocus pocus and boloney. Instead they created NEW sources of wealth. That's the way to do it.

What's FDR doing in there?


Edited by gcle2003 - 12 Aug 2012 at 21:16
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2012 at 23:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No 6 is true, but presents what may be the bigger problem - a massive increase in unemployment leading to a downward spiral into depression, necessitating a shift to a new relationship of income to work, which most people will find it hard to accept.

Along the way of course depression may ease pressure on energy resources, but at considerable social cost. 
No, there's no evidence that automation leads to depression.  Society is just able to produce more goods for the same amount of labour input.
 
It could lead to unemployment, but what tends to happen is that service industries expand on the back of the increased production.
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Aug 2012 at 01:06
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No 6 is true, but presents what may be the bigger problem - a massive increase in unemployment leading to a downward spiral into depression, necessitating a shift to a new relationship of income to work, which most people will find it hard to accept.

Along the way of course depression may ease pressure on energy resources, but at considerable social cost. 
No, there's no evidence that automation leads to depression.  Society is just able to produce more goods for the same amount of labour input.
 
It could lead to unemployment, but what tends to happen is that service industries expand on the back of the increased production.
Massively increased productivity doesn't necessarily lead to depression if something happens to to increase general purchasing power. But if you look for instance at the agricultural revolution of the 18th/19th centuries[1] and its effect on the then majority of the population you can see the process at work. It was quite some time before the industrial revolution provided enough jobs to replace those lost in the countryside, and when it did competition for them left the new proletariat largely at the mercy of employers. 

When it did ameliorate, the mechanism was political, represented by regulation of factories and limiting working hours (both leading to declines in productivity per capita) and the birth of the welfare state to improve the purchasing power of the lower classes. 

The role of the service industries, whatever their role in the past, is different now because the service industries themselves are the subject of technological change. 

[1] I'm referring primarily to Europe, where the decline in agricultural employment was not only due to technology but to the opening up of other food sources, for instance in the US and the British empire. Things developed differently there therefore. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Aug 2012 at 01:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No 6 is true, but presents what may be the bigger problem - a massive increase in unemployment leading to a downward spiral into depression, necessitating a shift to a new relationship of income to work, which most people will find it hard to accept.

Along the way of course depression may ease pressure on energy resources, but at considerable social cost. 
No, there's no evidence that automation leads to depression.  Society is just able to produce more goods for the same amount of labour input.
 
It could lead to unemployment, but what tends to happen is that service industries expand on the back of the increased production.
Massively increased productivity doesn't necessarily lead to depression if something happens to to increase general purchasing power. But if you look for instance at the agricultural revolution of the 18th/19th centuries[1] and its effect on the then majority of the population you can see the process at work. It was quite some time before the industrial revolution provided enough jobs to replace those lost in the countryside, and when it did competition for them left the new proletariat largely at the mercy of employers. 

When it did ameliorate, the mechanism was political, represented by regulation of factories and limiting working hours (both leading to declines in productivity per capita) and the birth of the welfare state to improve the purchasing power of the lower classes. 

The role of the service industries, whatever their role in the past, is different now because the service industries themselves are the subject of technological change. 

[1] I'm referring primarily to Europe, where the decline in agricultural employment was not only due to technology but to the opening up of other food sources, for instance in the US and the British empire. Things developed differently there therefore. 
You've got a funny definition of depression.  The European economy boomed from 1750 to the end of the Napoleonic wars thanks to the agricultural and industrial revolutions. There may have been economic distress in the countryside but there is nearly always underemployment (a lack of paid work - not necessarily jobs per se)  in rural areas prior to industrialisation of a society.
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Aug 2012 at 02:37
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Massively increased productivity doesn't necessarily lead to depression if something happens to to increase general purchasing power. But if you look for instance at the agricultural revolution of the 18th/19th centuries[1] and its effect on the then majority of the population you can see the process at work. It was quite some time before the industrial revolution provided enough jobs to replace those lost in the countryside, and when it did competition for them left the new proletariat largely at the mercy of employers. 

When it did ameliorate, the mechanism was political, represented by regulation of factories and limiting working hours (both leading to declines in productivity per capita) and the birth of the welfare state to improve the purchasing power of the lower classes. 

The role of the service industries, whatever their role in the past, is different now because the service industries themselves are the subject of technological change. 

[1] I'm referring primarily to Europe, where the decline in agricultural employment was not only due to technology but to the opening up of other food sources, for instance in the US and the British empire. Things developed differently there therefore. 
You've got a funny definition of depression.

You have depression whenever economic activity is unable to sustain an acceptable level of living standards for the community as a whole.
Quote
  The European economy boomed from 1750 to the end of the Napoleonic wars thanks to the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

The European community boomed from 1790 to 1815 because of the war. 1815 was immediately followed by a sharp slump, and 1790 was preceded by the kind of desolation described in Goldsmith's Deserted Village. I perhaps should have mentioned it but wars and arms races always lead to booms as was shown in 1914 and the runup, and 1939 together with the cold war that put an end to the short slump that immediately followed 1945.
Quote
There may have been economic distress in the countryside but there is nearly always underemployment (a lack of paid work - not necessarily jobs per se)  in rural areas prior to industrialisation of a society.

There is unemployment in the agricultural sector, which led ultimately to the excessive labour supply providng the basis for an exploiotable urban proletariat. True enough that that didn't happen only in Europe, but it was a slow process and during it there was a great deal of economic misery in both the industrial and technological sectors, not jst some economic distress in the countryside..
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Aug 2012 at 18:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

The hydrogen fuel cell was pioneered some years back now (here in Vancouver), but has still to make the big time. Despite lots of funding and various experimental ventures, there are still issues to be resolved. We have a hydrogen fuel cell bus in the city I live in- just one- for demonstration purposes. It may be a long haul before there are any more- if there are.

The issues with fuel cells are resolvable issues. That are minor in comparision to the issues that have already been solved or cannot be solved with oil.
Your fuel tank needs to be 3 times larger? So what.
Storing hydrogen for a long time is difficult? So don't. Make it at point of sale.
You need energy to make hydrogen? Irrelevant. Hydrogen is a battery. So is oil. Oil is not a source of energy, and neither is Hydrogen. They store energy from the sun. They are portable fuels. In the case of oil it stores a tiny fraction of the energy from the sun that hit the leaves of plants millions of years ago.

To produce 1kWh of hydrogen fuel from water you need 1.3kWh of electricity. That is very acheivable.

I may be off base here Omar, as I am not an engineer, but some of this doesn't seem to ad up. More input for less output? OK I guess if the input is unlimited, but not so practicle for most everything else. Theoretically solar energy is virtually unlimited, but the fact is we have been messing about with solar panels and the like for at least 40 or so years, and still haven't got to major applications. It's fine for some household purposes, or for things like marine navigation aids (where they are used here), but have yet to make the big league. I' m sure the future will see improvements, but I think it is a huge leap of faith to simply say, it should work, so it will.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 
 
Synthesising hydrogen fuel from water is half of photosynthesis. The only superior option in my opinion is to go the whole hog - synthesise hydrocarbons from CO2 and H20. This is also possible, but has not yet been done industrially (unlike hydrogen, which is very developed).

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-07CO2split.asp

[/quote]

 
Theoretically, I suppose we should be able to change lead into gold, but in fact this hasn't happened yet (as far as I know).
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

(Article may interest you Penguin

You'll notice that I've been saying Solar Thermal-hydrogen the whole time. In any sustainable system we can only tap sources of energy as they happen. Not historical sources. The sun is the source of the energy.

Quote So too with other alternative technologies, like solar panels

Photovoltaics does, solar thermal does not.
Quote What they do care about is the fact that until very recently, their history has been one of struggling to survive on small plots of land, and having little or nothing- certainly nothing approaching the lifestyles they see in the more favored parts of the world. They want a reasonably consumptive life, and there are strong political imperatives to provide this for them. China will not be able to provide SUV's and shopping malls for the populace without burning huge amounts of oil and coal, at least for the foreseeable future, yet that is what people want.

Oh how orientalist of you.

 
Not at all old chap, I'm simply telling it as it is. Those that have had nothing tend to have strong urges to have something. I'd likely feel the same way.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


China will leave you behind if your not careful. They are seriously investing in alternative anergy. THeir goal for wind was 10 GW by 2010, in 2009 they hit 26 GW (enough to power the whole of Australia). In 2010 they had 200 GW of Hydro - enough to power Canada more than 3 times over. In 2010, they annouced they were spending 5 trillian yuan (over $833 billion US$) on alternative energy. Nearly one quarter of chinese power comes from non-carbon non-nuclear sources and in a country the size of China that's a hell of a lot.
China isn't the country that will be caught short on energy. It'll be the US.

http://www.good.is/post/china-gets-over-a-quarter-of-its-electricity-from-clean-energy-sources/
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90862/7076933.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Pinguin's right. From an Engineering standpoint alternative energy is not a problem.

"....A commenter on BusinessGreen makes an interesting point, however, regarding the legitimacy of this data.

I think that the Chinese figures for clean energy put on their government papers are worth as much as the toilet paper I use to wipe myself clean, since they are reviewed by the Chinese Communist Party Propaganda Bureau before release. I will start to trust those figures once the Chinese allow independent international control on those statements by a LLoyds or Bureau Veritas.

International verification, particularly of greenhouse gas emissions, is one of the hottest points of contention in the U.N. climate negotiations. China hasn't shown much interest in letting independent auditors "look under the hood" and verify their claims...."

A quote from your own link. The other link you posted suggested a "clean" energy proportion of about 11%, a figure fairly close to that of the US.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 13 Aug 2012 at 18:32
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.