Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
The End of The Age of Oil...
Comments
-
Agent Provocateur
Good to see such spirited discussion. My concerns are that in N. America we have ignored many warnings for reduced fuel supply while consuming yearly, per capita, a major share of the world's energy supplies. Our government claims "false science" when confronted with global warming. There is no significant plan for energy conservation or alternate energy sources. The urgency to "make a plan" and reduce dependency escapes our government. While nuclear may be a choice, it takes 10 years to put a plant on-line. The research clearly shows we're running out of time, and there's no more that a 30 year supply of oil. That means in my lifetime, I'll probably be witness to drastic changes in lifestyle. I'm sensitive to a nuclear approach...because in WA. state, the Hanford facility is home to the largest nuclear waste site in the country. These wastes are already leaking into the Columbia river. The massive flow of the Columbia dilutes the net effect, but major leakage (expected) will surely cause a catastrophic downstream tragedy, as many cities get their potable water from the river. I wouldn't want to be living East of the Hanford Facility. I believe the heating industry (both contractors and manufacturers) could be doing more to both lobby Congress and awaken the masses. If we're asleep at the watch, we deserve what's coming. And it ain't pretty. It's easy to become complacent in these troubled times. Can we afford to be so cavalier?
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
PV ??
What is a PV system??0 -
Photo Voltaic
Jason,
It supplies electricity though flat panels of a silicone-based thingy... :-)
I also want to add some solar hot water panels...maybe I can sneak those in, too!
PJO0 -
An interesting book on the subject......
Hello All,
A very thought-provoking book on the topic of natural resouce utilization and economics is "Natural Capitalism" by L. Hunter and Amory Lovins. Some would call them "kooks" but I think they have a pretty good handle on the situation and what the future holds. Check it out sometime.
Bob Knebel / Radiant Engineering, Inc.0 -
Curmudgeonly Blog
Also check out the ramblings of Jim Kunstler at www.kunstler.com The architectural blunders series is a worth a view back through all the archives, some good knee-slappers, and his weekly view of the "Clusterf**k Nation".
0 -
You can only use oil once.
Marion King Hubbert knew his geology.
Why I believe this country and (moreover the world) should NOT consider nuclear as an alternative energy source;
I think it would be a disastrous error to turn to nuclear power when energy shortages arise to to the INEVITABLE depletion of fossil fuels and I don't believe it's economically possible to make nuclear safe and cost effective no matter how hard we try.
In 1958 nuclear power was hailed as the nation's rout to permanent prosperity; in reality however, the highly touted "Atoms for Peace" program was a direct outgrowth of the nation's nuclear weapons program and served both as a public relations exercise and as a source of material for fissile materials for warheads.
Promoters promised that nuclear power would be so cheap as to be essentially free; but experience has proved otherwise. Today electricity from nuclear plants seems to be inexpensive. The industry sometimes sites costs as low as two cents per kikowatt-hour; but this is true ONLY if direct costs are considered. If the immense expenditures for plant construction and safety, reactor decommissioning and waste storage are taken into account, nuclear energy is very expensive indeed. Further, we have been (in energy terms) able to afford to invent and use nuclear technologies primarily because of the availability of cheap fossil fuels with which to subsidize the huge effort. When plant construction and decommissioning, waste storage, uranium mining and all other aspects of production are taken into account, the ROI is fairly low.
Will we continue vainly reveling until the bitter end, and take most of the rest of the world down with us? Or will we finally realize that we should clean up after ourselves and make way for those who will come after us?
My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel. (Old Saudi saying)
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
You can only use oil once.
can't make nuclear safe and cost effective? Where is your proof? Or is this just a feeling you have? Some said that man would never fly. They were wrong. Are you the smartest man on the earth?0 -
Where's...
...the proof that nuclear waste can be safety stored for a span of time most people can't even imagine? I remember the waste handling question being asked in the early 1960's, and those asking the question were largely dismissed, by the same people who were crowing about nuclear power generating electricity that would be "too cheap to meter". The nuclear industry has come up WAY short on both of those positions, even after 50 or 60 years to make it happen. And that's a fact.
And - this is an excellent discussion. Don't get this string deleted by making personal comments.0 -
who pays
Who pays the property taxes on the toxic plot of land after the nuke plant is removed? the hostage customers?0 -
\"The Smartest Man On Earth\"
The successive groups of scientists and researchers who have been working on how to deal with nuclear waste for over half a century, argueably contains a number of people who would easily be front-runners for the title of "smartest man on earth". And they have, to a man, come up short (as in utterly failed) on this one. I personally find that very, VERY disturbing.0 -
Nuclear Plants
Before I change the subject, this is a great thread and I think a very important discussion. I think that ending our dependance on mid-east oil is the single most important thing we can do for the future of our country. I am not as well versed in the subtleties of nuclear power as some here, so I cannot give an educated opinion on it. I would rather see us develop other sources, like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, clean coal, trash burning, etc.., but like I said, I am not current on any of this technology.
What strikes me as very interesting (and scary) is that countries with relatively limitless supplies of cheap oil come to the decision that they need a nuclear plant to generate electricity. I just read an article about the plant that Russia is building in Iran, and Putin is absolutely convinced that the Iranians only want this plant for peaceful electrical generation. Is he extremely naiive, greedy, or evil? Why would a nation that has access to an extremely cheap energy source go to the expense and risk of nuclear power unless they had some other reason?
Sorry to get off topic. Again, great thread.
Matt
0 -
waste storage.
I have to dispute your assertion that no viable solution to the waste storage problem has been found. The waste can be encapsulated in glass beads, which would be stored in utterly bulletproof casks, which would be stored in a geologically inert mountain in an area with remarkably low population density. It's called Yucca mountain. The fact that it is way over budget and behind schedule has more to do with politics than any unresolvable technical issue.
We could reduce the waste volume futher if we would revisit the question of fuel recycling. Currently, it is illegal in this country. It was made so by Jimmy Carter, due to his fear that recycling the spent fuel rods would make it easier for dangerous nuclear material to get into the wrong hands. Surely this could be done in a way to prevent that. Although I'm loath to offer the French as an example for us to follow, they're probably smarter than us on this issue.
I'll say again, people are afraid of what they can not see and do not understand. This radioactive waste that you suggest is impossible to safely store is not something you would want under your pillow. However, if you were aware of the amount of radiation that penetrated your body while you read this post, you'd probably build and live in a lead box. We have a viable solution to the waste problem, and it's people who don't understand the issue that prevent it from being implemented. We are in a significantly more dangerous situation right now, with the waste being stored in above ground pools near nuclear facilities than we'd be in if it were stored at Yucca mountain as planned.
Write your congressman and senators and DEMAND that Yucca Mountain be opened.0 -
Yucca Mtn photo & map
Not in anyone's backyard.
I got these off the nuclear regulatory's website. www.nrc.gov0 -
I Guess...
... we'll have to agree to disagree about the waste. To me, that's just stored, not dealt with. It's literally being swept under the rug. How is waste stored in Russia and it's former allies in Eastern Europe? This is not just a North American issue. If the boys in Vladivostok have an accident with a fossil station, we'll likely never hear about it. Chernobyl on the other hand...
How many people here are old enough to remember that Mr. Carter was a nuclear engineer before he was a politician?
I don't have a congressman. I'm in Ontario, and live about 2 hours drive south of what is very likely the largest nuclear power development in the world - The Bruce site on the shores of Lake Huron. I can't remember the exact size, but it's something in the order of 10,000 megawatts. They're busy setting up a site there to take waste. I have to say, I'm not really all that happy about that.
Lets talk about economics. The money (as MY money) that has been poured into building, maintaining, and now (oh goodie) "refurbishing" these nuke units and others like them here is nothing short of obscene. Double the generating capacity in fossil fired units could have been built in half the time, for a fraction of the cost. And the fossil units last a lot longer, and can be simply demolished at the end of their useful lives. Nothing has to be sealed in glass, placed in bullet-proof cases and trucked to Yucca Mountain, the Bruce Peninsula, or anywhere else.0 -
Got...
...any shots of the Bruce Peninsula?
You need to think about our sites, we need to think about yours. Everyone needs to think about waste handling/storage in Russia, India, Pakistan, China... It's not just wealthy & sophisticated societies that are dealing with this technology.0 -
read the subject of this thread
The energy in one uranium fuel pelletthe size of the tip of your little fingeris the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil. Which source of energy do you think does more damage to the environment? I'd rather sweep a nuclear fuel pellet under Yucca mountain than pump 1,780 pounds of coal emissions into the atmosphere. Have you ever heard of global warming? I kind of like Florida, and I'd hate to see it go under water. By the way, I can't control how waste is dealt with in Russia, or any other nation, so I don't see much point in discussing it here.
I admire Jimmy Carter. He was a fellow submarine officer, with about the same experience as me. I think he does a lot of good in this world, but everyone makes mistakes. Fuel recycling should be revisited.
If you want to talk economics, what do you think will happen to world economies when production of fossil fuel drops and prices double, triple, quadruple? I am not chicken little, and I don't believe the sky is falling, but I think it's stupid not to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.
I don't believe that nuclear power is a panacea. I think we should be maximizing the use of renewable sources of energy. I'm putting geothermal heat in my house, but guess what? I still need electricity to run the compressor and pumps.
I know this is an emotional topic for some people. Unfortunately, emotion clouds one's judgement and interferes with one's ability to reason. I have just added my point of view where I saw misconceptions being laid down as fact.0 -
\"Everyone Makes Mistakes\"
My point exactly. Mistakes made with nuclear material last a LONG time.0 -
butterfly effect
The argument you put forth, that mistakes made with nuclear material last a long time, could be used against any course of action. Burning fossil fuels clearly has world wide consequences, but you would ignore those because they don't last as long? I think that increasing the temperature of the earth will have consequences that will last as long as the radioactive emissions of some material that's buried 1000' below some uninhabited desert floor. e.g. loss of many square miles of low lying land (Florida), as well as the potential catastrophic climate change. Which of those long term outcomes is worse?
Never mind the fact that in some number of years ( I don't claim to know how many) we'll run out of fossil fuel. Then what?
How best to deal with nuclear material isn't an executive decision. It's not a decision being made by one person. A lot of people, some of them very capable, have put a lot of thought into the best course of action here. This cannot be compared to President Carter's decision to outlaw fuel recycling.0 -
Agent Provacateur
I wanted to post this again....Good to see such spirited discussion. My concerns are that in N. America we have ignored many warnings for reduced fuel supply while consuming yearly, per capita, a major share of the world's energy supplies. Our government claims "false science" when confronted with global warming. There is no significant plan for energy conservation or alternate energy sources. The urgency to "make a plan" and reduce dependency escapes our government. While nuclear may be a choice, it takes 10 years to put a plant on-line. The research clearly shows we're running out of time, and there's no more that a 30 year supply of oil. That means in my lifetime, I'll probably be witness to drastic changes in lifestyle. I'm sensitive to a nuclear approach...because in WA. state, the Hanford facility is home to the largest nuclear waste site in the country. These wastes are already leaking into the Columbia river. The massive flow of the Columbia dilutes the net effect, but major leakage (expected) will surely cause a catastrophic downstream tragedy, as many cities get their potable water from the river. I wouldn't want to be living East of the Hanford Facility. I believe the heating industry (both contractors and manufacturers) could be doing more to both lobby Congress and awaken the masses. If we're asleep at the watch, we deserve what's coming. And it ain't pretty. It's easy to become complacent in these troubled times. Can we afford to be so cavalier? After attending the lecture at UW with Michael Ruppert, who maintains the Frontier website and is the author of "Crossing the Rubicon", I came away disturbed with the oil crises timeline. I do not dismiss him as a liberal extremist. He's an ex-LAPD detective.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
PSNH
was loved by those who benefitted.
It was the Massachussettes tree huggers that sued the utility into bancruptcy. Then NU bought them on the cheap and made a killing on the buy.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
-
Are those CANDU reactors like your Pickering site ?0 -
Education on nuclear
Go to WWW.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=14
Good reading, If you would like to learn more facts on the WHOLE nuclear plant process.0 -
Hanford facility
was for weapons related activity and not domestic power production. It is a government facility and there are many more like it. All are contaminated, the land and water around them contaminated for the benefit of weapons. Domestic nuclear power generation research does not require wasting huge tracks of the earth such as was and is still occuring for weapons research and production. We should keep these separate and not blame domestic power production for the mess the government and industry has made in other areas.0 -
Here is an interesting site
SOme facts and figures in the domestic power arena.
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Electric_power_news.html0 -
Energy
Three reasons why no new nukes in the US. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and cost. One problem is that the conditions for inovation no longer exist in the US. The result of Microsoft's inovations was lawsuits by the US government. Other countries have the brain power now, most of it imported from the US (Remember Edwards Deming?). The time is not too far off that an engineer won't be able to get arrested in the US. The money people and pols would rather deal with and invest in communists than to invest in America. (Maybe Joe McCarthy was on to something after all.) Adolf Hitler got his money for his war machine from US, British and French public and private corporations and individuals, and you can bet the Chinese have similar designs (good bye Taiwan and most of Asia, if not the world). In years past,the energy crises would have been solved by US R&D programs like the Apollo program that got us to the moon in less than a decade. Don't hold your breath on that one. (was that a picture of Sam Walton in fatigues with his arm around Mao TseTung?)
The outside the box thinking and actions won't be possible as long as big oil and the like have so much political pull. Looks bleak.0 -
Bleak is right! When one starts to think about the implications economically.
No fuel for farm equipment, Construction equipment, big rigs to move goods and services,railways,airlines. Shipping could go nuclear, but ya gotta get em unloaded and the goods off the docks. Let alone getting to work. Look at all the lubricants that are petro based,and where they are used. Global crisis will be an understatement.
As the supply of black gold goes down,and its price steadily spirals upward out of control, We all globaly will pay dearly for EVERYTHING. If you can even get goods to buy, do to the fact there is no fuel to get goods to the stores. Good bye dialing 911 and the ambulance is there in 10 min. Hello bucket brigade when the house catches fire. Police on horse back. The phrase "oil dependant" will have a whole new meaning to everyone.
Our alternatives for green energy do not even come close to addressing the issues of our transportation network for the supply of goods, and services. Rationing would only prolong the inevitable.We need to think deeper than generating electricity for home,commercial,and industrial useage........Bleak indeed.
Gordy
The government is scared stiff if you think about the dynamics of the whole situation of no more oil. They don't have the answers, at least soon enough.
0 -
Bleak is right! When one starts to think about the implications economically.
No fuel for farm equipment, Construction equipment, big rigs to move goods and services,railways,airlines. Shipping could go nuclear, but ya gotta get em unloaded and the goods off the docks. Let alone getting to work. Look at all the lubricants that are petro based,and where they are used. Global crisis will be an understatement.
As the supply of black gold goes down,and its price steadily spirals upward out of control, We all globaly will pay dearly for EVERYTHING. If you can even get goods to buy, do to the fact there is no fuel to get goods to the stores. Good bye dialing 911 and the ambulance is there in 10 min. Hello bucket brigade when the house catches fire. Police on horse back. The phrase "oil dependant" will have a whole new meaning to everyone.
Our alternatives for green energy do not even come close to addressing the issues of our transportation network for the supply of goods, and services. Rationing would only prolong the inevitable.We need to think deeper than generating electricity for home,commercial,and industrial useage........Bleak indeed.
Gordy
The government is scared stiff if you think about the dynamics of the whole situation of no more oil. They don't have the answers, at least soon enough.
0 -
Time to get the mule
back that I sold 40 years ago. Say I wonder what I did with my plow.0 -
Steam
Steam may not be a lost art in the future.......But a Major. Hang in there all you steam guys get ready to teach.0 -
I See...
... where it talks about operating costs. Does the info on the site address construction costs? Wait'll you get a look at those, and the inevitable cost over-runs. Not much short of staggering. It talks about other value, based on a 60 year plant life. Based on experience here, not likely happening - if you get 25 years or so out of a plant before it needs a MAJOR (as in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$) overhaul, you'll be doing well. (See "construction costs" above.) Verification of economic value refers to stock market figures for 2002. If I remember correctly, Enron, Nortel and the like had some wonderful years in the stock market as well. Having said that, I have no doubt there's the "lunatic tree huggers" site throwing it's own set of rocks, and omitting selective chunks of info as well. People, organizations, and governments can (and do, and always have) make studies and statistics say literally ANYTHING that they want them to.
For my part, my very serious concerns about nuclear power centre on contruction costs & overhaul maintenance costs that are hard to imagine, coupled with a waste handling/storage issue that leaves me very concerned. Governments and organizations have problems keeping track of many things that only span a few decades. Our nuclear waste disposal sites will exceed that time span many, many times over.0 -
As Far..
...as I know, they all are.0 -
steam energy from what source?
Where will we get the energy to make steam if the oil is depleted? Even the Navy is moving away from the steam plants that have been coupled to nuclear reactors since the fifties.0 -
good reading
In case anyone is interested in some pretty cool technological developments, here's an interesting article.
Steam isn't being removed from the picture, but the amount of steam piping in the ship will be significantly reduced, and fewer components will be directly driven by steam.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_9/power_system.html0 -
Steam
Can you just imagine all of us riding around in "stanley steamers" in the future. Got to shovel some coal into your car's boiler an hour before you want to go somewhere. It would become real dangerous when teenagers want to soup up their cars by increasing boiler pressure, etc.....0 -
TMI
> TMI WAS AN "ACCIDENT". This occured on a nuke
> that is so stable it "can't melt down"??!! Are we
> seeing "revisionist history" or blind faith?
> There was a plume of radiation released that is
> causing a spike of cancers now in that area. W
> and his cohorts has passed laws that release nuke
> owners from responsibility in the event of an
> "accident" Believe me, if nukes were such a
> good deal they would be all over the place.
> Besdides being a money pit they are NOT that
> safe. My favorite nuke is warming me right
> now as its energy streams in through my south
> facing windows.
After looking into it, there was no giant plume of radiation that is causing cancers in the area. as many as 2 million people may have been exposed to a maximum of 1 millirem of radiation. for comparison, one chest X-ray is 6 millirem. workers inside the plant boundary may have gotten as much as 100 millirem. again no big deal. You and I receive about 150 millirem every year just living on earth. So, I stand by my statement that no harm was done to any humans. The NRC webpge lists several sources where I got this data.0 -
TMI
After looking into it, there was no giant plume of radiation that is causing cancers in the area. as many as 2 million people may have been exposed to a maximum of 1 millirem of radiation. for comparison, one chest X-ray is 6 millirem. workers inside the plant boundary may have gotten as much as 100 millirem. again no big deal. You and I receive about 150 millirem every year just living on earth. So, I stand by my statement that no harm was done to any humans. The NRC webpge lists several sources where I got this data.0 -
Steam
Go back to steam locomotives burn coal,wood. Steam farm tractors same.0 -
Energy
The US does have alot of domestic oil reserves as well as huge amounts of coal. Those large amounts are finite, however. Alternatives are needed. And think about it. If we no longer need all this oil, the Mideast becomes irrelevant. Now that is a pleasing thought. Unfortunately, just like the healthcare crisis, Rome is burning while our politicians fiddle.0 -
heating help merit badge for reading
Wow. I read the whole thing. Took two alka-seltzers and started typing. I expect I might be awarded the heating help woodchuck reading merit badge for making it all the way through, but anyway who reads my post would deserve the award just for reading one post, never mind the whole thread.
I've been meaning to click on this 'end of oil age' link as I saw the number of posts climbing. Silly me, I presumed it was an argument for switching from oil to condensing gas boilers.
Not to diss the R&D in oil that is resulting in similar products, but with the proven technology in a number of gas units I would say that is pretty good advice. Early low mass gas units had as many or more service calls than oil but seems to have gotten the bugs worked out because my service frequencies are way down. Maybe these new oil boilers make sense. I always thought they should transport the technology from waste oil burning to regular #2 burners. Seems like that would solve quite a few of the filtration/nozzle problems I have encountered. Don't know if the new oil stuff solves the impurities issues but for now I'm sticking with NG where-ever available.
Ironically, even though investments in high efficiency of the level acheivable with NG condensing boilers should pay off over an acceptable amount of time even when considering the upfront cost, the increasing absolute cost of NG might be creating a niche for oil even where NG is available or, even more ironically a niche for coal which brings me back to what this thread really turned out to be about (I've been diagnosed as a passive digressive, it is best not to disturb my train of thought just because it is off the rails. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor....)
OF course it ain't like oil hasn't gone up as well, but folks have historically had more choice of end suppliers for oil and felt more of a straight jacket in regards to NG purchasing. And the newest craze in this "we're running out of oil" thing is to purposefully over-run the capacity of our NG supply and transportation infrastructure. Thus we are running out of NG in terms of a chokepoint.
A good deal of discussion has been spent on whether nukes are the answer. I would let the market figure that out. It would be as reactionary to jump on the nuclear band wagon now as it was reactionary to jump off it a couple decades ago rather than simply get as much of the government stupidity out of these choices as possible.
And I think the industry oversold nukes to begin with and people were fascinated by our command of these new fields of technology and then there was an obvious backlash and the rest has been history -- to date anyway. And government did the wrong thing by banning reprocessing and saying it would take care of the waste. I have no problem with Yucca mountain except that it is a government project and they could f--- up a one car funeral. Where is the interest of those seeking market capital to build and operate nukes in worrying about cost efficient waste disposal if the government is going to do it?
Sure 'evil' corporations would look to cut corners in operation and decommissioning. But 'evil' corporations like say insurance companies would define standards. Where do you think we got the Hartford loop. And count on the ambulance chasers to do their part. More to the point, while 'no nukes' got a head start virtually all industrial energy production technology except natural gas turbines are getting equal opportunity heckling from the environuts these days.
Thanks to the BANANA bunch (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) there has been virtually no addition to industrial energy provision in AMerica from coal, hydro expansion is fought at every turn, a few inland wind farms but those graphs speak for themselves and the opposition to wind has been felt virtually anywhere it has been tried.
So the only thing industry can build as a result of the reactionary regulatory strait jacket is gas turbines maybe 55% efficient. Looks good compared to yesteryear's industrial technology and represents a utilized efficiency even greater in comparison to older technology because it is able to come on line quickly when needed.
Industrial economies of scale in terms of marketing and delivery of NG are thus outcompeting residential buyers for gas supply whose home heating plants are likely 80 or 90 per cent efficient. This often takes the form of interrupt contracts which still raise the price of gas by pushing utilization to the limit of supply lines but also send the electric generators into the oil market when demand exceeds supply resulting in skewing the spot market in oil so no home heating fuel purchaser is immune from this misallocation of resources -- misallocation in the sense that many industrial users would have chosen different technologies if government was not allowing itself to be lead around by the nose by a bunch of myopic misanthropes.
So then you get home heaters alarmed at price spikes and insecurity/insufficiency of supply lines who buy coal stoves cause coal is cheap. Saw this with a friend who has a late model (decade old) hydronic oil burner side venting adapter. Runs pretty nice. I owe him favors over time so I've helped a couple times since he has no service contract. This year, he decides oil is too expensive, turns the thing off and gets a coal stove (without telling me of course, I would have warned him to empty system or keep the pumps running 24/7) promptly freezes his baseboard and then does thousands in damage to his house. Talk about unintended consequences. People have to watch out for themselves. But the choice of cheaper heating fuel is obvious and plenty of people are voting with their feet (or their coal shovels)
Market might still dictate higher prices for energy even if the industrial mix hadn't gotten so lopsided lately and some folks might still switch to less efficient or less cleanly burned at home solutions, but I believe these choices are being driven by anti-energy efforts aimed at industrial consumers, as well as the same crowds parallel efforts to prevent oil exploration in US aimed at all users. And of course most people don't put 2 and 2 together. My friend is the type to blame the 'evil' oil companies who presumably conspired to raise his price. When will they ever learn....
What a brilliant strategy where modern coal tech can burn coal in the same efficiency range as natural gas in industrial settings and apply state of the art stack controls, instead the coal is going to homeowners operating the kinds of devices for which London was once (in)famous. I had the privilege to stand in the firing chamber of a 165 mega watt fuel-injected fluidized-bed power plant in Broke (no kidding), Australia (while it was under construction not while it was firing if you're wondering if my brain cells got singed). The sand bed limits and evens out combustion temperatures to around 1200 degrees which virtually eliminates NOx. Lime in the bed precipitates sulfur. Cyclonic and traditional baghouse for particulates. The injection technology is made by a connecticut company. This thing can burn the dirtiest coal that they used to put back in the mine because there was nothing to do with it, and it can burn it more cleanly than the best coal is burned in older midwest power stations that everyone (except me) likes to whine about. But because nobody likes these old coal burners, no one can build this new technology in America (of course that's not logic at work that is emotion). Not to mention that we dumped billions in government money (big mistake but it is already down the drain so we ought to taking advantage) into coal gasification and its commercialization is meeting the same opposition. No, I'm not for regulating coal stoves, I'm for figuring out why we let a bunch of failed Malthusians run our energy policy.
It seems the best answer to the whole conundrum was the Occam's razor explanation early in the thread. Whatever is happening with the amount of supply and reserves of various energy resources will play out over plenty of time for people and the economy to adapt (this goes for 'global warming' as well -more on this later you can bet on that).
The most effective thing is for the government to do nothing. It already has screwed things up immensely and it should stop making policies to fix unintended consequences that just have other unintended consequences -- ad infinitium. (Another passive digressive aside -I would favor oil exploration in ANWR, the front range and offshore locations and any other promising federal lands. I consider this to be doing nothing because the default assumption regarding government lands probalby improperly retained upon statehood for most western states was that they would be available for resource exploitation which can be responsibly regulated by the government as land owner - not be the government as government. I have lobbied for such in DC and the only other folks on the hill for this are not the oil companies. They could care less. It is the Alaskan state government and the Inupiats who live in ANWR who are lobbying for drilling there. The Prudhoe operation along with the newer Alpine field to the west of Prudhoe (toward national petroleum reserve where the greens also don't want drilling, opposite direction from ANWR) demonstrates incredibly low density infrastructure with a much lighter footprint than anything available when they were doing Prudhoe. The caribou might be better served by more infrastructure. They are doing great around Prudhoe and use the relatively breezy raised gravel platforms for the industrial infrastructure to escape the worse of insect infestation up there. But I'm not suggesting ANWR is the answer to running out of oil. I don't think we're running out anyway and it is more of a short term geo-political stop gap and economic buffer on costs -- lessening degree of dependence on volatile world arenas while slowing the inevitable increase in prices -- than some kind of transcendent policy on the future of energy.).
How long have we been running out of oil? According to the same folks who told us there would be mass starvation in the 1970s from global overpopulation it should have been gone around the same time. Now it is going to run out any second, or in 10 years or in 30. People have been predicting the end of oil since it began. I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that Florida is going to be submerged. But if I'm wrong people will have plenty of time to build vacation homes on the new South Coast of Georgia.
And the oil thing will play out over the same kind of geological time frame. As far as cars go, once the price of gas doubles again it will be economical to exploit oil shale in Canada. Syonnara Saudi Arabia. And there is more oil in these deposits according to some estimates than mankind has yet burned. And because gas will be costing twice as much many people will be shifting their personal vehicle choices towards cars that get twice the mileage they used to, ergo virtually no relative effect on the transportation economy of doubling energy costs as long as people have a little time to wrap their minds around the idea and invest accordingly. No I don't mean buy gold coins, I mean buy Toyota Priuses.
The technology is already available to take care of this. Maybe there is going to be some fallout in the US auto industry (what the hell else is new) who always backs the wrong horse (although plenty of Toyotas are made here so won't be the end of auto manufacturing in the US). They are busy messing around with hydrogen which is an enormous waste of time and focus when nearer term economics will sell lots of Priuses. I agree with post on Hydrogen. This is a stupid move on Bush's part. He made fun of credits for alternative energy vehicles when he ran the first time and he should have stuck to that line. If we are running out of oil, the price will go up and people will buy more efficient cars. Look ma, no CAFE standards or tax credits necessary. We won't double our efficiency in all energy uses but there is plenty to be picked up in non-mobile uses as well. But presumably by the time all of this transpires those who claim that renewable energy is the way to go might actually have a little bit to offer.
Of course the snotty opponents of wind power near Nantucket are hypocrits of the greatest order but just think of the inconvenience of having to drive their SUVs to all those meetings when they should be enjoying martinis on the after deck. ON the other hand, those windmills would never have been poroposed if it weren't for government subsidies amounting to double the energy cost paid for by us taxpayers and massachusetts ratepayers. In an arena where generation costs are in the 5 cent per kwh range these folks will get the 5 cents plus 2 cents from the feds plus another estimated 2 to 2.5 cents which fossil fuel generators are required to pay by purchasing 'credits' from those who generate 'renewable' energy. Why should someone in a three decker in dorchester be making these guys rich? If renewable energy is such a great deal just put the damn things up and sell the energy the same as everyone else.
Of course none of this addresses 'global warming' to the satisfaction of misathropes who are constantly looking to prove that man is bad. The questions here are not just is the climate changing and why, to which adherents to global warming orthodoxy answer respectively: yes, and humans (and I answer unknown, and unknown). Even if one simply conceded these points to those who have an almost religious conviction to them, then the question -- especially for heating engineers is -- what's the problem with that?
Suppose that we set out to find a way to capture solar energy so we could devote less of our resources to btu production. Global Warming would be the perfect answer. Warm the world and fertilize the plants at the same time. Sure there may be changes in precipitation and ice cover but its not like there haven't been floods and droughts since bibilical times. Indeed Sciam, a hopelessly sacred text of the secular humanists when it comes to this issue, had an article this month contending that human induced global warming began with agriculture 8000 years ago. Of course in order to meet their 'support global warming alarmists at all costs' test, the article had to toss out numerous references to the idea that the "pace of change" was accelerating. But here is a guy who is saying that 8 millenia of human activity prevented an ice age. And we should be bummed out about that? Maybe if you were hoping for pond hockey in Florida to erase the sting of cancellation of the NHL season but...
The ironic thing is that all the global warming enthusiasts realize we aren't running out of energy. If we were, there would be nothing to worry about. I don't look for the end of the age of oil anytime soon and I'm not the least bit worried about it.
I'll take nukes, windmills, dams, and coal plants, and I think we'll be better off (and the polar bears will be fine too, there is more of them than ever despite headlines to the contrary) -- even if the weather tomorrow isn't the same as today's.
For woodchuck merit badge or to throw rhetorical cyberspitballs write back.
Brian0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 86.3K THE MAIN WALL
- 3.1K A-C, Heat Pumps & Refrigeration
- 53 Biomass
- 422 Carbon Monoxide Awareness
- 90 Chimneys & Flues
- 2K Domestic Hot Water
- 5.4K Gas Heating
- 100 Geothermal
- 156 Indoor-Air Quality
- 3.4K Oil Heating
- 63 Pipe Deterioration
- 916 Plumbing
- 6K Radiant Heating
- 381 Solar
- 14.9K Strictly Steam
- 3.3K Thermostats and Controls
- 54 Water Quality
- 41 Industry Classes
- 47 Job Opportunities
- 17 Recall Announcements