This is some interesting speculation. If one considers this with Saudi Arabia's recent cuts in the price of crude, just what might it mean?
A greener world?
A greener world?
Is the era of oil coming to an end?
- Thread starter TheCainer
- Start date
To date, the main reasons for the drop in oil prices so far are the strengthening dollar and increases in production, especially in the US. Also, the Saudi's haven't cut production. They are concerned about North American production flooding the market and are going along with price decreases right now with the hopes of making the cost to produce using tar sands and shale oil unattractive economically.
Yes, Americans are driving more efficient cars, but this factor is mitigated by the increases in consumption by China and India.
Yes, Americans are driving more efficient cars, but this factor is mitigated by the increases in consumption by China and India.
all that, plus......
concerns over the global economy. Another smaller factor is the relative stability, particularly in the Middle East, right now. And by relative stability I mean with respect to the past month or two. After all, that's about all the large players in the oil futures business really look at.
If I were a betting man, I would not be banking on oil going below $70 any time soon.
And if the guy in the article linked in the original post really did suggest that oil below $10 was possible, he's an idiot. The only way that happens is if aliens invade and either kill off most of us or give us the secret to free energy. I'll eat my shorts--literally, and after wearing them for a month, if we even sniff around $10 bbl during my lifetime. Hell, I'll eat TheCainer's shorts as well.
concerns over the global economy. Another smaller factor is the relative stability, particularly in the Middle East, right now. And by relative stability I mean with respect to the past month or two. After all, that's about all the large players in the oil futures business really look at.
If I were a betting man, I would not be banking on oil going below $70 any time soon.
And if the guy in the article linked in the original post really did suggest that oil below $10 was possible, he's an idiot. The only way that happens is if aliens invade and either kill off most of us or give us the secret to free energy. I'll eat my shorts--literally, and after wearing them for a month, if we even sniff around $10 bbl during my lifetime. Hell, I'll eat TheCainer's shorts as well.
I think it is waning in places like the United States and parts of Europe. In China, India, Indonesia, and other places where the bulk of the world's population lives? No. There will be a market for it for a long, long time. The US should become increasingly oil independent.
Cainer
make sure you have a pair of extra crusties!
I kid, no way oil gets that low. The more the third world develops, the greater the demand for oil is going to be, and that means even "new" sources or methods are going to be insufficient at some point to meet the demand. Whether that's "20 years" from now or 40 years, it's not 100s of years.
I know some scientific geniuses on here think oil is a renewable resource that never runs out, but, no really, like anything else nonrenewable, it actually can run out. So it's great that we've reached a moment in time where oil is low. low oil prices help everyone because the poor need to get to work and eat food (prices greatly affected by the cost of transportation) too. But sooner or later, it's going to be a problem again.
make sure you have a pair of extra crusties!
I kid, no way oil gets that low. The more the third world develops, the greater the demand for oil is going to be, and that means even "new" sources or methods are going to be insufficient at some point to meet the demand. Whether that's "20 years" from now or 40 years, it's not 100s of years.
I know some scientific geniuses on here think oil is a renewable resource that never runs out, but, no really, like anything else nonrenewable, it actually can run out. So it's great that we've reached a moment in time where oil is low. low oil prices help everyone because the poor need to get to work and eat food (prices greatly affected by the cost of transportation) too. But sooner or later, it's going to be a problem again.
Re: Cainer
Actually, low oil prices don't help everyone. 1.4% of the US GDP is from oil, and that portion is rising. Roughly 4% of oil wells are unprofitable at current levels. We won't notice much change in that until prices fall below $75/bbl, where more and more wells become unprofitable and are shut down. Dropping prices affect hiring by these oil and petroleum companies, and can hit the economies of places like ND, OK, and TX particuarly hard.
So it doesn't help everyone.
Actually, low oil prices don't help everyone. 1.4% of the US GDP is from oil, and that portion is rising. Roughly 4% of oil wells are unprofitable at current levels. We won't notice much change in that until prices fall below $75/bbl, where more and more wells become unprofitable and are shut down. Dropping prices affect hiring by these oil and petroleum companies, and can hit the economies of places like ND, OK, and TX particuarly hard.
So it doesn't help everyone.
Re: Cainer
As though some policy makers need an excuse, cheap prices can also delay progress toward non carbon-based fuels. Prices may be low, but the costs of inaction in addressing climate change become increasingly pronounced. The poor will be disproportionally affected by a changing climate.
Re: Cainer
Qaz: they even get into why wind and solar aren't viable replacements for big energy, but nuclear could be, calling into question Germany as an example specifically. It might be on Prime. Anyway, it was interesting, and I agree with your assessment here: lower oil prices make nuclear and other alternatives less attractive to all but the most staunch CC action gropus/interests.
You guys need to watch Pandora's Promise, a CNN special from about a year ago, regarding nuclear power and the various fears that the ignorant among us hold with respect to nuclear. It's actually done by a bunch of environmentalists concerned about climate change.
Qaz: they even get into why wind and solar aren't viable replacements for big energy, but nuclear could be, calling into question Germany as an example specifically. It might be on Prime. Anyway, it was interesting, and I agree with your assessment here: lower oil prices make nuclear and other alternatives less attractive to all but the most staunch CC action gropus/interests.
I have read the many posts in this thread and have had to chuckle, but not for the doubts expressed on the speculation in my linked article. Those doubts very well could be legitimate and would be quite understandable given the knowledge we have today.
However, it seems that Gartman's optimism is based on this linked story which he linked to in the original article. If this is true, it would seem that this could be a true game changer, maybe something as significant as the Manhattan Project, or even bigger? I was just wondering how many of you may have read this story as well as my original. I won't comment on its content's practicality as there are others on this board more versed in this subject than I, and I hate to show my ignorance on topics I don't understand.
I know this idea has been discussed for at least the past 25 years and will occasionally come to the front of the news stories on any given day, but maybe soon it will be here to stay? Is it time for a major breakthrough?
Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to continue my search deep into the recesses of my closet. There's got to be an old pair in there somewhere, just in case. vbg
If this is true.......what then?
However, it seems that Gartman's optimism is based on this linked story which he linked to in the original article. If this is true, it would seem that this could be a true game changer, maybe something as significant as the Manhattan Project, or even bigger? I was just wondering how many of you may have read this story as well as my original. I won't comment on its content's practicality as there are others on this board more versed in this subject than I, and I hate to show my ignorance on topics I don't understand.
I know this idea has been discussed for at least the past 25 years and will occasionally come to the front of the news stories on any given day, but maybe soon it will be here to stay? Is it time for a major breakthrough?
Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to continue my search deep into the recesses of my closet. There's got to be an old pair in there somewhere, just in case. vbg
If this is true.......what then?
I read about that when it was first announced about 2 weeks ago, and I'm still not sure what to think about it. First, I am trained to be very skeptical of announcements like this. Saying that they have demonstrated something is feasible is a far, far cry from having something that not only works but, more importantly, is economically feasible.
But for me what was most telling was this: "McGuire said the company had several patents pending for the work and was looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories to advance the work." If this really was far along and LM was confident that they had truly come up with a way to make fusion economically viable, they likely wouldn't be seeking out other partners. In other words, I think all of this is much earlier stage development work than the article implies.
Of course it is far better than LM having said "we've been working on this for 60 years, and we've finally decided enough is enough--fusion is not practical." Not to mention the fact that it is LM, a large, publicly traded company, with lots of brilliant people. A company like that is usually very careful in crafting an announcement like this. They cannot afford to be viewed as having oversold what they have, 5 years down the road.
But for me what was most telling was this: "McGuire said the company had several patents pending for the work and was looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories to advance the work." If this really was far along and LM was confident that they had truly come up with a way to make fusion economically viable, they likely wouldn't be seeking out other partners. In other words, I think all of this is much earlier stage development work than the article implies.
Of course it is far better than LM having said "we've been working on this for 60 years, and we've finally decided enough is enough--fusion is not practical." Not to mention the fact that it is LM, a large, publicly traded company, with lots of brilliant people. A company like that is usually very careful in crafting an announcement like this. They cannot afford to be viewed as having oversold what they have, 5 years down the road.
"Not to mention the fact that it is LM, a
large, publicly traded company, with lots of brilliant people. A company
like that is usually very careful in crafting an announcement like
this. They cannot afford to be viewed as having oversold what they have,
5 years down the road."
Given the lack of detail in their announcement, I'm most encouraged by this reasoning. Talk about egg in your face if their breakthrough ends up being something trivial.
The Physics folks I've talked to have been skeptical, but also curious about the details surrounding Lockheed's claims.
large, publicly traded company, with lots of brilliant people. A company
like that is usually very careful in crafting an announcement like
this. They cannot afford to be viewed as having oversold what they have,
5 years down the road."
Given the lack of detail in their announcement, I'm most encouraged by this reasoning. Talk about egg in your face if their breakthrough ends up being something trivial.
The Physics folks I've talked to have been skeptical, but also curious about the details surrounding Lockheed's claims.
except
they are viable breakthroughs, particularly solar. Several developments in the past year show potential to lower the costs of solar, or increase efficiency, and there are already a couple of places where the cost of solar is actually lower than the cost from traditional power in the US right now. More is coming. This is stuff we can't quite do right now, but this isn't like going faster than light, it's not a physics problem, it's an engineering problem, and those get solved most of the time.
I don't have a problem with nuclear per se, but folks aren't going to want nuclear plants in their backyard and they won't want nuclear waste in their backyard.
The problem is short-term thinking. Right now it might be less attractive for obvious reasons, but if you are thinking, where are we going to be in 20 years or 30 years, then it's tons more attractive to start thinking about moving away from fossil fuels now. Sooner or later this planet will transition from fossil fuels, and some country or group of countries is going to be in the forefront of that, and I for one would prefer it were an American company/companies and it was us because the jobs that could be created, the fuel issues averted, etc would be astronomical.
As long as we keep thinking short-term then yes we'll continue on as long as it's still economical to get at the oil and other fossil fuels, but sooner or later, it's going to stop being so. I'd like to not wait til then to start thinking about diversifying and moving to alternate sources.
Fusion would be the obvious answer, but that technology is really far away despite the pronouncement earlier this month of a breakthrough. It's certainly a lot farther away than solar.
they are viable breakthroughs, particularly solar. Several developments in the past year show potential to lower the costs of solar, or increase efficiency, and there are already a couple of places where the cost of solar is actually lower than the cost from traditional power in the US right now. More is coming. This is stuff we can't quite do right now, but this isn't like going faster than light, it's not a physics problem, it's an engineering problem, and those get solved most of the time.
I don't have a problem with nuclear per se, but folks aren't going to want nuclear plants in their backyard and they won't want nuclear waste in their backyard.
The problem is short-term thinking. Right now it might be less attractive for obvious reasons, but if you are thinking, where are we going to be in 20 years or 30 years, then it's tons more attractive to start thinking about moving away from fossil fuels now. Sooner or later this planet will transition from fossil fuels, and some country or group of countries is going to be in the forefront of that, and I for one would prefer it were an American company/companies and it was us because the jobs that could be created, the fuel issues averted, etc would be astronomical.
As long as we keep thinking short-term then yes we'll continue on as long as it's still economical to get at the oil and other fossil fuels, but sooner or later, it's going to stop being so. I'd like to not wait til then to start thinking about diversifying and moving to alternate sources.
Fusion would be the obvious answer, but that technology is really far away despite the pronouncement earlier this month of a breakthrough. It's certainly a lot farther away than solar.
while I believe solar
cell technology is on the verge of a breakthrough, I don't see the same for fusion.
The engineering challenges for solar cells are WAY less than those for fusion. We've been trying just to get a working, economically feasible fusion reactor for how long? The best we can do is to break even or slightly beat breaking even but even if that's a sufficient proof of concept that we can actually "do fusion," it takes a lot more than just doing a teeny bit more than breaking even in a lab.
I do agree with his general (apparent) belief that alternative energy is the way to go, but I don't think fusion is all that close. I hope I'm wrong, boy would it solve a ton of problems.
cell technology is on the verge of a breakthrough, I don't see the same for fusion.
The engineering challenges for solar cells are WAY less than those for fusion. We've been trying just to get a working, economically feasible fusion reactor for how long? The best we can do is to break even or slightly beat breaking even but even if that's a sufficient proof of concept that we can actually "do fusion," it takes a lot more than just doing a teeny bit more than breaking even in a lab.
I do agree with his general (apparent) belief that alternative energy is the way to go, but I don't think fusion is all that close. I hope I'm wrong, boy would it solve a ton of problems.
Re: except
As to the rest of it, I counter with a hearty "good luck!" -
This post was edited on 10/29 6:05 PM by gr8indoorsman
In some cases, nuclear waste (which is just water with low radioactivity) is stored in a few 55-gallon drums in an unused parking lot of the nuclear facility. It doesn't need to go in anyone's backyard, and even if it did, it'd be completely harmless.
As to the rest of it, I counter with a hearty "good luck!" -
This post was edited on 10/29 6:05 PM by gr8indoorsman
Re: while I believe solar
Lockheed Martin believes fusion is on the verge of a breakthrough. And a breakthrough in fusion utterly dwarfs the capability of solar. Hell, fission already does, but ironically (largely liberal) ignorance is leading us down the path of reducing that greenest of green paths.
(Interesting that Forbes here talks about "cancer causing nuclear waste." Indeed all ignorance is not liberal in this regard!)
LM Fusion breakthrough
Lockheed Martin believes fusion is on the verge of a breakthrough. And a breakthrough in fusion utterly dwarfs the capability of solar. Hell, fission already does, but ironically (largely liberal) ignorance is leading us down the path of reducing that greenest of green paths.
(Interesting that Forbes here talks about "cancer causing nuclear waste." Indeed all ignorance is not liberal in this regard!)
LM Fusion breakthrough
yes
because if something isn't big in 2011, no way it could be big 20 years down the road.
So where are the red states then? Since this a liberal problem, then the red states should be jumping all over this awesome energy source. Oh wait, they aren't either. Nor are they rushing to store nuclear waste. This isn't a "liberal's are dumb" issue, it's a no one wants nuclear waste issue.
because if something isn't big in 2011, no way it could be big 20 years down the road.
So where are the red states then? Since this a liberal problem, then the red states should be jumping all over this awesome energy source. Oh wait, they aren't either. Nor are they rushing to store nuclear waste. This isn't a "liberal's are dumb" issue, it's a no one wants nuclear waste issue.
awesome for LM
I'll believe it when they put a working product on the market. No one is "anti-fusion" because fusion doesn't produce the waste products that fission does. We've been this close to fusion for a long time. Sure, it will happen sooner or later, and if it does, it's a pretty big deal. (And no, if a breakthrough in solar happens, it wouldn't be dwarfed by fusion, they'd both be roughly game-changing both in similar and separate ways).
I'll believe it when they put a working product on the market. No one is "anti-fusion" because fusion doesn't produce the waste products that fission does. We've been this close to fusion for a long time. Sure, it will happen sooner or later, and if it does, it's a pretty big deal. (And no, if a breakthrough in solar happens, it wouldn't be dwarfed by fusion, they'd both be roughly game-changing both in similar and separate ways).
Re: awesome for LM
Note that if it does happen, I'm all for it. Wind is fundamentally flawed. Solar is less so, but still is.
By the way, when you say "waste" as it pertains to nuclear power, to what are you referring?
This post was edited on 10/30 10:16 AM by gr8indoorsman
It is going to have to be a massive, massive breakthrough in solar in order for solar to matter on a large scale. I do not agree with you that solar (or wind) will ever be large-scale, viable, economical energy solutions... but I think we already knew that!
Note that if it does happen, I'm all for it. Wind is fundamentally flawed. Solar is less so, but still is.
By the way, when you say "waste" as it pertains to nuclear power, to what are you referring?
This post was edited on 10/30 10:16 AM by gr8indoorsman
Re: yes
Ignorance is not solely liberal, however politically it is liberals who are largely combating nuclear power. The paradox, of course, is that nuclear is the best solution we currently have to reducing carbon emissions. The same folks who are fighting nuclear power are also the ones advocating that we get away from coal and oil, and the majority of those folks are indeed liberals.
I've never said "no way it can't be big 20 years from now." However, if you're looking at the present investments in solar power, and you understand that solar represents one tenth of one percent of the total power generation in the US today, and our energy demands are going UP not down, I have a very, very hard time seeing how solar can close the gap. It's not like we just discovered the sun and the technology to harvest energy from it. Solar panels and similar technology has been around for as long as I've been alive. We can make stepwise improvements on efficiency, yes, but it's going to have to be an enormous step to make solar anything more than a fringe source for your house in our lifetimes.
When you refer to nuclear waste, to what are you referring?
Ignorance is not solely liberal, however politically it is liberals who are largely combating nuclear power. The paradox, of course, is that nuclear is the best solution we currently have to reducing carbon emissions. The same folks who are fighting nuclear power are also the ones advocating that we get away from coal and oil, and the majority of those folks are indeed liberals.
I've never said "no way it can't be big 20 years from now." However, if you're looking at the present investments in solar power, and you understand that solar represents one tenth of one percent of the total power generation in the US today, and our energy demands are going UP not down, I have a very, very hard time seeing how solar can close the gap. It's not like we just discovered the sun and the technology to harvest energy from it. Solar panels and similar technology has been around for as long as I've been alive. We can make stepwise improvements on efficiency, yes, but it's going to have to be an enormous step to make solar anything more than a fringe source for your house in our lifetimes.
Re: awesome for LM
no,it's simply going to be about getting the cost for solar down to at or below the cost to get your electricity off the grid combined with efficiency gains that convert more (most) of the light to electricity.
Those steps have been happening a lot more regularly than you appear to believe (I'm not going to link all that stuff again).
Once it does happen, and it will, the ability to embed solar cells will revolutionize a whole lot of things:
1. smart grids on roads, and the ability to heat them to prevent ice formation
2. they are already being used to supplement electricity in cars, this will increase
3. In areas where there is not ready access to a fusion power plant, they can supplement or even take over for the grid. There are already people who produce more electricity than they use and get money BACK from the power companies by sending that power back through the wires.
4. Replacing battery tech in many ways (that means less dangerous/caustic materials--although I suspect the rare earth minerals needed will be higher).
Those are just things I as a layman can think of in five minutes.
no,it's simply going to be about getting the cost for solar down to at or below the cost to get your electricity off the grid combined with efficiency gains that convert more (most) of the light to electricity.
Those steps have been happening a lot more regularly than you appear to believe (I'm not going to link all that stuff again).
Once it does happen, and it will, the ability to embed solar cells will revolutionize a whole lot of things:
1. smart grids on roads, and the ability to heat them to prevent ice formation
2. they are already being used to supplement electricity in cars, this will increase
3. In areas where there is not ready access to a fusion power plant, they can supplement or even take over for the grid. There are already people who produce more electricity than they use and get money BACK from the power companies by sending that power back through the wires.
4. Replacing battery tech in many ways (that means less dangerous/caustic materials--although I suspect the rare earth minerals needed will be higher).
Those are just things I as a layman can think of in five minutes.
you know exactly what I'm referring to
when I say waste: spent nuclear fuel/rods. Almost no one in politics is pushing for nuclear power expansion. The left doesn't like it for various reasons, and the right doesn't like it for many similar reasons and because it competes with the oil and natural gas and coal industries which are highly favored in Congress.
How much was the internet being funded in the late 80s? For all the joking about Al Gore, he did sponsor legislation to help fund the creation of it. But the amounts of government or even private investment were not something that would have guaranteed to anyone the internet boom of the 90s. Everyone I think recognized it (or something like it) was coming, but the speed surprised most people. That's exactly how it works when the challenge is more engineering than concept.
when I say waste: spent nuclear fuel/rods. Almost no one in politics is pushing for nuclear power expansion. The left doesn't like it for various reasons, and the right doesn't like it for many similar reasons and because it competes with the oil and natural gas and coal industries which are highly favored in Congress.
How much was the internet being funded in the late 80s? For all the joking about Al Gore, he did sponsor legislation to help fund the creation of it. But the amounts of government or even private investment were not something that would have guaranteed to anyone the internet boom of the 90s. Everyone I think recognized it (or something like it) was coming, but the speed surprised most people. That's exactly how it works when the challenge is more engineering than concept.
Re: you know exactly what I'm referring to
The internet was based on networking technology that didn't exist at all. Solar panels have existed since before I was born. Bad analogy.
All of the nuclear waste produced by the nuclear reactors that have ever been active in the United States filled into 55-gallon drums take up the same space as a football field with a depth of about 30 feet. I think we could probably find someplace to put it.
Oh by the way, the technology exists to reuse nuclear waste water and even recycled nuclear fuel inside a water moderated reactor, and has existed for nearly three decades. However, the government shut down the project because of fear after TMI. You know, that accident that released precisely zero contamination.
Edited to remove unnecessary, however accurate, personal comment.
This post was edited on 10/30 1:25 PM by gr8indoorsman
The internet was based on networking technology that didn't exist at all. Solar panels have existed since before I was born. Bad analogy.
All of the nuclear waste produced by the nuclear reactors that have ever been active in the United States filled into 55-gallon drums take up the same space as a football field with a depth of about 30 feet. I think we could probably find someplace to put it.
Oh by the way, the technology exists to reuse nuclear waste water and even recycled nuclear fuel inside a water moderated reactor, and has existed for nearly three decades. However, the government shut down the project because of fear after TMI. You know, that accident that released precisely zero contamination.
Edited to remove unnecessary, however accurate, personal comment.
This post was edited on 10/30 1:25 PM by gr8indoorsman
Re: awesome for LM
As I said, neat ideas. Let me know when they're ready to take over, say 100 times more energy production than they currently are, because that'd get them above evil Nuclear in this country.
Again: good luck!
Interesting: everything you just listed uses Solar as a supplemental power supply. No large scale application is using solar as a primary without a fossil fuel backup.
As I said, neat ideas. Let me know when they're ready to take over, say 100 times more energy production than they currently are, because that'd get them above evil Nuclear in this country.
Again: good luck!
I was talking about ways
that solar would be different from fusion. Fusion would be limited to mostly large scale production of electricity. Not that such a result wouldn't be pretty darn good, but it's fairly hard to "miniaturize" fusion.
Of course I believe that once the engineering gains are made that solar can be used as a large scale application. They are already looking at building large-scale solar "farms" in the South West desert.
that solar would be different from fusion. Fusion would be limited to mostly large scale production of electricity. Not that such a result wouldn't be pretty darn good, but it's fairly hard to "miniaturize" fusion.
Of course I believe that once the engineering gains are made that solar can be used as a large scale application. They are already looking at building large-scale solar "farms" in the South West desert.
ARAPNET
was around before you were born. The analogy is that both went through a very long period of having a workable theory, but with engineering challenges to overcome. Once those challenges were overcome, things changed in an exponential fashion.
Computer tech is another one. Look how long it took to go from computers with vacuum tubes to transistors to microchips, but once you hit microchips, the advancements accelerated tremendously. Again, engineering challenge.
We could find someplace to store eh? Ok, where? Which state is it that would accept it?
was around before you were born. The analogy is that both went through a very long period of having a workable theory, but with engineering challenges to overcome. Once those challenges were overcome, things changed in an exponential fashion.
Computer tech is another one. Look how long it took to go from computers with vacuum tubes to transistors to microchips, but once you hit microchips, the advancements accelerated tremendously. Again, engineering challenge.
We could find someplace to store eh? Ok, where? Which state is it that would accept it?
Re: I was talking about ways
Large scale solar farms already exist. Twentynine Palms uses one that's federally funded, however it is only a supplement to grid power. That is the limitation I see on solar on the large scale. Like wind it is fundamentally flawed in that it cannot always be counted on on a day-to-day basis.
Solar has very good applicability to small applications such as homes. In fact, I've considered it here in San Diego where the conditions are practically ideal to supplement household energy consumption with solar. I've just not done the math to figure out if the up-front cost would be an investment, or at what point I'd cross into the black if I went down that road. I just really struggle to see the large applications (i.e. regions) coming to fruition, and this is even understanding that there is technology that can "bank" solar energy and/or feed it back to the grid during times of excess production vs. consumption.
I agree about fusion, though Doc from Back to the Future figured it out... how hard can it be?
This post was edited on 10/30 3:16 PM by gr8indoorsman
Large scale solar farms already exist. Twentynine Palms uses one that's federally funded, however it is only a supplement to grid power. That is the limitation I see on solar on the large scale. Like wind it is fundamentally flawed in that it cannot always be counted on on a day-to-day basis.
Solar has very good applicability to small applications such as homes. In fact, I've considered it here in San Diego where the conditions are practically ideal to supplement household energy consumption with solar. I've just not done the math to figure out if the up-front cost would be an investment, or at what point I'd cross into the black if I went down that road. I just really struggle to see the large applications (i.e. regions) coming to fruition, and this is even understanding that there is technology that can "bank" solar energy and/or feed it back to the grid during times of excess production vs. consumption.
I agree about fusion, though Doc from Back to the Future figured it out... how hard can it be?
This post was edited on 10/30 3:16 PM by gr8indoorsman
Re: ARAPNET
Fair enough on the analogy. It is possible that some technological breakthrough on solar panel technology could happen. I just think it would have by now. maybe there's a new material out there or some new photoelectric or thermalelectric technology out there that isn't understood well enough at this point. I have to accept that possibility.
That said, my continued frustration is that we already HAVE a technology that blows solar's doors off, is environmentally safe (I said it: it's SAFE, yes even in the wake of Fukushima and Chernobyl and TMI - SAFE), and could provide more power than we can use for hundreds of years, but the only reason we don't is because too few people want to be educated. Instead, we're still fighting a stigma that came about due to a movie made in the early 1980's and the unfortunate timing with a rather historically insignificant nuclear accident.
There are beaches with more intrinsic radiation than the Chernobyl and Fukushima sites. A banana contains more radioactivity than hundreds of gallons of reactor cooling water (nuclear waste).
Fair enough on the analogy. It is possible that some technological breakthrough on solar panel technology could happen. I just think it would have by now. maybe there's a new material out there or some new photoelectric or thermalelectric technology out there that isn't understood well enough at this point. I have to accept that possibility.
That said, my continued frustration is that we already HAVE a technology that blows solar's doors off, is environmentally safe (I said it: it's SAFE, yes even in the wake of Fukushima and Chernobyl and TMI - SAFE), and could provide more power than we can use for hundreds of years, but the only reason we don't is because too few people want to be educated. Instead, we're still fighting a stigma that came about due to a movie made in the early 1980's and the unfortunate timing with a rather historically insignificant nuclear accident.
There are beaches with more intrinsic radiation than the Chernobyl and Fukushima sites. A banana contains more radioactivity than hundreds of gallons of reactor cooling water (nuclear waste).
Sun's always shining on us
so it's not like wind in that as the cells become more efficient, cloud cover will be less of an issue/concern.
Yes, it's a supplement...now. Later it will become an alternative, then it will become a primary means. That's how it advances.
Again, the physics/concept works just fine, it's simply an engineering issue now.
You are underselling the technological gains that are coming by a country mile.
so it's not like wind in that as the cells become more efficient, cloud cover will be less of an issue/concern.
Yes, it's a supplement...now. Later it will become an alternative, then it will become a primary means. That's how it advances.
Again, the physics/concept works just fine, it's simply an engineering issue now.
You are underselling the technological gains that are coming by a country mile.
you'd think
it wouldn't have taken us so long to go from vacuum tubes to microchips.
ENIAC was 1946. The prototypes for microchips were in 1949. Yet it took decades really to get from vacuum tubes through transistors to microchips. I mean you know the whole schtick about how the computer power in our (insert minor device from today) is greater than on the Apollo spacecraft. Huge leaps, and not necessarily predictable or steady (although the doubling every 18 months thing is more or less panning out now).
Of course, everyone wanted a faster computer and POURED money into making it happen. While solar has investment, it's nowhere near that level so yeah, it's slower.
it wouldn't have taken us so long to go from vacuum tubes to microchips.
ENIAC was 1946. The prototypes for microchips were in 1949. Yet it took decades really to get from vacuum tubes through transistors to microchips. I mean you know the whole schtick about how the computer power in our (insert minor device from today) is greater than on the Apollo spacecraft. Huge leaps, and not necessarily predictable or steady (although the doubling every 18 months thing is more or less panning out now).
Of course, everyone wanted a faster computer and POURED money into making it happen. While solar has investment, it's nowhere near that level so yeah, it's slower.
Re: Sun's always shining on us
This article came across my twitter feed today.
It isn't well cited but something to consider. I wish I could remember the stories I've read in the past year on the development of a better solar cell. Really neat stuff involving increasing the surface area at the actual point of contact.
Solar power price parity.
This article came across my twitter feed today.
It isn't well cited but something to consider. I wish I could remember the stories I've read in the past year on the development of a better solar cell. Really neat stuff involving increasing the surface area at the actual point of contact.
Solar power price parity.
Re: Sun's always shining on us
I hope you're right - I really do. In the meantime, we're wasting technology that already exists and could really help us now, and it's all because of ignorance. Hence, my ongoing and well-documented/discussed frustration...
Re: Sun's always shining on us
I agree with both of you on this, although being in SC where we have a permit to build a plant and our electric bills have gone up significantly to help fund the planed nuclear plant, I'm still for it, although I don't know how many more increases I can take before I no longer feel the same.
What I hope most however is that, if this strengthening of the dollar is going top be long term and there is some rumbling it could be more significant than the early 80's U$D rise, we would use this time to invest on both fronts, even though fossil energy will deflate and it will seem silly to invest in alternatives, the costs to build, install, manufacture... will also come down during this period but then alternatives will be in place when the inevitable inflation returns.
This post was edited on 11/4 7:53 AM by kescwi
I agree with both of you on this, although being in SC where we have a permit to build a plant and our electric bills have gone up significantly to help fund the planed nuclear plant, I'm still for it, although I don't know how many more increases I can take before I no longer feel the same.
What I hope most however is that, if this strengthening of the dollar is going top be long term and there is some rumbling it could be more significant than the early 80's U$D rise, we would use this time to invest on both fronts, even though fossil energy will deflate and it will seem silly to invest in alternatives, the costs to build, install, manufacture... will also come down during this period but then alternatives will be in place when the inevitable inflation returns.
This post was edited on 11/4 7:53 AM by kescwi
Re: awesome for LM
You're missing one major, if not the biggest, hurdle for solar, the current energy lobby. I just don't see how they will ever allow solar until they can do what builders in Cali, at least Lennar does I know, and that is lease the panels.
I just don't see how TPTB would ever allow any sort of personal energy independence, they will demand their vig.
You're missing one major, if not the biggest, hurdle for solar, the current energy lobby. I just don't see how they will ever allow solar until they can do what builders in Cali, at least Lennar does I know, and that is lease the panels.
I just don't see how TPTB would ever allow any sort of personal energy independence, they will demand their vig.
