Clean Energy & Efficiency

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Link:A Physicist's Analysis of Alternative Energy Sources

Not surprisingly he is pro-nuclear. The article links to his site where you can download a draft of his book for free. I wonder should we question who is funding him? Interesting ideas though and scary reading for those putting their faith in wind/biomass/photo-electric alternatives.

I got this link from a PropertyPin thread.

I read it... he's probably right. As for his funding sources, I would hazard a guess at Cambridge Uni and whichever branch of the UK research councils deals with physics... EPSRC? Uni website probably lists his funding..

expat girl wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Link:A Physicist's Analysis of Alternative Energy Sources

Not surprisingly he is pro-nuclear. The article links to his site where you can download a draft of his book for free. I wonder should we question who is funding him? Interesting ideas though and scary reading for those putting their faith in wind/biomass/photo-electric alternatives.

I got this link from a PropertyPin thread.

I read it... he's probably right. As for his funding sources, I would hazard a guess at Cambridge Uni and whichever branch of the UK research councils deals with physics... EPSRC? Uni website probably lists his funding..

I'm gratified to see that his bottom lines are the same as mine - solar, wind (with car batteries)and wave, along with woolly jumpers. Nuclear he says is a stop gap only, with the technologies that for which big claims are made being unproven.

I liked his idea of using wind to pump water uphill and then gravity/water power driving turbines on the way down. I also like his book being on the internet, unfinished and his asking for suggestions for changes to it. I'll definitely be reading it.

There's no doubt that there are viable alternatives to oil out there - it's to find, develop and use them and in this expat girl has a point that speculators could save us by driving us towards that. I've even said before that Alternative Energy companies themselves could be doing the speculating ...

It's about efficiency a lot of it - why do Americans need to drive on average cars that are twice the size of ours and build monstrous homes (it's not only them doing that mind you) and not invest in public transport etc.? All this is inefficiency, idiocy, vanity.

The internal combustion engine loses 70% of it's energy through uselessly heating the engine metal - wouldn't electric car motors be more efficient as there is no or little heat produced while doing the work? Could this not be a symbol of our time - the inefficiencies resulting from inappropriate technology in an increasing world population?

Auditor #9 wrote:

It's about efficiency a lot of it - why do Americans need to drive on average cars that are twice the size of ours and build monstrous homes (it's not only them doing that mind you) and not invest in public transport etc.? All this is inefficiency, idiocy, vanity.

I think that arises from the relative cheapness of oil and petrol over in the States. If the price of petrol here was around 60-70c per litre, wouldn't you be at least a touch more profligate with your petrol consumption?

If petrol/diesel prices were that bit more expensive in the US, they'd be more restrained in their fuel consumption.

I saw one of those smart cars yesterday. A sesuki or something. They are small. I question whether the average home here is that much different from Ireland. I live in what is known as a split level cape.

I heard last week on RTE radio that Irish houses are on average 30% bigger than in the UK - but family sizes are bigger too.
I live on split levels too youngdan, although I'm not sure what a cape is. Is it a timber house?

At least all Irish farms could now use biogas.

For those who don't know yet, biogas is not the result of crops developed especially for energy, it's drawn from biological wastes of other activities.

Basically, wastes are concentrated in tanks where they generate methane, and methane is then burnt for energy. You can produce electricity, hot water or heating that way.

Using biogas would help:

1) Reduce farms' oil expenses
2) Reduce energy transports
3) Reduce spreading of wastes in the fields

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Link:A Physicist's Analysis of Alternative Energy Sources

Having read the above thread I have decided that the practice of wearing light coloured shirts to work is just mental. All suit-wearers should be allowed to wear dark coloured sweaters under their jackets. The energy saving on washing, ironing and shirt replacement will be substantial. And what's the downside? No downside whatever. Suits themselves are fine except that I might ban light coloured/black suits and creases in trousers in order to minimize the need for dry cleaning.

How about a Government petition to IBEC, RIAI, ACCA, Law Society etc. calling for these changes? Who's with me? We could make the "What do you call a north-sider in a suit?" joke a reality!

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/presentations/SEWTHA7/mgp00211.png

I got sucked into his slide show Zhou - it took nearly an hour but was worth it. It is all ball park stuff but answers a lot of questions as to how viable different alternatives are.
He leaves out a lot of lifestyle things like home working to reduce commuting. The little eco car (like a Sinclair) looks very good, but car shares are also well worth while.
I think we should be looking at a plan for reducing consumption radically by life style change, as well as a major switch to renewables. A car share is a good way of reducing your "per person" commuter emissions by a half with one sharer. Working from home two - three days a week is another option for a lot of office workers.

Actually the type house I live in is a split level ranch and not cape. 3 beds, 1.5 baths and basement. All timber except a brick face in the front. A modest home but more than adequete for anyone in my opinion.

Thermal underwear, gloves, balaclavas and lots of wool are essential if wintering in Squire Hall. Cold is one thing but that dampness there is in Ireland is miserable.

Gore's next mission is to push for American independence from oil in 10 years - hopefully the next 10 if his opinions on global warming are a reality. (thanks to unaligned for the link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/al_gores_energy_speech.html )

Americans each have a co2 footprint of 20 tons per year while we are over 10 and the Chinese each about 4 tons of co2 annually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Given that their cars are massive, their military massive (1/2 trillion bucks per year) and other aspects of them massive like their appetite for oil - 20 million barrels daily out of a world consumption of 85 million where they produce 6 million barrels themselves - can America possibly pull this off even in theory? Their current installed capacity for wind is the same as Spain's and they have a huge number of nuclear power stations (104) and are currently planning to build more http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,564348,00.html so how can they hope to break this oilchoholism they are suffering at present which is dragging them into wars and getting them to do funny money business with China in order to have enough spare dimes in order to satisfy the cravings?

Some links
Solar: "1366" Technologies (number of watts falling on surface of earth
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565636

Number of hours of sunshine in the states - website courtesy of SAD sufferer
http://www.thewellers.com/weller43/sunshine.htm

10 years ? Not on your nanny.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

10 years ? Not on your nanny.

I don't think they can or will - but I'm prepared to be surprised. The main problem is that they still have a lot of oil.
Sweden I think has a ten year plan that includes nuclear.

Ireland is a different kettle of fish. We should do it as we don't have oil and do have plenty of tide and wind. Because of the planning and development stage of projects, and because we have built vast amounts of substandard housing in the last ten years, it would be difficult but doable I think to halve it in ten years and be down to maybe 10% or less in 20 years.

Flying is our problem.

C'mon lads are ye voting! It's not whether the Americans will do it but whether they can ... (bearing in mind that ecogeek.org reckoned that the fact that coal-fired power stations are built for 30 years and the builders'll want to get their value for the money)

cactus flower wrote:

Flying is our problem.

‘Hy-Bird’ Airplane Powered by Solar PV and Hydrogen Fuel Cell, To Make Round-the-World Flight


Treehugger

No. It is 1/3 cheaper to build a wind farm in America than in Britian but there has been far less investment (relatively speaking) in that country. Oil is cheap. Run with it.

riven wrote:

No. It is 1/3 cheaper to build a wind farm in America than in Britian but there has been far less investment (relatively speaking) in that country. Oil is cheap. Run with it.

A lot of renewables have reached their affordability point in relation to oil in Europe. The main thing is to stick to the simpler proven technologies I think. Tidal would look like a no brainer for Ireland.

Costs of tidal relative to wind??

Tidal is undeveloped so no cost comparisons have been based. However tidal do provide for more compact operations and higher power per structure so when it developes fully, it could be cheaper (assuming that winds stagnates).

Area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of Oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of Natural Gas says the US Geological Survey

That's three years oil for the world if used at current rates, I don't know how long the gas might last...

Oil $125 a barrel today.



Finfacts

I think the short-term speculative bubble in oil is unwinding now. The price should over-correct to about 80 dollars before resuming its original path upwards.

90 billion barrels. A few months ago I had a lad saying they were sitting on 10 timesthis amount in Alaska and nobody believed it.

We may also start to see some of the other commodities correcting downwards in the short term.

Aha! Things like this thread convince me that we are in the denial stage of the bust. I expect a "return to reality" to rear its head before a full-scale crash down to about 80 dollars a barrel. This would be the overcorrection and I see prices back at today's levels by the end of next year.

I don't buy it - bubbles don't correct that quickly - remember that one year ago oil was around 70 dollars a barrel ... bubbles go in proper 5 year cycles and this one is being forced down suspiciously quickly. No harm if something is actually being done - goosebump on that thread says that the Germans have called for world governments to ban speculation on oil which sounds sensible.

Ford and GM are abandoning their SUV lines which could have an impact on the price of oil not to mention a hundred other tech improvements and developments that could fatally threaten the oil cartel's iron grip on a more than willing market to be taken.

High oil could fuel that new technology - what else am I waiting for around the internet?

Auditor #9 wrote:

I don't buy it - bubbles don't correct that quickly - remember that one year ago oil was around 70 dollars a barrel ... bubbles go in proper 5 year cycles and this one is being forced down suspiciously quickly. No harm if something is actually being done - goosebump on that thread says that the Germans have called for world governments to ban speculation on oil which sounds sensible.

Ford and GM are abandoning their SUV lines which could have an impact on the price of oil not to mention a hundred other tech improvements and developments that could fatally threaten the oil cartel's iron grip on a more than willing market to be taken.

High oil could fuel that new technology - what else am I waiting for around the internet?

Audi, how long does it take to blow up a balloon, and how long does it take to burst it. The modus operandi of any bubble is it's rapid deflation.