 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Fusion / July 2005Supposing Some of the 5 Billion Object?
Found this on alt.environment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oil and People First published July 2005; article no. 573 The population of the World expanded six-fold in parallel with oil production during the First Half of the Age of Oil. William Stanton, author of The Rapid Growth of Human Population 1750-2000, contributes the following analysis of how population will have to return to pre-Oil Age levels. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic. Reducing Population in step with Oil Depletion Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be. In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is "more of the same". They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. In 2150, for example, a wind turbine constructed of steel, concrete and plastic may not be able to generate, during its lifetime, as much renewable energy as would have been used up in creating it. Imagine mining, refining and smelting the metal ores, quarrying and transporting the rock, growing the biomass; fabricating the component parts, and erecting and maintaining the structure, using only the trickle of electricity produced by another similar turbine. Vast engineering projects such as constructing the first Airbus A380 airliner (Bowie 2005), using only renewable energy from start to finish, would be unthinkable (to say nothing of flying the plane without oil!). If, in this article, I discuss ways in which a global population reduction of some 6 billion people is likely to take place during the 21st Century ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cheney nuking anyone who gets between Halliburton and any remaining oil fields should take care of a lot of 'em. Bret Cahill > Found this on alt.environment. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Bret Cahill I don't buy it. It's true that the population has increased dramatically during that period and continues to increase world wide today. But, the driving engine has been technology not energy. Technology allowed much greater food production and food transportation fueling the population increase. Energy use and development is a result of technology not the other way around. We did not get technology because we had energy, we developed energy sources because we advanced technology. Without technology there would have been no fossil fuel development. It is now technology that will take us out of the petroleum age just as it took us out of the "wood" age in the late 19th century. In this very group are discussions of ITER fusion research project and there are recent articles on methane hydrates, renewed interest in fission reactors, plus solar and wind plants. Bio-fuels are beginning to be sold and most of the gasoline used in the US contains 10% or more ethanol. So we are coming to the end of the petroleum age and it is technology that is the engine behind it making it possible. The fact that the earths population is way too large to be sustained over the long run is another issue. The large population is made possible by technology and energy but technology and available energy did not cause it. In fact, the most technological societies that use the most energy have actually reduced or controlled their populations in recent times. The population increases are out of control where technology is primitve and where energy use is low by comparison. These primitive societies are vulnerable to a population crash by starvation disease, famine and other factors. The fact that we are coming out of the petroleum age has little to do with it. Bob With possible the excption of fusion, all the options have trade offs. Bret Cahill > > Found this on alt.environment. > > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > do with it. > Bob This article has shades of "Soylent Green". No need for those colourful biccies! We may be running out of oil, but it's quite simple to produce alcohol and run fuel cells on it. Even the dregs of oil that's left after depletion will, in a sufficiently pure form, work in a fuel cell. That will give you much more efficient energy conversion than the ICE. Everyone is discussing hydrogen, but it's expensive to make, hard to store, dangerous to carry and I really think that alcohol is the answer. It's easy to produce and safe to carry. I've never understood the interest corporations have in hydrogen. All that will do, in the absence of nuclear power generation, is to move the pollution from the car to the power station. Ali. Great - a "fossil fuel" discussion on sci.physics.fusion, First off - _Oil Is Not_ a Fossil Fuel. Get this out of your thought process. Coal *is* a fossil fuel, oil and natural gas are *NOT* fossil fuels. Oil is made in subduction zones (tectonics) where limestone/iron minerals/and water are compressed at high temperatures. Natural Gas is constantly colloidally forming and sedimenting itself out of seawater in deep sea environments - and enough methane-hydrides are built up as ices just under the silt of the continental shelves to give humans a very clean energy source for 500 or more years (depending on how we control our population and manage the rest of Earth's life systems..)j Actually, the more of us there are - the greater the probability that fewer of us will survive any global event that causes the collapse of the agricultural infrastructure (built on oil) that keeps us all fed (mostly with crap).. I just saw "War of the Worlds" tonight - maybe we *are* just a stockyard of life chemistry for an advanced race breeding "penicillin in a Petri dish".. The greater threat is that the Javanese super-volcano' is quickly nearing eruption. Thanks, Rick >>>Found this on alt.environment. >>> [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > Ali. > Great - a "fossil fuel" discussion on sci.physics.fusion, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oil is made in subduction zones (tectonics) where limestone/iron Stop right there. Just where do you think limestone comes from? In any case, the name that we use to collectively refer to the various forms of mined carbon ought not alter the argument about the long term effects of large scale burning of those forms. John Briggs Well, in the early days of the oceans - it was a chemical precipitate. Now *some* of it, don't ask me what percent, is made of silica from diatoms and other life forms silting to the seas' floors. The Russkies know where their oil is, because they use this inorganic model to help them find likely locations to explore for it. The USA oil industry is completely delusional and thinks Texas has had so much oil because so many dinosaur fossils are found there. When the CEO's have this mindset, it's impossible for them to make a good decision on future exploration. Look at how GW's *shell* company failed because of Bush's idiotic reasonings and decisions on exploration zones. The London bombings are much more destructive than one might think - in that - not only 50 folks died and 250 were injured - but in that it took an extreme focus of the G8 meetings off of Global Warming. It got Bush off the hook. So I do not consider myself so far wrong when I expect the CIA to have had a hand in it (just like they did in the 9/11 catastrophe).. Thanks, Rick >>Great - a "fossil fuel" discussion on sci.physics.fusion, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John Briggs >Everyone is discussing hydrogen, but it's expensive to make, hard to store, >dangerous to carry and I really think that alcohol is the answer. Hey, it's always worked for me!!! There would be no technology without the money and energy available to develop it. The more advanced the technology, the more energy is required in its development. Case in point: magnetically confined fusion. Don't tell me that energy is not a concern when whole cities have brownouts during a two second test of a tokamak. The big concern about magnetic-confined fusion is that we've invested so much money and time in it over the past half century, will it really pay off? Sure, if a fusion reactor ignites and burns like a fire, then the energy is free. But over the whole life of the machine, will the energy that is actually produced, extracted and distributed ever offset the energy and dollar cost that went into making it? That is what it means to truly break even. >> Found this on alt.environment. >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > do with it. > Bob > There would be no technology without the money and energy available to > develop it. The more advanced the technology, the more energy is required in > its development. Case in point: magnetically confined fusion. Don't tell me > that energy is not a concern when whole cities have brownouts during a two > second test of a tokamak. Please cite a specific example of a brownout caused by a tokamak. I don't believe such a case exists. Plenty of brownouts have happened because people want to run their air conditioners. Should we restrict their use since they aren't necessary? Is keeping cool and comfortable more important than research? > The big concern about magnetic-confined fusion is that we've invested so > much money and time in it over the past half century, will it really pay > off? A few $billion over 50 years for fusion as opposed to the $16 billion NASA gets (how long since the last shuttle mission?) and $25 billion NIH gets (how many diseases have been cured recently?) this year alone. We spend ~2.5 times as much on high energy physics research than on fusion. Is it that much more important to determine exacly how subatomic particles work than to look for a future energy source? Where's the payoff in that research? The bugetary arguments against fusion research are a bullshit tactic put up by those who are jealous of an actual scientific research program. The cost of fusion research to our society is miniscule and the potential payoff is enormous. To put it in perspective, the NY Yankees spent $205 million on players' salaries this year and the federal government spent $270 million on magnetic fusion research. Are the Yankees really paying off? Their budget comes from money spent willingly by our society. They're only in the middle of their division and they cost society 75% as much as is being spent to develop a new source of energy. > Sure, if a fusion reactor ignites and burns like a fire, then the > energy is free. But over the whole life of the machine, will the energy that > is actually produced, extracted and distributed ever offset the energy and > dollar cost that went into making it? That is what it means to truly break > even. When products are purchased, the energy cost of producing them is included in the purchase price (unless the manufacturer is losing money). If you understood basic plant economics, you would realize that when an economically viable fusion plant is discussed, the issue of 'true breakeven' you raise is already being addressed. Will you ever pay off for the food you eat and the resources you consume over your lifetime? Sure, if you cure cancer or make some breakthrough into controlled fusion research then you will have been a worthwhile member of society, but otherwise you're using up resources that could go to support some starving genius in a third world country. Fusion research has advanced basic plasma physics and vacuum technology which has helped with the development of plasma processing techniques which are required for modern computers to be possible. What have you done lately? Whoa, slow down. I think you misunderstood my message. I was replying to the person who said that technology, not energy, is the driving force behind societal advancement. I was trying to say that the amount of energy required for a technological advancement is directly proportional to its complexity. If a particular advacement is not used and applied correctly, then the benefits will not be reaped and there will be no payoff. Thus, there is always an inherent risk in the expenditure of energy, hence the fusion analogy (which I used in order to stay relevent to the topic). A several megawatt pulse lasting several seconds is a lot of energy, and can put quite a strain on the grid.While much of that energy is stored in a flywheel, it is enough to dim the lights for a few seconds during times of heavy power consumption by the city. This information comes directly from people working on the Alcator reactor at MIT when I interviewed there last year. I cannot speak for the techniques used by other laboratories. I have great faith on the part of the fusion researchers, and it is likely that their work will pay of in one shape or another. Their contributions to the field of plasma physics and vacuum technology have been huge, like you said. I was not attacking fusion in any way shape or form, nor was such an attack implied. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I have visited MIT's Alcator lab on several occasions and am planning a visit to PPPL as we speak. I have additionally spent the past three years doing my own fusion work with a homebuilt Farnsworth Fusor. Because I am not even 18 yet, I can't lay claim to anything huge (as you sarcastically and impolitely requested), but I can say that my experiences have motivated me to pursue a career in the nuclear sciences. Once again, I apologize if my origianl message offended you, as it was not inteded to do so. Brian McDermott www.brian-mcdermott.com/fusion.htm >> There would be no technology without the money and energy available to >> develop it. The more advanced the technology, the more energy is required [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > which are required for modern computers to be possible. What have you > done lately? Sorry for the rudeness. It's an undesirable byproduct of trying to dicuss complex issues with the often moronic posters on an unregulated newsgroup. It's just been annoying reading the posts of several people who whine that we're wasting so much money on fusion research. Some try to claim that the lack of fusion power on the grid is an indication of failure of the fusion effort, so that money should be redirected to wind or solar or cold fusion, etc. This argument is just ignorant and jealous to me, and is typically made by those pushing research that can't justify funding of it's own. My sarcastic statements about justifying your existence were to show that such an argument can be made in many cases where there is no obvious immediate and direct benefit, but great potential. In your case, the fact that you've been doing fairly advanced research before the age of 18 indicates that you have relatively high potential IMHO. To make up for my rudeness, here's some free career advice (whatever that's worth). If you are looking at labs where you will go to do undergraduate research, just remember not to be seduced by the big name recognition of Princeton and MIT. You won't be allowed to do much significant research on the larger experiments as an undergrad, and when it comes to the smaller experiments there are many other institutions that are very competetive and just as well recognized in the fusion community. The University of Wisconsin - Madison, University of Washington, Auburn, Swarthmore, UCSD, UCLA, and others have programs you should look at too. Make sure you choose a degree program (and collegiate environment) that best fits you rather than going by the name on the diploma. Thanks, no hard feelings. > Sorry for the rudeness. It's an undesirable byproduct of trying to > dicuss complex issues with the often moronic posters on an unregulated [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > collegiate environment) that best fits you rather than going by the > name on the diploma. Got any HV scraps you'd like to sell off? I think cell phones are a good example of advancing technology. They have both become more energy efficient, and now have lighter weight energy storage devices, but they also take more energy to drive their technology than ever before. And this new technology uses 10-20 times more energy than land wired communications (but because of its convenience and because it is more marketable to more people in a more expanding population of people who now "think" instant connections into conversations with their friends and associates are imperative..) - and then there is the poor planning on the business side. I guess stupid people have a lot to talk about with one another.. Thanks, Rick > Whoa, slow down. I think you misunderstood my message. > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >>which are required for modern computers to be possible. What have you >>done lately? < And this new technology uses 10-20 times < more energy than land wired < communications Which is about 0.0001% of the energy used to start your SUV. I want to see a cost/benefit risk analysis of all the combinations of all the sources and potential sources of energy. If fusion only has a 20% chance funded at a trillion a year for 10 years then that may be a good bet. It's time to start being systematic about this. It's getting down to the wire. Bret Cahill Hi Bret, If Honda can power hybrids with lithium batteries, why can't we get the lead (Pb) batteries out of our cars and use more efficient recharging electronics? Oh yeah, the Repubelicking Congress sucks up. My guess is that they will lie, steal, cheat, and steal forevermore to maintain their bigoted judgmental hypocrisy in power forever. This next election cycle is our last.. Thanks Rick > < And this new technology uses 10-20 times > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bret Cahill > Hi Bret, > > If Honda can power hybrids with lithium batteries, why can't we get the Honda doesn't power hybrids with lithium batteries. Hybrids are powered by gasoline. You don't plug them into the power grid and power them from coal/oil/nuclear/hydroelectric. You pull up to the pump and power them from oil. John Briggs Hi Bret, I guess in some sense you are correct. What I was getting at is why the Congress doesn't mandate higher efficiency standards for all motor vehicles and also require them to use lithium technology rechargeable for every car (whether hybrid or not) so that we can get the lead poisoning (and these very heavy batteries that create lower mileage ratings) out of our immediate environment and use less gas. Another technology that I would like to see mandated is the ability to use your hyper-efficient car to power/cool/heat your hyper-efficient home. It is really stupid how much *CRAP* people in the USA have to buy that could be completely eliminated from the energy/trash waste streams. Lawnmowers are a prime example of a small device that creates extreme pollution and could be easily eliminated with multi-use very efficient modular appliances. Honda is probably already working on these ideas. Thanks, Rick >>Hi Bret, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John Briggs I was looking at the constitution and I think Congress should repeal the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Bret Cahill How about making coal have lawful constrictions on its emissions as a fuel. Clinton did that with Diesel fuel - but it is 5 years since it was supposed to be implemented - W keeps pushing it off - and 20K folks (mostly kids who ride school buses) die of lung cancer and asthma from Diesel engine created soot yearly. You're plenty funny - but take a political stand agaisnt the neo-nazi right farts. thanks, Rick > I was looking at the constitution and I think Congress should repeal > the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. > > Bret Cahill >> I was looking at the constitution and I think Congress should >> repeal the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. >How about making coal have lawful constrictions on its emissions as >a fuel. Clinton did that with Diesel fuel - but it is 5 years >since it was supposed to be implemented - W keeps pushing it off - >and 20K folks (mostly kids who ride school buses) die of lung >cancer and asthma from Diesel engine created soot yearly. So it's not Diesel fuel causing the problem. The problem is with emissions; resulting in part from poor quality Diesel fuels. You want cheap fuel; you pay the price.  Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! >>> I was looking at the constitution and I think Congress should >>> repeal the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The problem is with emissions; resulting in part from poor quality > Diesel fuels. You want cheap fuel; you pay the price. The choice was recently made to continue to burn cheap, dirty fuel in local buses. Higher quality fuels cost more, which would mean that fares would go up, which would make it too expensive to attend demonstrations against air pollution. Signature/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! I guess you're both gay and don't have kids to take care of. Gay lobbyist interns are the worst. E flat and dry out. Thanks, Rick >>>>I was looking at the constitution and I think Congress should >>>>repeal the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that fares would go up, which would make it too expensive to attend > demonstrations against air pollution. How many of the folks on this group have studied the couple of images of the Mars Fossil up on NASA's/JPL's websites? Thanks, Rick > < And this new technology uses 10-20 times > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bret Cahill What is the URL Chris. > How many of the folks on this group have studied the couple of images of > the Mars Fossil up on NASA's/JPL's websites? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >> Bret Cahill Hi Chris, This kind of makes my point. There is no interdisciplinary science going on in the DARPA projects. (Except for those that are trying to erase "science" from the common consciousness.) "Read more Bible" - (that way the Repubelickin's have mind control over the dumb a.s majority of the poor white population, and why are these folks poor and ignorant? Oh yeah, mostly because they have behavioral aberrations that make them (sadly) the best Wal-Mart greeters on the surface of our dying planet!!..) Google search: JPL Mars fossil - hopefully NASA still has it posted - despite their attempt to wipe it out. Thanks, Rick > What is the URL > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>> >>>Bret Cahill If you mean me, I may have some extra HV stuff, including an x-ray transformer (it runs at 8kHz though, not regular line frequencies; you'll need to build a driver). Contact me if you are interested. > Got any HV scraps you'd like to sell off? Does it need to oil immersed? > If you mean me, I may have some extra HV stuff, including an x-ray > transformer (it runs at 8kHz though, not regular line frequencies; you'll > need to build a driver). Contact me if you are interested. > >>Got any HV scraps you'd like to sell off? It is already in a sealed oil tank and has two well connectors for HV cables. > Does it need to oil immersed? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>>Got any HV scraps you'd like to sell off? > A few $billion over 50 years for fusion as opposed to the $16 billion > NASA gets (how long since the last shuttle mission?) and $25 billion > NIH gets (how many diseases have been cured recently?) this year alone. There's some overlap but, unless you are dying of cancer, energy research is more critical than health at this point. Humanoids survived for millions of years w/o health care. > We spend ~2.5 times as much on high energy physics research than on > fusion. Is it that much more important to determine exacly how > subatomic particles work than to look for a future energy source? > Where's the payoff in that research? Such work could possibly lead to fusion. > The bugetary arguments against > fusion research are a bullshit tactic put up by those who are jealous > of an actual scientific research program. The cost of fusion research > to our society is miniscule and the potential payoff is enormous. Life and death critical. > To put it in perspective, the NY Yankees spent $205 million on players' > salaries this year and the federal government spent $270 million on > magnetic fusion research. Are the Yankees really paying off? Sometimes these Letterman/Leno type comparisons aren't a bad idea. Bret Cahill |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.