Re: Supposing Some of the 5 Billion Object?

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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