69 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

I've spent the last two days researching this issue.

In the end, hydrogen will be created out of renewable resources. This has been the whole idea behind hydrogen ever since its conception.

The use of fossil fuels to generate hydrogen will only be used as an intermediary step towards a fullblown hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen is obviously the answer to the energy-problem. Anybody who thinks otherwise, should spend more time doing his research, IMO.

Two whole days huh?

Unless you want to cover the Sahara desert in solar panels these renewable energy sources you are talking about won't come close to making up the difference fossil fuels provide.

Why is everyone so afraid of nuclear energy? We don't need to waste our time and money on things like wind turbines that provide intermittent power at a huge cost. We have tapped into the power of the atom. Lets use it!

Your hydrogen economy would work just fine if it had nuclear power as it's base.

[Jay the Avenger]

Two whole days huh?

That's more time than you spent reading the articles.

You haven't read the articles at all, have you?

Unless you want to cover the Sahara desert in solar panels these renewable energy sources you are talking about won't come close to making up the difference fossil fuels provide.

Show me a link.

Why is everyone so afraid of nuclear energy?  We don't need to waste our time and money on things like wind turbines that provide intermittent power at a huge cost.  We have tapped into the power of the atom.  Lets use it!

Your hydrogen economy would work just fine if it had nuclear power as it's base.

The hydrogen economy isn't mine.

I never said nuclear power was out of the question.


http://people.howstu...en-economy4.htm

Right now there are several different ways to create electricity that do not use fossil fuels:

    * Nuclear power
    * Hydroelectric dams
    * Solar cells
    * Wind turbines
    * Geothermal power
    * Wave and tidal power
    * Co-generation (For example, a sawmill might burn bark to create power, or a landfill might burn methane that the rotting trash produces.)

...

In the future, barring some technological breakthrough, it seems likely that one of two things will happen to create the hydrogen economy: Either nuclear-power or solar-power generating capacity will increase dramatically.

There's also the option of modifying bacteria to convert solar energy directly to H2. I don't know how much it would generate, however.

[Jay the Avenger]

Another piece of text that tells us renewable energy sources should not be a problem in the future: http://www.smo.nl/ht...ers.htm#energie

It's Dutch. But I'm happy to translate for my forum friends.

A non-literal translation from the energy (energie) part:

In order for the hydrogen economy to blossom, a good renewable energy source is required.

Solar panels are a good candidate. While they still aren't competetive with other power sources, their costs have dropped by 95% since 1970.

The latest flexible solar panels, recently released, are another step forwards. These can be treated with nano materials, which will increase their efficiency even more. Several scenario's point out that, in 2010, solar panels will be at the point where they can compete with traditional energy generation.

...

The user of solar-panels grows every year by 26%-42%. With each production doubling, the price decreases 20%.

...

Wind energy, now only costing 3 dollarcents per kilowatt-hour, is growing by 30% and has added 5 gigawatt per year to global energy-production. A comparison: in the nineties of the previous century, nuclear powerplants generated only 3 gigawatt per year.

...

While fossil energy is inreasing in cost, costs of renewable energy is continuously declining. In the long term, renewable energy will lead to cheap and ubiquitous energy-sources.

...

British Petroleum expects that 50% of the total energy demand in 2050 will be supplied by solar panels and other renewable sources. The consequences are huge. The most important application is the development of local energy networks, that can be used to combat poverty in underdeveloped countries.

The guy writing this is a professor, by the way.

I think he's totally right about the use of nano materials for solar panels. Anybody who has read a significant amount of text about nanotech, knows that nanotech has the potential to make 'things' (I'm using a general term on purpose) more efficient by several orders of magnitude (this usually means: at least 3 orders of magnitude, or a thousandfold).

You can bet your ass that there will be enough energy in the future.

[DJS]

Hey guys,

Planetp just PMed me saying that he just updated his site with lots of new articles and links.

I'll repost the link:

futurehi

[Jay the Avenger]

http://www.azcentral...ydrocar01.html:

Hydrogen Car Powered By Sunlight - A teacher called Cory Waxman and his students have built the only self-sustaining hydrogen vehicle that uses a conventional internal-combustion engine. The truck is hydrogen-powered and creates its own fuel from solar energy and water, a technical feat that rivals the advanced technology being researched by major auto companies and universities. The four-cylinder engine is tuned to run on hydrogen, which is produced by a hand-built electrolysis system mounted in the bed.

http://www.worldchan...es/001429.html:

Self Sufficient Desert Home - Last summer, eight students at the University of Utah's College of Architecture and Planning designed a three-bedroom desert home that generates its own electricity and water and is situated in Bluff, Utah, 22 miles from the nearest town. The house is built of an energy-efficient material known as rammed earth. Solar panels generate enough electricity to light the house and power small appliances, while the stove and fridge are fueled by propane. But the most striking element is the 2,500-square-foot "butterfly" roof floating over the house to collect rainwater. One inch of rainfall fills the house's cistern, which supplies water to the kitchen and bathroom. Construction of the house, done with volunteer student labor and recycled materials, took 16 weeks and cost $21,219.58.

http://www.techrevie...0/ap_102504.asp


Ayup... it won't be power shortages that kill off humanity.

[DJS]

Hey Cosmos,

Well, the link was for the alt energy concepts, not the psychedelic futurism. But hey, to each his own, you know what I mean. Everyone has a different take on what the future might hold and Planetp is no different in this regard. Based on discussions I've had with him I would say he's extremely intelligent and open minded, although my materialist leanings pull me away from his perspective somewhat...

By the way, one of the foundational elements of psychedelic futurism is The Hedonistic Imperative by David Pearce.

Hedweb

There are quite a few followers of the hedonistic imperative here at ImmInst who I have great respect for.

[Lazarus Long]

Here is an interesting site with numerous links included. The thing everyone needs to get a grip on is that oil will not be replaced with a single alternative but a socioeconomic & technocultural shift that includes many of the kinds of things we discuss here in our forum. Hydrogen is not THE solution it is however a step in the right direction, the same may be said of fissionable fossil fuel.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Remember fossil fuels are nuclear energy. They are just nuclear energy from the sun stored by plants millions of years ago.

Elrond you sort of have that earlier comment wrong, fissionable nuclear IS a fossil fuel in its own way. At least it certainly has its limitations and scarcity issues, not to mention toxic waste. Nanotech and biotech can not only address hydrogen production but a far more efficient nano & bio-reduction of the waste stream to recycle energy that is needed to be spent anyway to address urban necessity.

The point is that we need to change how we think about energy and how we integrate our usage of it, to alter it from something that is contributing to obesity into something that prolongs not only life but a higher quality life. Even things like telecommuting offset energy demand dramatically if enough people do it and solar generates efficient lighting systems already through LEDs and future better versions of that tech are highly probable from nanotech soon. The materials recycled in the waste stream will reduce the energy of mining too and definitely reduce environmental toxification.

But all of this is not enough if usage increases as dramatically as is not only possible but probable. Fusion, or Zero Point Energy, or some new major source is mandatory even with all the other possible current technical alternatives as well as conservation and maximal efficiency. We are simply reaching a tipping point and oil is exemplary but not the only bell curve going over the top.

[PaulH]

Hi Cosmos,

planetp here (Paul Hughes). Feel free to question me about 'Psychedelic Futurism'. I'd be happy to share my perspectives on that and talk with you about your doubts.

[eternaltraveler]

Elrond you sort of have that earlier comment wrong, fissionable nuclear IS a fossil fuel in its own way. At least it certainly has its limitations and scarcity issues, not to mention toxic waste.

Fissionable nuclear does indeed have limitations. However those limitations are nothing compared to anything else out there. It is estimated with breeder reactors that we have enough fissionable material to last a billion years or so at present consumption rates (maybe only a thousand years with ever increasing consumption).

I think that is plenty of time for us to solve the fission problem, and then, like I said we will be able to generate energy as long as hydrogen, helium, and everything up to iron last in the universe.

Toxic waste is a (minor) problem. Each year the average reactor produces about one cubic meter of radioactive waste (in the form of a glass for long term disposal, and assuming all that can be reprocessed is). Solution? Bury it in the middle of the desert and don't go there. One cubic kilometer of desert is enough to store wastes from a reactor for a billion years. If you are really, really, really worried about it bury it in a subduction plate that is in the process of getting sucked into the earth's mantle.

It is worth it to note that you don't need to worry about the wastes in a big way for more than 500 years. After 500 years the wastes are less radioactive than the uranium ore that they originally came from. Wastes from nuclear energy would have virtually no impact on the environment (unless you are worried about the environment in the desert a couple of hundred meters underground in the desert). Nuclear is a clean source of energy.

Modern reactors do not have the big problems associated with nuclear energy. You can take all the coolant out of the system and by the physical design of the thing it will shut down (so if all the safety systems fail it will not melt down).

Nuclear generated energy is cheaper than any other alternative to fossil fuels by a dramatic amount. And the costs of nuclear energy are only going down as we learn more about it. It is the best solution. Yes, we could get some energy from wind farms, and solar panels, but why? It is only a waste of good resources. The hydrogen economy is a reasonable and attainable idea with nuclear energy as it's base. Sure, you could use solar, but do you really want vast areas of land covered by solar panels, and thus wasted for any other uses. And putting large solar arrays in space is not a reasonable near to middle term solution.

One last note. The tiny uranium impurities in coal can give you more useful energy than you can get by burning the coal. Fission produces 10 million times the energy you get from any chemical reaction.

[eternaltraveler]

there is some good information on hydrogen as a fuel source here:
http://www-formal.st...s/hydrogen.html

[Jay the Avenger]

By the way, one of the foundational elements of psychedelic futurism is The Hedonistic Imperative by David Pearce.

Hedweb

There are quite a few followers of the hedonistic imperative here at ImmInst who I have great respect for.

I have read parts of his book.

He's getting his predictions way off. He's expecting indefinate lifespans to arrive thousands of years from now, so he obviously was not taking into account any exponential curves.

I sent him an email about this, and he was very openminded to the idea that all his ideas might very well take place within the current century.

[Jay the Avenger]

Hydrogen is not THE solution it is however a step in the right direction, the same may be said of fissionable fossil fuel.

Do you have a metal plate in front of your head?

There are two things standing in the way of a fullblown hydrogen economy: http://people.howstu...en-economy3.htm.


1. How to get a renewable energy source to create hydrogen?

Answer: Solar panels are looking very promising right now. And that's just one of many options for acquiring a renewable energy source.

http://people.howstu...en-economy4.htm


2. How to store/transport hydrogen?

Answer: There are many ways of approaching this problem. One of them is Chryslers borax-idea.

http://people.howstu...en-economy5.htm

[Lazarus Long]

Do you have a metal plate in front of your head?

Look Jay, I do not think your zealous almost blind belief in the idea discredits the idea but it does mitigate your credibility. I am not against hydrogen but I am not a *believer*. You are too used to preaching to the choir, now try doing the work.

I have designed Solar systems for harvesting hydrogen from seawater and I do think the direction offers potential relief but I suspect you simply do not grasp the scope of global energy consumption and how fast it is increasing ahead of the ability to produce new energy.

Considering I basically gave support to the idea you do a great job of alienating those that are on your side. The difference is a question of time and money, not just what is possible. How much and out of what materials to produce the solar panels, how much per kilowatt cost and how long will these materials last and at what level of efficiency?

Do you have much experience with PV Cells?

Their efficiency is still quite low or we wouldn't need the hydrogen in the first place and most of them lose up to 30% of their initial efficiency in a relatively short period due to material decay internally. These are surmountable problems but get your facts straight, and put your horse back in front of the cart; they haven't been fixed yet.

Do you have an idea of what area must be covered with solar cells to produce a sufficient hydrogen output to equal the millions of barrels of oil we utilize in this country everyday?

Do you understand that as fast as you build this technology all you are doing is playing catchup with increasing global demand and maybe not even the fall off in petroleum supply but you are not likely to get ahead of the problem?

I said it is not THE solution but I grant that it is a part. Do you have a serious objection to that argument or just flippant hyperbole and biased links?

Right now Photo-voltaic Solar is becoming competitive at a per kilowatt production cost after decades of investment to produce lighting and provide some energy to the grid in specific latitudes but actually the argument for GM modified bacteria is likely to produce a far greater result at a competitive investment level.

Growing hydrogen is probably the best way long term and it might spill over into other economies of scale required to sustain urban environments.

[Lazarus Long]

Oh and have you looked at one simple projected statistic that relates to this involving not only population, but the demographics of consumption?

Currently less than one in fifty people globally own and use an automobile. In thirty years, as population is projected to go from over six billion to at least nine billion the ratio of car owners/users is projected to go from 1:50 to 1:15 (this by a variety of independent sources to include industry and government).

Do the math and address the requisite demand this makes for not only energy to drive the vehicles but the energy to manufacture them and recycle all the subsequent material waste from that industrial production and use. And this is only ONE sector of an increasingly complex interdependent global economy and doesn't include production and delivery aspects of food, housing, services, general manufacturing, personal lifestyle demand etc.

We use more energy today than ever before and even if this were kept at current levels, having fifty percent more people using equivalent amounts would tax our current system beyond capacity. In fact the US is still the dominant energy consumer and uses roughly 25% of total global energy so as we achieve global parity we are not increasing demand proportionally to population growth but many times faster than it.

This is a part of the discussion driving the serious concerns over how fast we could even convert to a hydrogen economy. It is also why the real issues are socio-economic more than merely technical.

[Lazarus Long]

And another thing, there is almost no environment MORE hostile to the materials in current PV cells than the marine environment and they corrode and decay into uselessness in the presence of salt water exponentially faster than well inland.

Also since they produce DC they are only efficient at all if they are producing the energy within a maximum radius of roughly one half mile of where it is to be used. PV Cells are an area that still requires significant improvement itself. I am aware of a number of smaller manufacturers that are trying to develop PV cells for the marine environment and they have had some limited success but at a significantly higher per killowatt cost and these are still not field tested for any great period that would be required to build for industrial need.

And don't bother trying to convert the DC to AC for transmission because you are going to have to convert it back to DC for electrolysis and this will eliminate most of the efficiency from using solar in the first place.

[PaulH]

Cosmos,

re: Psychedelic Futurism

I think it entails lots of things, but here are two of the introductory posts which opened the site. I think these two post most summurize for me what psychedelic futurism is about:

The Future Says Hi

Turning On Higher Intelligence

[eternaltraveler]

However I disagree with dumping of any nuclear waste on land or sea. I'd prefer to have deep underground facilities to store the nuclear waste, right now it's well within our capability to dig 2km deep mine shafts (we have one already to my knowledge). Anyway we could dig out a huge area at that depth and store all the nuclear waste in North America there. Similarly facilities could exist in Europe as well. Once we're done with the shafts they can be filled in, permanently closing off their access.

I'm sorry if I was not clear. The nuclear waste would obviously be deep underground, in the middle of the desert.

[Jay the Avenger]

Look Jay, I do not think your zealous almost blind belief in the idea discredits the idea but it does mitigate your credibility.  I am not against hydrogen but I am not a *believer*.  You are too used to preaching to the choir, now try doing the work.

I have designed Solar systems for harvesting hydrogen from seawater and I do think the direction offers potential relief but I suspect you simply do not grasp the scope of global energy consumption and how fast it is increasing ahead of the ability to produce new energy.

Considering I basically gave support to the idea you do a great job of alienating those that are on your side.  The difference is a question of time and money, not just what is possible.  How much and out of what materials to produce the solar panels, how much per kilowatt cost and how long will these materials last and at what level of efficiency?

I'm not much of a religious guy, Lazarus. I'd rather actually be doing some work. And you can bet your behind on it, that if I were in any position to tell the world where it should be heading, it would be heading in the right way. I would sure love to do something for this world. Unfortunately, I don't have the means to usurp power, at this particular time.

It doesn't take much to do better than Bush, I'm sure you'll agree.

Do you have much experience with PV Cells?

Their efficiency is still quite low or we wouldn't need the hydrogen in the first place and most of them lose up to 30% of their initial efficiency in a relatively short period due to material decay internally.  These are surmountable problems but get your facts straight, and put your horse back in front of the cart; they haven't been fixed yet.

Do you have an idea of what area must be covered with solar cells to produce a sufficient hydrogen output to equal the millions of barrels of oil we utilize in this country everyday?

No I don't. But luckily, I happen to understand the implications of exponential growth. I also know that nanotechnology has the potential to increase efficiency of products by a thousandfold or more.

I would be downright flabbergasted to see that this technology still would not give us a good renewable energy source.

If it doesn't, then we'll just have to put down a vast array of solar panels in the Sahara. Whatever it takes.

Do you understand that as fast as you build this technology all you are doing is playing catchup with increasing global demand and maybe not even the fall off in petroleum supply but you are not likely to get ahead of the problem?

This is untrue. When technology follows an exponential graph, you eventually get to the point where you are out of the woods.

Unless the demand is growing along at the same exponential rate, ofcourse. But I think it's reasonable to assume that the demand will hit a roof because it is tied to human desires. These are, to an extent, fixed. Unless humans will want to drive 10 cars at once in the future, the global energy production will be sufficient.

Sometimes it's a good thing, especially for an expert such as yourself, to zoom out from the calculations involved with the matter, and take a look at the bigger picture.

I said it is not THE solution but I grant that it is a part.  Do you have a serious objection to that argument or just flippant hyperbole and biased links?

Is the EIA biased? They project we won't run into oil troubles until at least 2020. Plenty of time to get to the hydrogen economy. Too bad I can't find the link with the graphs.

I'm not sure what you mean by flippant hyberbole. I'm also not sure if you have grasped the concept of 'smileys'. And I'm not sure why you would want to call the links biased. Also, I'm not sure why you would want to call a statement an argument.

But I sure am glad that I have the ability to remain completely calm in a net-fight.

Right now Photo-voltaic Solar is becoming competitive at a per kilowatt production cost after decades of investment to produce lighting and provide some energy to the grid in specific latitudes but actually the argument for GM modified bacteria is likely to produce a far greater result at a competitive investment level. 

Growing hydrogen is probably the best way long term and it might spill over into other economies of scale required to sustain urban environments.

Then I don't see how you still think of hydrogen as part, instead of complete.

[Jay the Avenger]

http://www.pcworld.c...,118375,00.asp:

Kurzweil:  Nanobots in the capillaries of our brains will interact with our biological neurons to vastly expand our biological intelligence. Once nonbiological intelligence gets a foothold in our brains (a threshold that we have already passed since we do have a growing arsenal of neural implants), it will grow in capacity by at least doubling every year. In comparison, our biological intelligence is essentially fixed in capacity. The crossover point will be in the 2020s. By the 2030s, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate.

Nanobots in the environment will be able to reverse the environmental degradation from the first industrial revolution--for example, removing controlled amounts of carbon dioxide from the air, which will have the side benefit of providing carbon and oxygen, both useful ingredients for nanotechnology. Renewable energy will be revolutionized by nanotechnology, for example, efficient nano solar cells and nanoscale fuel cells for highly distributed, decentralized energy resources.

There ya have it. Kurzweil knows one hell of a lot better what he's talking about than me when it comes to renewable energy, I'll give you that.

Knowing him, he did the math and drew the conclusion that there is no imminent crisis.

This comes down the the same thing I have said in my previous post: exponential growth gets you out of the woods for good once you hit the skyrocket part.

[eternaltraveler]

No I don't. But luckily, I happen to understand the implications of exponential growth. I also know that nanotechnology has the potential to increase efficiency of products by a thousandfold or more.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but you are not going to increase the efficiency of solar cells above 100%. I'm not exactly sure what the best cells produce now, but it sure isn't a thousand time less than 100%

If it doesn't, then we'll just have to put down a vast array of solar panels in the Sahara. Whatever it takes.

You really really really really really don't like nuclear power do you?

[Jay the Avenger]

1. 100% efficiency is just fine. Nanotech will make the cells small enough so we can have gazillions of them if necessary. The production of energy will be vastly bigger than people's energy demands.

2. I have absolutely no problem with nuclear power at all. If it was up to me, we'd put some plants down right now to safeguard our own and the economy's continued existence.



If anybody still feels endangered by those ridiculous peak-oil people after reading this article:

http://www.peopleand...d=522&section=7

then I don't know what it will take to ease the minds of the fearful.

The article basically says what I say: technological breakthroughs keep on coming, and they will help us out with renewables-a-plenty.

[Jay the Avenger]

And oh yeah, this article is also pretty cool.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/1727312.stm

A very nice example of a self sustaining renewable community.

[ddhewitt]

I would recommend that anyone interested in Peak Oil read this article: Hubbert's Peak & The Economics of Oil. It is a good summary of the geology and finance of Peak Oil.

For those interested in Kurzweil's "Fantastic Voyage" click here.

I guess what it boils down to is where you are on the spectrum of impending disaster (Hey who turned out the lights?) to imminent Singularity (Technorapture).

I would give the disaster scenario a somewhat higher probability for the next 50 years but think that the most likely scenario is that we will do what we have always done which is muddle through (Term stolen from John Maudlin.)

Duane

[ex_banana_eater]

. (I doubt Ayn Rand studied the anthropological literature on collapsing complex societies, but she did intuitively understand the sort of disaster that has happened over and over again when human populations exceed their sustainable resource bases.)

Ayn Rand understood man's most valuable resource is his mind.

This should portray my view on the "crisis."

[DJS]

Very true, but is the *individual mind* synonymous with the *collective mind*? I would contend that it is not, and therfore that your argument is nonsensical. I should also state that I think the sentiments you express are dangerous ones. By being complacent and wallowing in our own self worth we are inviting disaster. Humankind is at a unique point in its evolution where the rewards and the dangers are without precedent. Surely a policy of caution and realistic appraisal would be the most prudent course of action.