|
Post by alayna on Feb 24, 2010 19:26:55 GMT
Personal power plant in your home? Virtually no death-gas emissions? Never-before-imagined technology that one plucky guy came up with on his own and got $400mil funding to develop? 50% more efficient than centralised power production? Being launched - right now - out of the blue? www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=apiFar too good to be true. And seriously, if you're paying Powell to endorse something, at least get him to rattle an ampule of pretend anthrax or flash a cookie around and ask people to imagine it's yellow cake or something. Sheesh. It runs on natural gas. What happens when natural gas peaks
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Feb 24, 2010 19:33:38 GMT
Hairball, I have lived like the Amish. With all due respect to my friends the plain folk, I much prefer electricity to paraffin, central heat to a fireplace, and computers to slates. Television, I can do without. And most processed food. Horses are a wash. They require fuel whether they are in use or not - but they crank on forty below mornings. For that blessing I can forgive much.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 24, 2010 23:05:53 GMT
Personal power plant in your home? Virtually no death-gas emissions? Never-before-imagined technology that one plucky guy came up with on his own and got $400mil funding to develop? 50% more efficient than centralised power production? Being launched - right now - out of the blue? www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=apiFar too good to be true. And seriously, if you're paying Powell to endorse something, at least get him to rattle an ampule of pretend anthrax or flash a cookie around and ask people to imagine it's yellow cake or something. Sheesh. It runs on natural gas. What happens when natural gas peaks It can run on any fuel source.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Mar 2, 2010 13:39:17 GMT
Well, no, not really... it can only run on fuel sources that will catalyze to lesser-energy molecules with the materials in the plates. However... it is NOT an energy source. AND... it's not quite as efficient as they're letting on. It'd only be economical as long as the cost of the energy in natural gas stays relatively cheap. Bring that up to parity with other more expensive energy sources and you're at stalemate again. So many people seem to think it's a liberating thing to have a supply of energy without The Grid. It's as though they HATE the fact that there are corporations that administrate The Grid and that The Grid is Evil. Well, folks... I kinda' hate to point out that you're going to have a distribution grid regardless: how'd you think all that natural gas gets to your house, anyhow? Just because that particular grid is buried in the ground (and costs more to upkeep and requires more energy to produce and expand) out of sight doesn't mean that it isn't there! And... it has an ultimate capacity. If y'all want to drastically increase the amount of "work done" that it's capable of delivering, you're... uhh... going to have to upgrade it. Drastically.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 2, 2010 13:51:05 GMT
Well, no, not really... it can only run on fuel sources that will catalyze to lesser-energy molecules with the materials in the plates. However... it is NOT an energy source. AND... it's not quite as efficient as they're letting on. It'd only be economical as long as the cost of the energy in natural gas stays relatively cheap. Bring that up to parity with other more expensive energy sources and you're at stalemate again. So many people seem to think it's a liberating thing to have a supply of energy without The Grid. It's as though they HATE the fact that there are corporations that administrate The Grid and that The Grid is Evil. Well, folks... I kinda' hate to point out that you're going to have a distribution grid regardless: how'd you think all that natural gas gets to your house, anyhow? Just because that particular grid is buried in the ground (and costs more to upkeep and requires more energy to produce and expand) out of sight doesn't mean that it isn't there! And... it has an ultimate capacity. If y'all want to drastically increase the amount of "work done" that it's capable of delivering, you're... uhh... going to have to upgrade it. Drastically. Ahh, the Bloom Box. Been in development for several years. Somewhat more efficient than other fuel cells and uses less expensive materials, so that's good. But as you say, it's not magic, and in a sense it's just rearranging the deck chairs.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Mar 2, 2010 22:43:57 GMT
Yeah, the Bloom Box is no panacea, but maybe it does have role to play. Would it make for a good back-up power source for wind and solar power? Just fishing for a question to go with the answer.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 3, 2010 0:09:24 GMT
It could be seen as a way of setting up the concept of a local power source - and the space taken by all those boxes could be used for a thorium pebble bed reactor just before the natural gas runs out.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 18, 2010 13:19:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Jul 27, 2010 19:00:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Feb 22, 2011 20:23:27 GMT
Well... Libya declared Force Majeure this morning on basically a production of 1.5 mmbpd. We're still seeing that the bulk of the data IS demonstrating Peak Oil AND... many energy-reporting agencies' published data is more and more pointing to the reality of it.
I'd absolutely LOVE to not be able to say "I told you so... "
...but...
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 22, 2011 21:05:03 GMT
Fairly accurate post, but it doesn't take into account the inelasticity of demand with regard to price. We charge $100 for a barrel of oil that costs perhaps $20 to produce. Costs can go up by a factor of 4 with no increase in price and it will still be profitable.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Feb 22, 2011 21:09:46 GMT
You probably should think of the cost of replacing the oil currently produced instead of the energy required for the lift, processing and delivery costs. What about the cost of securing a region? Yes, that goes in there, too... it's far more complicated than most people realize. There's a reason why they say, "the devil's in the details."
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 22, 2011 21:13:22 GMT
I disagree with this one. It relies on a Mad Max type disintegration of societal norms over an extended period. There's too much profit involved for this scenario to pan out.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Feb 22, 2011 21:20:14 GMT
Goodness, gracious, Matt, what are you doing... playing the troll? If sabotaging oil production facilities can ENHANCE profits for somebody, why in the world would they NOT do it? And the Export Land Model is ALREADY being demonstrated to be a valid principle... cr@p, there's not one of the five dynamics mentioned there that isn't already beginning to rear its head.
That essay doesn't START from a basis of a Mad Max scenario, it simply points to said possibility due to typical market dynamics that have already played out on Earth at times various and sundry and too numerous to mention.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 22, 2011 21:34:20 GMT
You probably should think of the cost of replacing the oil currently produced instead of the energy required for the lift, processing and delivery costs. What about the cost of securing a region? Yes, that goes in there, too... it's far more complicated than most people realize. There's a reason why they say, "the devil's in the details." Which is why fossil fuels are in reality far more expensive than they seem. All that money is in addition to the $100 a barrel. How much money did it take for the US to secure its oil fields in Iraq?
|
|