Re: Domestic wind turbine

["rb_ziggy" <richard.boreham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some good points being made in this debate so I have to add a couple
more...

Quite some time before we run out of petroleum it will be far too
valuable a commodity to burn.  Its pricing will force it to the
point where it will only be used as a chemical raw material.

At least this will help reduce the CO2 emmissions. But does not stop
any of the strategic issues noted below.

While petroleum is clearly a finite resource, it is only quite
recently that consumption has actually outstripped new supply
finds.  Back in the 70's supply was forecast to run out in the
2030's/40's.  The hikes in 70's oil price lead to massive
exploration and finds.  I'm not quite sure what the current exhaust
point is (2100-2200?) but oil prices $60 and onto $100 is bound to
increase exploration and supply for a further period.  Of course,
this is bad news from the global warming point of view but 'good' if
you want to run 14mpg pickup trucks (I say this sitting in Houston
this week - gas currently $2.79 / gal and going north).

So, its unlikely that supply exhaustion will immediately force us
into doing anything massively constructive.

Personally, I'm with any attempt to look for alternatives... but I
don't see any of us voluntarily massively reducing our energy
consumption levels.  One very interesting statistic is that the
development of a linear increase in standards of living over the
centuries is accompanied by exponential increase in energy
consumption.  China, India etc are only the logical extension of
what we have seen in the west.

Consequently, we talk (in the west) about reducing our energy
consumption but the best we can realistically expect is to slow down
the rate of increase.  In developing countries, we cannot expect
them not to grow their energy consumption.  The best we can hope for
is that they will do so with less damage to the environment in
localised terms (China is now concerned about its pollution
levels).  But relying on fossil fuels means that its not possible to
reduce the resulting macro C02 load.

I'm afraid that my, perhaps rather depressing, conclusions from all
this are:

- We cannot, in the west, or worldwide, look to reducing energy
consumption as the route to reducing / limiting global warming.
- Renewables (wind / solar etc) cannot possibly both be expected to
reduce oil consumption and support net energy consumption growth.
- The only available technology that can give us CO2 free energy
(note I don't say clean) on the scale thats needed is nuclear
fission.
- Into the future, even emerging technologies such as fuel cell will
still be reliant on such massive scale electricity generation for
production of their (transportable, clean) fuel.
- We will very soon need to master the technologies needed to
support nuclear fusion as fuel source both because it is potentially
cleaner and its fuels are less problematic as terrorist
instruments.

Interesting times ahead.  You can see a situation where it's better
to supply '3rd world' countries with nuclear technology and fuel to
stave off oil conflicts and maintain global stability.  Funnily
enough (peculiar not ha-ha) we are already offering Iran this route.

That all ended up being a bit longer than expected ;-)

Regards

Richard

--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Ian Lowe" <ianlowe@x...> wrote:
> Nobody (apart from the boards of US Oil companies, I guess) is
trying to
> prvent the reserves of Oil from running out - that's seen as
inevitable at
> this point. What they are trying to do is prevent it from screwing
the rest
> of the world over in the process.
>
> The Environmental factors are bad enough - but how do you fancy
perpetual
> war, with taxes increasing year on year to pay for it?  Look to
the east.
> China's oil consumption is growing at 12% a year - and the middle
east is
> already a warzone with no more capacity to tap.
>
> Do you think that the other nations involved will voluntarily take
one for
> the team so that team GB can keep on trucking? Our armed forces are
> stretched thin, and we were only riding shotgun in Iraq - wanna
guess how
> much money (ie tax) it will take to strengthen that army to the
point that
> we can *fight* for an oil supply?
>
> It might be 100 years till the last drop is drawn.. But it'll only
be twenty
> till every last drop is drawn at gunpoint, and guarded like the
crown
> jewels.
>
> Far from being irrelevant to this, one wee bloke with a wind
turbine is the
> whole point - the more people who install small scale solar and
wind, the
> lower the "big ticket" generation capacity needs to be. The
more
people buy
> smart energy management systems, the more technology advances, the
cheaper
> it gets for everyone - and the greater it's impact becomes.
>
> Personally, I'd rather see the government chucking some coin at
research
> projects in this country than arming to the teeth to fight over
the black
> stuff. Scientists are dramatically cheaper to run than tanks.
>
> In all of this, I see two major problems. Green doomsayers who
proclaim
> disaster - and Jeremy Clarkson (et al) with the whole "it's all
just a big
> laugh" (but dear god don't think about the consequences for even
a
moment)
> response. Neither is particularly helpful.
>
> Thankfully, there's a lot of people in the middle just plugging
away trying
> to fix the problems. Hydrogen fuel cells, HE voltaic cells, hybrid
cars,
> affordable turbines, etc etc.
>