« Quote Of The Day: An American Abroad’s Awe Of Post-Election America
Obama Vows Action On Economy ASAP In Weekly You Tube Address »



A Bold New Way

November 22nd, 2008
By T-STEEL, Site Administrator

Print Print

There is no dispute that fossil fuels are finite. It took millions upon millions of years to give us the oil reserves we have today. And we aren’t exactly replenishing the oil supply, unless we halt all life on this fine planet of hours (including mankind), break down into our carbon and hydrogen components over millions upon millions of years in order to form oil. Then we can all come back and fill up our automobiles! Acceptable and realistic, eh?

Transhumanist Michael Anissimov recently writes about the vast quantities of matter and energy in our grasp that dwarfs what we have in fossil fuels:

Part of the rationale for being a “transhumanist”, or, more broadly, having grandiose dreams for humanity’s future, is the extremely simple and mundane observation that the available matter and free energy in our general vicinity is far larger than what we have utilized of it thus far. The incoming solar energy is about a million times greater than global energy consumption, and the available hydrothermal energy to be extracted from the energy gradient between the mantle and the upper crust is many times that. These energy sources far exceed that available from all fossil fuels, uranium, and thorium combined. In the long run (less than a century?), solar and hydrothermal will become our primary energy sources, simply because nothing else will be able to meet our exponentially growing demand.

I concur 100% with his observation. Our planet Earth offers ridiculous amounts of energy that we just aren’t making use of. And add the Sun to the mix, you add over a million more Earths in energy output. One of my big gripes with my wonderful country known as America (don’t fret patriots, my gripe list is shockingly off the norm and low) is that we don’t get excited as a nation about grand innovation and discovery much. The phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” doesn’t apply to America when it comes to energy research and energy independence. This phrase fits much better:

If it’s broke, keep patching it. That will fix it!

Sorry ladies and gentlemen, that attitude just doesn’t fly these days. Solar energy is dismissed by many as too hard to obtain or impractical. Really? Look how hard the brave men and women who have built, currently work on, and maintain oil rigs work! Those platforms are difficult to build and the oil extraction process is always fraught with risk and danger. But oil extraction is considered normal and a viable business regardless. Then there are some of us talking about overcrowding and overpopulation being a barrier to alternative energy sources. I agree with another of Michael Anissimov’s points on this issue (from the same article):

The current impression that the planet is overpopulated is a selection effect resulting from people living in crowded cities, concentrated by technological and economic necessity. Decentralized manufacturing and high-resolution virtual communication will allow a more evenly distributed populace.

Just look at the population density of the United States in 2000 (lower 48 states only; the darker the color, the greater concentration of people per square mile):

USA_2000_population_density.gif

There are natural features such as mountains and such to contend with but even with that we are far from a more-evenly distributed populace. If manufacturing is decentralized and we use techniques like vertical farming (performing agriculture in high-rise buildings) we can increase food output and optimize energy production and use. This isn’t Star Trek, this is the now.

I challenge us to lead the world by adopting the attitude of “normal and viable” in pursing those other forms of energy that are so much larger than fossil fuels can ever provide. Maybe I’m asking too much. Maybe patriotism is limited to the War On Terror and wars in general. But I can’t think of anything more patriotic than setting the future standards for the world in energy research, innovation, and discovery. Thus telling the world that the USA is breaking away from the tired old ways and engaging in bold new ways.



This entry was posted on Saturday, November 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Resources, Nature, Futuristics, Transhumanism, Oil, North America, Science, Math, Technology, Energy, Society, USA, Environment. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "Adopting the attitude" that other forms of energy are viable?

    If we all just BELIEVE in it maybe it will become TRUE!
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with much of what you have to say but you contradict yourself.
    "Agriculture in high-rise buildings" and "normal and viable" don't exactly mesh.
    A great deal of agricultural production and the most ideal locations for energy production through solar and wind happen to be in the center of the United States. A "normal and viable" solution would be more population concentration in this area but not enough to displace a significant amount of arable land.
    I believe "agriculture in high-rise buildings" stems from the idea of reducing carbon emissions through increasing the population density of cities and therefore relying more on mass transit than cars.
    However, if the goal is to quickly move away from the use of fossil fuels, then why follow this strategy?
    It seems to be more of a short term solution that will one day result in desolate hunks of glass and steel.
    Why not concentrate on a longer term strategy that will encourage people to migrate towards the food and energy, instead of wasting energy and resources on this bridging step?
    • ^
    • v
    People need to be careful with statements like "the incoming solar energy is about a million times greater than global energy consumption". Although technically true, the problems are the conversion of energy like that to energy we can actually use.

    This involves the actual conversion process, and any loss associated with that. Then there's the transportation of said energy, and when you talk about replacing the internal combustion engine, you need to make such energy portable and capable with retail trade.

    Solar, for example, does not convert well into electricity based on simple BTU calculations (see http://mb-soft.com/solar/photovol.html for an example). Based on that math, we'd have to clear cut thousands of square miles for solar to be effective. That's [i]great[/i] for the environment.

    It's not as simple as saying "well, look at all the energy in the molten core of the earth! Let's use that!"

    I'm not saying we can't research solutions, I'm just saying it's not as simple as that.
    • ^
    • v
    Within 3-4 years we will have figured out how to do solar power at the same cost per watt as coal and MIT released a study on geothermal power that says it can supply enormous amounts of energy very cheaply. They said in some places a nuclear power plant's worth for only $10-$20 million dollars!

    The problem is that both sides inherently protect the status quo. The "free market" side doesn't appreciate what qualities are necessary to spur competition and efficiency: something that has killed us when it comes to energy and health care. When things require vast infrastructural changes or have very inflexible demand, then market forces will always select the status quo and price rises will be very hard to control, at least until there is a complete crisis and near collapse out of necessity.

    By contrast, the other side is always highly concerned with job loss that temporarily accompanies major shifts and since we have shied away from having government owned infrastructure, the support to industries we give to have them develop it are attached with non-compete clauses. This has the perverse reality where things like the energy and communication grid have been huge components paid for by the tax payers but then have government given monopolies attached.

    Personally, I'd rather see all our infrastructural grids treated like our roads: the government pays for and owns them completely but private companies compete for construction and maintenance. For energy and communications the actual producers would also be private companies and rent usage from the government based on how much capacity they are using. Then individuals would have options about which provider to select.

    As for encouraging the development of technologies, I'm not sure that we are doing things that incorrectly on the applicative side, but basic research has fallen almost completely out of favor and this is very dangerous. I truly hope that Obama doubles the research budget and really basic research should run at about 8-10% of our budget. I also think we need a new cabinet level office that coordinates basic research findings with government subsidies and tax breaks....it would have long cut off corn ethanol because the basic science says it doesn't make sense, while encouraging a bit more solar and a ton more geothermal.
    • ^
    • v
    Well they have recently announced that we are close to maximum theoretical efficiency (or if you go for a less efficient technology, close to having $1/watt) and that's why the holy grail of energy has long been to cover massive parts of Arizona and New Mexico, combined with super conducting power lines. Well until fusion.

    I'm not saying that is necessarily practical now, but it might be within 10 years and projections say that it could be done for around $1-$2 trillion. I'm not sure it is really our best solution either...which is definitely increased efficiency.

    Fuel cells are also perfect for cars as long as we have good sources of energy production.

    And geothermal is pretty much that simple. It's been actively used for over 30 years, powers all of Iceland and can very cheaply be used to power places with shallow heat reservoirs within the next 5-10 years, just to get a handle. MIT released a study that said a mere $1 billion for research over the next 15 years is sufficient to develop technology to use the deeper heat wells and the actual plants are really cheap. If we spent $5-$10 billion a year I think it'd be viable to supply much (15-20%) of our nation's energy within a decade and a half, instead of the by 2050 that MIT suggested by spending $80 million a year.
    • ^
    • v
    undertoad, attitude and belief are not the same. A certain attitude may steer a set of beliefs or change them. So your comment just doesn't fly. Unless you being sarcastic, then your comment is funny.

    cynicalone, vertical farming is an idea that may help highly urban areas deal with a readily accessible food supply. Your points about the ideal locations are sound. But I think a combination of urban vertical farming and migrating would be best.

    Great comments BarkyBree and mikkel. I wish I could reply right now but I'm pressed for time. LOL!
    • ^
    • v

    The problem is that both sides inherently protect the status quo. The "free market" side doesn't appreciate what qualities are necessary to spur competition and efficiency: something that has killed us when it comes to energy and health care. When things require vast infrastructural changes or have very inflexible demand, then market forces will always select the status quo and price rises will be very hard to control, at least until there is a complete crisis and near collapse out of necessity.


    Precisely, mikkel. Market forces only naturally respond to existing demand with existing solutions. They are terrible at anticipation. If a problem requires research with an indefinite timeline like researching new ways to capture solar power the markets will not bring their full forces to bear on the issue. In addition they don't deal well with indirect costs as our health care and environmental problems show. Another weakness is their inability to consider social issues. Markets are very good at determining what people want when it comes to relatively simple evaluations of products to buy when the facts are readily available and understandable and there is a great deal of competition to provide that product. Outside of that arena market forces are highly flawed.
    • ^
    • v
    ??? Do I need to re-post from earlier? Or did I post to the wrong thread? Was it too long?

    1. Another, arguably prettier, view of population density is the "nighttime lights" view.

    http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/2kpopd...

    2. Population density varies due to things that largely can't be changed or always adapted to. It includes not only difficult terrain but climate (which makes farming in much of the West impractical).

    3. Fission, then fusion, has been known not only by informed laypersons but also by nuclear physists and others such as James Lovelock. (The alternative energy sources are not substitutes at this time and may never be; superconducting transmission is prohibitively expensive; wind and solar are intermittent; batteries aren't practical or cheap enough to use, so we need fossil-fired plants to back up wind or solar plants.)

    4. We cannot hope for going always to decentralization (fuel cells for vehicles and off-grid home power may work someday, but not yet) or to farm or be self-sufficient. The best we can do is to modify terrain (using nukes and huge earth moving efforts to punch gaps in the Pacfiic and Rocky mountain chains to enable marine air to intrude to the east) as well as engage in things like large-scale water transfer projects, but nobody nowadays wants to even think of the smallest or least ambitious of these.
    • ^
    • v