Part of that dynamic is the consideration that a decreasing amount of energy will be obtained from fossil fuels as compared to an increase in renewables. The long term outlook could be that fossil hydrocarbons will be primarily used for lubrication and production of plastics.
It has never been about running out of fossil fuels, it has always been about running out of affordable fossil fuels. And all their costs have to be considered.
More expensive fuel is good. Why? Fewer jobs go overseas and some even come back when fuel prices rise. We need to stop whining and move closer to work, because we will have work.
“Since the fact that temperatures go up and down is proof that there is no global warming,” Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day! You guys are such tools of the Koch brothers. You do know that temperatures have increased faster over the past 100 years than any time in the past 20,000 years? And that climate change is already adversely affecting our ability to grow food? And you STILL think that a carbon tax is the biggest threat to human existence?
Yes, Harley, If you compress CO2 and then release it, CO2 does cool. Just ask any seaman who needed to cool a beer fast. The CO2 fire extinguishers were always empty.
All the current industries are set up to use existing technologies of course; that’s cheaper.
But Tesla’s work should be examined much more closely. He was a genius and moved far beyond Edison; it just happened that Edison had better connections, so we have Edison’s technology.
There is a lot of useful stuff in Tesla’s work, if anyone cared to develop it. But one has to commit resources to development, and it’s apparent that our energy Moguls subscribe to the ‘bird in the hand’ philosophy. Why risk their billions in profits on something that might ding them in the pocket book? Or their Cayman Island accounts.
Tesla’s work is only one of the many possible avenues to explore.
We were in a similar position, but have managed to upgrade our cookstove and water heater to gas – That’s a demand heater, not a tank.
That helps. I think though that the passive solar unit my husband built helps as much or more. I ran a quick search, and couldn’t find what I was looking for, but you may be able to find something useful here:
Our unit began as a glass heat collector on the West side of the housen – not huge, probably about 5’deep X 5’ high by maybe 8’ paralleling the West wall of the house. South side was impossible, but West exposure is probably next best. The foundation and a lot of concrete block form the heat sink. A fan pulled from a dead microwave pumps the hot air out of the unit into the basement. This worked very well, but the magazine the above url links you to ran an article about heating a barn or workshop, and that design was pehaps 8" deep, and had a sheet of black screening hung on the wall behind the glass. DH went out and bought some black screening, and we got probably a 20% gain immediately.
It helps to cool us in the summer, too, because at night it pumps cool air into the basement.
Our unit sort of evolved over time, and was built (including the sheet glass) almost entirely of found materials. Freecycle is a good source for materials.
What you need, or what is possible in your area is peculiar to your situation, but this can be a really cheap source of heat/cooling. I don’t think it makes much difference where you are located, though – we are in the PNW, where winters are so gloomy that sometimes the streetlights are on all day. The best thing is that usually the coldest weather is the brightest weather, so you get the best heat gain when you need it most!
The reason some people think gas should cost more is to get people to use less of it. Buying someone a free tankful would have the opposite effect. But I’m sure you know that.
Read your article from PSI that claimed to counter global warming. For a group that claims a lot of scientists (though some appear to be self-educated in climate), it’s pretty impressive how easy it was for me — a social scientist — to figure out how this article had no bearing.They claim “‘greenhouse gases’ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.”No, two false assumptions there. First, they did not say “harmful solar rays,” they said a solar flare (made up of energetic particles — as said in the NASA article) was largely blocked. They also said heat was blocked.The second is more important: heat is blocked BOTH ways by greenhouse gases. The “greenhouse effect” is that visible light gets in, becomes heat after hitting a surface, and then the heat cannot get out. The “heating effect of the sun” is not limited to direct infrared, but to the total energy deposited on Earth’s surface, which in turn is blocked from exiting by greenhouse gases. (This is one reason why the melting of the icecaps is bad — ice reflects most light back out as light rather than as heat.)So the conclusion of the so-called scientists of PSI is utterly bogus.That is not totally surprising, considering that:1. Their chairman has no climate science credentials2. Their two vice-chairs have no climate science credentials3. Only one of their founders have any climate-RELATED credentials (meteorology is not climate), and one they claim is a “noted” writer on the subject isn’t even mentioned on the RealClimate blog.Not really your best source.And by the way, the last ten years have been consistently warmer.
The only thing I ever saw (and had) that ran on “free energy” was a crystal set. Free energy exists, but I would expect more than a temperamental AM radio that required earphones.
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
Part of that dynamic is the consideration that a decreasing amount of energy will be obtained from fossil fuels as compared to an increase in renewables. The long term outlook could be that fossil hydrocarbons will be primarily used for lubrication and production of plastics.
Doughfoot almost 11 years ago
It has never been about running out of fossil fuels, it has always been about running out of affordable fossil fuels. And all their costs have to be considered.
AAdoglover Premium Member almost 11 years ago
More expensive fuel is good. Why? Fewer jobs go overseas and some even come back when fuel prices rise. We need to stop whining and move closer to work, because we will have work.
ARodney almost 11 years ago
Doubt that it was corporations that killed Tesla’s “free energy.” It was probably physics.
ARodney almost 11 years ago
“Since the fact that temperatures go up and down is proof that there is no global warming,” Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day! You guys are such tools of the Koch brothers. You do know that temperatures have increased faster over the past 100 years than any time in the past 20,000 years? And that climate change is already adversely affecting our ability to grow food? And you STILL think that a carbon tax is the biggest threat to human existence?
Mickey 13 almost 11 years ago
“We could have escaped with Tesla free energy”
Hardly a car produced for the masses at another company that is buried in red ink and dependent on government financing to continue.
http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/tesla/2013-tesla-model-s-review-2146.html
Justice22 almost 11 years ago
Dream on! The US’s greatest export today is oil and oil products. It is sold for less than we pay for what we import. Make Sense?
Justice22 almost 11 years ago
Yes, Harley, If you compress CO2 and then release it, CO2 does cool. Just ask any seaman who needed to cool a beer fast. The CO2 fire extinguishers were always empty.
Rickapolis almost 11 years ago
’Here comes the sun, da da da da, here comes the sun…"
pam Miner almost 11 years ago
addicts to oil, and tt’s gonna run out and it wont be pretty
Hawthorne almost 11 years ago
Which is why we’re in this mess. It’s been a long time since anybody did anything on behalf of consumers.
Having said that: agreed!
Hawthorne almost 11 years ago
All the current industries are set up to use existing technologies of course; that’s cheaper.
But Tesla’s work should be examined much more closely. He was a genius and moved far beyond Edison; it just happened that Edison had better connections, so we have Edison’s technology.
There is a lot of useful stuff in Tesla’s work, if anyone cared to develop it. But one has to commit resources to development, and it’s apparent that our energy Moguls subscribe to the ‘bird in the hand’ philosophy. Why risk their billions in profits on something that might ding them in the pocket book? Or their Cayman Island accounts.
Tesla’s work is only one of the many possible avenues to explore.
Hawthorne almost 11 years ago
We were in a similar position, but have managed to upgrade our cookstove and water heater to gas – That’s a demand heater, not a tank.
That helps. I think though that the passive solar unit my husband built helps as much or more. I ran a quick search, and couldn’t find what I was looking for, but you may be able to find something useful here:
http://www.homepower.com/articles/passive-solar-retrofit
Our unit began as a glass heat collector on the West side of the housen – not huge, probably about 5’deep X 5’ high by maybe 8’ paralleling the West wall of the house. South side was impossible, but West exposure is probably next best. The foundation and a lot of concrete block form the heat sink. A fan pulled from a dead microwave pumps the hot air out of the unit into the basement. This worked very well, but the magazine the above url links you to ran an article about heating a barn or workshop, and that design was pehaps 8" deep, and had a sheet of black screening hung on the wall behind the glass. DH went out and bought some black screening, and we got probably a 20% gain immediately.
It helps to cool us in the summer, too, because at night it pumps cool air into the basement.
Our unit sort of evolved over time, and was built (including the sheet glass) almost entirely of found materials. Freecycle is a good source for materials.
What you need, or what is possible in your area is peculiar to your situation, but this can be a really cheap source of heat/cooling. I don’t think it makes much difference where you are located, though – we are in the PNW, where winters are so gloomy that sometimes the streetlights are on all day. The best thing is that usually the coldest weather is the brightest weather, so you get the best heat gain when you need it most!
YMMV, of course, but you might check it out.
neatslob Premium Member almost 11 years ago
The reason some people think gas should cost more is to get people to use less of it. Buying someone a free tankful would have the opposite effect. But I’m sure you know that.
Motivemagus almost 11 years ago
Read your article from PSI that claimed to counter global warming. For a group that claims a lot of scientists (though some appear to be self-educated in climate), it’s pretty impressive how easy it was for me — a social scientist — to figure out how this article had no bearing.They claim “‘greenhouse gases’ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.”No, two false assumptions there. First, they did not say “harmful solar rays,” they said a solar flare (made up of energetic particles — as said in the NASA article) was largely blocked. They also said heat was blocked.The second is more important: heat is blocked BOTH ways by greenhouse gases. The “greenhouse effect” is that visible light gets in, becomes heat after hitting a surface, and then the heat cannot get out. The “heating effect of the sun” is not limited to direct infrared, but to the total energy deposited on Earth’s surface, which in turn is blocked from exiting by greenhouse gases. (This is one reason why the melting of the icecaps is bad — ice reflects most light back out as light rather than as heat.)So the conclusion of the so-called scientists of PSI is utterly bogus.That is not totally surprising, considering that:1. Their chairman has no climate science credentials2. Their two vice-chairs have no climate science credentials3. Only one of their founders have any climate-RELATED credentials (meteorology is not climate), and one they claim is a “noted” writer on the subject isn’t even mentioned on the RealClimate blog.Not really your best source.And by the way, the last ten years have been consistently warmer.
hippogriff almost 11 years ago
The only thing I ever saw (and had) that ran on “free energy” was a crystal set. Free energy exists, but I would expect more than a temperamental AM radio that required earphones.
hippogriff almost 11 years ago
Come to think about it, isn’t that what kids listen to today, but buy batteries to power it?