Super duper fuels, eh?

[Fred Munro]

Interesting arguments. Let's take a global view....

1. Sunlight is the major external energy input into the otherwise closed
system we all live in. We also get a bit from gravitational sources (tidal).
All other sources are internal and finite.

2. Petroleum and coal are "stored sunlight", laid down over millions of
years. It is a tremendous energy reserve and gift from the past. Too bad we
are using it up and depriving future generations of this gift.

3. The current western lifestyle is very energy intensive and is using up
the finite supply of "stored sunlight" at an ever increasing rate. We need
it to cool and heat our poorly designed houses. It drives our industries
(which primarily produce  consumer products to use and discard) as a fuel
and raw material. Our efficient farming methods require it to power
machinery, provide pesticides and fertilizers, and transport the crops
thousands of miles to our densely populated cities. We need it in our
vehicles to provide the personal freedom to move about we so desire. It's a
great lifestyle. Our marketing has convinced the rest of the world they want
it.

4. Already over 50% of the sun's energy falling on land masses is diverted
to human food production, given photosynthesis isn't 100% efficient. At the
current rate of population growth, this is expected to hit 100% within the
next 100 years. Hmm, too bad about wilderness areas and wildlife. Sorry, no
sun's energy for them. We'll need it all.

5. So, what about sustainable energy sources to replace the finite fossil
fuels?
	Hydro power. Sun driven. No rain, no water flow. Climate change may reduce
generation from existing hydro installations and require new ones to be
built.
	Photovoltaic generation. Sun driven. Not bad, except it takes more energy
to make a solar panel than it generates over a 25 year lifespan.
	Wind power. Sun driven. Not bad. Takes a lot of energy to build a
generator, but I don't know what the recovery balance is. A tad unreliable.
	Burning wood. Sun driven. Sustainable, polluting but the system evolved to
handle forest fires, not enough wood for all of us though.
	Tidal power. Gravity driven. Reliable but cyclic generation. High capital
cost and maintenance required.
	Geothermal. Finite source but long term in human lifetimes.
	Nuclear. Good reliable source. Finite supply of fuel. Too bad about the
waste fuel disposal issue. Too bad we leave so much energy in the fuel when
we are done with it.
	Ethanol, biodiesel, etc. A feeble attempt to divert fuel from stored
sunlight to current sunlight. Mostly net negative energy balance. Ultimately
we'll need the sunlight to grow food, not drive down to the corner store for
a pack of smokes.
	New undiscovered technology. Fusion, hot and cold. Hydrogen. Fuel cells.
Maybe. History shows new technology creates as many or more problems than it
solves due to our lack of foresight and incomplete understanding of our
global system.

Present alternate energy sources are insufficient to replace the energy from
fossil fuels we now consume. So, what's going to happen? It's obvious
eventually we won't have the energy to live our current lifestyle and feed
the teeming hordes of people. A slow, gradual shift to sustainable energy
and an alternate lifestyle? Not too likely. Democracies are least suited to
this type of change. Besides, it's not going to happen in this or the next
generation. Too far away to worry about. Change will be market driven and
probably won't be pretty. Too bad societies can't act on their knowledge of
upcoming shortages, but history is full of those who didn't. They are no
longer with us.

There, I feel so much better now. It's a beautiful day. I think I'll go for
a drive....



Fred




-----Original Message-----
From: quattro-bounces at audifans.com
[mailto:quattro-bounces at audifans.com]On Behalf Of Brett Dikeman
Sent: August 5, 2007 12:13 AM
To: Robert Myers
Cc: TurboQuattro at shaw.ca; 'William Magliocco'; quattro at audifans.com
Subject: Re: Super duper fuels, eh?



On Aug 4, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

>
> It's thermodynamics.  No way for it to become more efficient enough
> to make a net gain.  Regardless of what the politicos say, you
> can't get something for nothing.  "There ain't no such thing as a
> free lunch."

You forgot sunlight.  It's not a closed system.  Corn isn't a good
source of ethanol; that's why it is a net loss.  As for corn prices
rising- it'll do the nation some good.  High fructose corn syrup is
probably the biggest smoking gun in America's obesity problem.  And
why is high fructose corn syrup cost-effective instead of sugar?  The
price of sugar is controlled by the federal government (not a whole
lot of people know this.)  Why is that done?  Sugar outside the US is
dirt, dirt cheap and US sugar growers would be out of business
overnight if they actually had to compete against foreign imports.

As for "foreign oil dependencies" from "shaky dictatorships":

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/
company_level_imports/current/import.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics

Hey, lookie there.  Pretty diverse, eh?

Okay, I promise I'm done :-P

Brett
_______________________________________________
quattro mailing list
quattro at audifans.com
http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
---
Watch this space for ads :)