The terawatt challenge (R. Smalley)

[Il_Mostro]

A good sumary of where we stand in the energy question by Richard Smalley, 1996 nobel price winner and professor of chemistry and physics at Rice university.
In the latter part of the article he talks about his vision of the "solution". The terawatt challenge

The article is too long to paste in full, I'll paste a few interesting passages below.
[ QUOTE ]
Problem 2: Peaks in Oil Production
Another charge to keep that should be at
the top of the president’s list is the assurance
of abundant, low-cost energy for us
and our posterity. We are used to living in
a world where energy is cheap, and most
of that energy was produced right here in
the United States. The majority of our oil
came from Texas, which was once the premier
oil producer in the world and is still
the center of the world’s oil and gas businesses.
Yet, as far back as 1970, we peaked
in the amount of oil we could produce in
this country. Even though we still think of
Texas as the land of people getting crazyrich
discovering oil in their back yard, in
fact Texas has been a net importer of energy
for over a decade now, with billions of
energy dollars a year going out of the state.
Saudi Arabia and the Middle East are now

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Oil, along with gas, is tremendously
important. The history of oil is basically
the history of modern civilization as we
have known it for the past 100 years. As
our principal transportation fuel, oil has
been the basis of our country’s power
and prosperity. What will we do when
there is no longer enough oil and gas?
We do not yet have an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Energy is not just “any old issue.” Most
people, in fact, understand its importance
very well. When I have given talks on
this subject before, I have often asked
people in the audience to name the most
critical problems we will have to confront
as we go through this century. In every
case, after a bit of discussion, the audiences
have agreed that energy is the single
most important issue we face.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting there will be incredibly difficult.
If we knew today how to transform the
makeup of our energy mix by exploiting
fission/fusion, solar, or wind, it would
take an inordinate amount of time. If I
could go out tomorrow and turn on the
switch of a new power plant that would
produce a thousand megawatts of power
from some new, clean, carbon-free energy
source, I would have to turn on a new
plant every day for 27 years before I generated
even 10 terawatts of new power.
Ten terawatts plus 14 terawatts does not
add up to even half of the 60 terawatts we
will eventually need. Of course, we do not
currently have the technology to build a
fleet of nuclear fission breeder reactors—
let alone a solar or geothermal plant—that
could produce that amount of energy
cheaply. I believe that if we do not find a
way to build such power plants over the
next decade, or at most two, this 21st century
is going to be very unpleasant.

[/ QUOTE ]

More to be found in the article, it's about 6 pages long and very worthwhile, especially if you are somewhat new to these issues.

[tylerdurden]

Smalley basically agrees with me. Technological advancements and market forces will produce a new energy supply. We differ on some details.

He thinks peak oil is imminent (<5 years away), I think it's much further off than that.

He seems to overestimate the trouble that we will have adjusting to different energy market conditions. Humans are more adaptable than most people give them credit for.

Smalley wants the government to fix this, with a tax-and-spend "apollo program". That might work, but it would be less efficient than letting the market produce the winner. He seems to think this issue is too important to leave up to the whims of the market. I say it's too important to let the government [censored] it up.

[ QUOTE ]
We are used to living in
a world where energy is cheap, and most
of that energy was produced right here in
the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, right there... he shows us that we adjusted from domestic oil to imported oil, but somehow thinks we can't adjust to other supply shifts?


[ QUOTE ]
What will we do when
there is no longer enough oil and gas?
We do not yet have an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have answers for lots of things in the future. It's called risk. Energy is not unique in this regard.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Smalley basically agrees with me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure he's glad to hear. Most people would say that they agree with the nobel price winner, not the other way around. Not big on modesty, are you?
(relax, just kidding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[ QUOTE ]
He thinks peak oil is imminent (<5 years away), I think it's much further off than that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I probably don't have the time or the interest to debate that fact with you, but it seems your side of the argument has some substantial problems at the moment. But then again, Lynch has a fairly good track-record, so who knows.

My main problem with the whole let-the-market-fix-it-tech-will-save-our-day is that the way I see it the market and tech. put us here, rare is the tech that has not had unforseen sideeffects that has not been worse than the problem it was designed to solve. I don't see the market having the long-term lookout required, for example since the switch, if possible, will take several decades, and this presious market hasn't really started yet, I belive we need governments. Not only governments, but not only the market either, we'll need all we can get.

[ QUOTE ]
See, right there... he shows us that we adjusted from domestic oil to imported oil, but somehow thinks we can't adjust to other supply shifts?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but the adjustment from one supply to another is vastly different from the adjusment from one supply to none.

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have answers for lots of things in the future. It's called risk. Energy is not unique in this regard.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but energy is uniqe in its connection to virtually every part of our lives, and in its magnitude.

Only on bad days do I belive there is no solution. On good days I think we'll see recession and depression for a few decades but that we'll eventually will get out of it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with the whole let-the-market-fix-it-tech-will-save-our-day is that the way I see it the market and tech. put us here, rare is the tech that has not had unforseen sideeffects that has not been worse than the problem it was designed to solve.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be kidding me. Seriously. If this were even remotely true, we'd be worse off than cavemen.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got to be kidding me. Seriously. If this were even remotely true, we'd be worse off than cavemen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Just having more environmental destruction, depleting fresh-water aquafiers, a species extinction rate worse than at any time since the dinousaurs disappeared, 35000 people starving to death each day, global climate change threatening to vastly change the living conditions all around the globe and so on, and so forth

[CORed]

I think it would be appropriate for the government to fund energy R&D at a higher level than they are currently doing, but it should be funding multiple solutions, and the market should decide which one is used. I think the need for R&D is somewhat overstated anyway. We have the technology to use a variety of energy sources other than oil and gas. The reason that they are not being used is that they are not currently cost-competitive with oil and gas. If oil and gas prices continue to rise, that will no longer be true. I think energy will most likely be more expensive in the post-peak-oil world than it is now. That won't necessarily be a catastrophe.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
rare is the tech that has not had unforseen sideeffects that has not been worse than the problem it was designed to solve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostro, as pvn said, this is beyond nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
35000 people starving to death each day

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a lower percapita rate of starvation than any other time in modern history.

The future and our energy needs are far too important to put in the hands of central planners. Any kind of "apollo program" for energy will by definition hinder the free market.

When we have government bureaucrats lobbying for their pet research programs in their pet states with money they have siphoned from the market, we'll be in the worst shape of all with regard to energy.

Just witness the latest round of central planners doing what they do best: congress overrules fed base closures

"- Bucking the
Pentagon, a federal commission voted Wednesday to spare a submarine base in Connecticut and a shipyard straddling the Maine-New Hampshire border, preserving a major military presence in New England and 12,000 defense-related jobs."

If you think a national energy intiative will be any less ridiculous, I applaud your willful optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence. Although, that's how creationists keep going too.


natedogg

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've got to be kidding me. Seriously. If this were even remotely true, we'd be worse off than cavemen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Just having more environmental destruction, depleting fresh-water aquafiers, a species extinction rate worse than at any time since the dinousaurs disappeared, 35000 people starving to death each day, global climate change threatening to vastly change the living conditions all around the globe and so on, and so forth

[/ QUOTE ]

you are arguably the stupidest poster on this forum. this post is hilarious because of how crappy it is.

the worst part is that you're so proud of your ignorance. seems no wonder sweden has so much raw talent and nearly nothing to show for it WRT cotributions to the international community.

fim

[Il_Mostro]

Thank you, thank you.

I guess it's because my points are so stupid you chose to attack me instead of them, right? Plus using me as a basis for an attack on 9 million people. Genious.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Mostro, as pvn said, this is beyond nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but it's not.

And I know you cannot fathom the idea that governments are good for absolutely anything. That does not stop me from beliving that leaving the energy problem entirely up to the market will only get us in greater trouble.