SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: miraje who wrote (3235)11/30/2008 4:49:15 PM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 86352
 
New technology always creates a backlash. There was a time when the movie and music companies did everything in their power to stop online downloads, saying that they would go out of business if they allowed it. Now they have embraced the technology and they've grown the market as a result. Online downloading and video on demand is simply more efficient and cost effective. It allows for higher margins and profits.

Renewable technology is the same. Take away all the direct and indirect subsidies and bad effects from oil and coal and our society and economy would be far richer and less troubled if we depended on renewable energy instead of oil and coal.

Of course, I have no proof, because I have not seen a study yet that looks at this problem in an all encompassing way. However, I have worked in the technology world for almost 30 years and have seen this process play out multiple times. There are always naysayers like you, and every time I've seen this in my lifetime, the naysayers have always been wrong.



To: miraje who wrote (3235)11/30/2008 5:26:43 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86352
 
Plenty of those whose scientific credentials far exceed my layman's grasp state that current and projected levels of atmospheric CO2 have, and will have, a minuscule effect on the global climate. These is no consensus on the effects, if any, of human emitted greenhouse gasses on the overall climate, in spite of the religious fervor of the GW alarmists..

The people you are listening to are simply wrong--"miniscule" is inaccurate. What the precise level is that will cause dire effects is, admittedly, debated. But that there will be--in fact already are--bad effects is undebatable except by charlatans or aid shills.
>>Too much of it in the atmosphere, and the planet will warm up.

Straw dog. Too much of anything will cause changes. Drink too much water and you will OD and die..

The question is, what is too much? The vast majority of scientists today think that somewhere between 450-500 ppm is too much. Some think that we are already at the "too mcuh" stage, and that chain reactions have begun that we are already starting to pay and will pay even more dearly for over the next century. Birds changing migration patterns, plants moving further north or higher up mountains, ice shelves melting and breaking up, oceans becoming more acidic, increasing drought and desertification in some places with increased rain in other places, glaciers disappearing, earlier snowmelt and less snow on mountains in winter--these things are observable, predictable and happening right now. They are all consistent with the chain of events predicted by scientists who have studied climate and thought about the consequences of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Whatever, it is absurd to keep talking to someone who won't bother reading anything and is determined to remain ignorant.



To: miraje who wrote (3235)12/1/2008 11:16:21 AM
From: miraje3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86352
 
Think electric cars and nukes and windmills are cure alls? Might want to think again..

business.timesonline.co.uk

Grand plans for global energy are under threat - but from unexpected sources

Leo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent

The tempting dream that global recession may be vanquished by a worldwide push into green technologies is threatened by a powerful international army of foes: Chilean salt lakes, German ball bearings and Japanese ingots.

The critical role of these three has, until now, been largely ignored: expansive national schemes and grand political pronouncements have been crafted worldwide on the assumption that the engineering and chemistry behind those bold alternative energy plans would take care of themselves.

That, industry veterans say, may have been wishful thinking.

Without this trio of resources, Europe and Asia's ambitious plans to build dozens of nuclear power plants, China's dream of giant wind farms and America's hopes for the electric car could be, at best, delayed and, at worst, dashed entirely.

The cracks in the future supply of the “picks and shovels” of green technology, scientists and financial analysts argue, have begun to show. In the case of lithium, the metal on which the vision of the electric car is based, the level of worldwide reserves may prevent more than a few tens of thousands of units of the hotly anticipated Chevrolet Volt ever being produced.

Since the commercialisation of lithium ion batteries in the early 1990s, production and use of the technology has soared. The metal - difficult to extract and with reserves skewed to certain pockets of South America - has been seized on by the global electronics industry as the answer to its prayers. The power of the lithium battery drives personal information technology, from iPods and mobile phones to laptops and BlackBerrys.

Between 2003 and 2007, industrial demand for lithium doubled and now consumption stands at about 80,000 tonnes a year: give or take 18 months of global downturn, the growth rate for lithium demand is soon expected to return to about 25 per cent per year.

However, some experts say, the present calculations of lithium reserve usage do not take sufficient account of the potential demand from the car industry if it truly plans to convert the world to cleaner, emission-free electric cars. The sort of batteries large enough to power a car use about 100 times more lithium than a laptop and, according to William Tahil, research director of Meridian International Research, there is not enough commercially extractable lithium in the world to meet the sort of demand implied if motoring goes electric.

By his calculations, world reserves of lithium - that is, the quantity that can be extracted economically - are about four million tonnes. Mr Tahil told The Times that production of lithium cannot possibly be expanded to meet the ambitions of the car industry. Even highly productive lodes of the material, such as the deposits at the Salar de Atacama salt lake in Chile, may be past their peak already.

Although Mr Tahil's warnings are not universally accepted by industrial users and producers of lithium, actions speak louder than words. Toyota is said to have scrapped plans to use a lithium battery in its 2009 Prius hybrid and will stick with the heavier, less efficient, nickel battery. The company said recently that it did not believe that future lithium supply would be able to sustain the dual demands from the electronics and car industries. (and if you want to see earth raping pollution, check out the moonscape around the nickel mine in Sudbury, Ontario)

Another of the cornerstones in the world's attempt to wean itself off fossil fuels has been the belief that nuclear power could be ramped up substantially. If all the plans for new nuclear generators are totted up, the World Nuclear Association has said that an additional 237 reactors will be built over the next 21 years.

The only snag with that plan lies in the island of Hokkaido and in a century-old steel forge that produces 80 per cent of the world's reactor cores - a highly specialised piece of steel, milled from a single 600-tonne ingot, which only a few companies in the world can handle. Nearly two years ago, the nuclear industry started to get worried: Japan Steel Works (JSW) was able to churn out only four of these reactors a year, far, far below the demand implied by the politicians' promises and considerably lower than the biggest players in nuclear - Areva, of France, and Toshiba, of Japan - were at all happy with.

JSW accepted that there was a problem and said that it would invest heavily to ramp up production to 8 cores per year. But that will still not be enough to meet implied demand: JSW has an overstuffed order book that stretches decades out and the tussle to win spots near the front of the waiting list has turned ugly, according to some reports. Toshiba, Hitachi and Mitsubishi all hold stakes in JSW in what is understood to be an “ongoing gesture of goodwill” to the steelmaker.

In a move that analysts said revealed the extent of the desperation in Europe, Areva struck a deal with JSW this month for long-term purchase agreements and bought a 1.3 per cent stake in the company. JSW has said that it might be able to produce 12 reactor cores per year by 2011. Nuclear industry insiders told The Times that JSW's virtual monopoly was still the “biggest, most overlooked bottleneck” for a nuclear renaissance.

Where the nuclear industry is confronted by the complexities of handling very large hunks of specialised steel, the wind-power industry, especially in China, faces a technology bottleneck on a far smaller scale: it cannot lay its hands on enough gearboxes and the German ball bearings that keep them rolling. As one of the most important components in a wind-turbine generator, and the second most costly after the supporting tower, gearbox supply issues feature heavily in the industry's growth plans.

The component shortages are particularly acute. In the past, leading turbine makers invested heavily to secure the supply chain, buying up the gearbox makers, but that has still not solved the issue. Simon Powell, of CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, said that although the financial crisis had mildly alleviated the imbalance of supply and demand in wind power, the gearbox and bearings shortage could last for another two years.