[Phys-L] Re: energy reserves

[anngeorg at PACBELL.NET (Bernard Cleyet)]

If you believe my calculation based on US DOE numbers, the turbine
approach compares favorably with the photovoltaic approach. The capital
cost is lower, and it uses significantly less real estate. Indeed it is
very nearly competitive with present-day wholesale electricity prices.
But this doesn’t take into account the waste heat issues; there isn’t a
lot of cooling water available in Nevada.

... and it uses significantly less real estate.

Is this because it's much more efficient?  Or am I missing something?



At the turn of the cent. (I'm still in the 20ieth.), most homes in
Riverside had solar water heaters. A friend who lived in the hills
behind Santa Barbara was electricity independent by using photoV. and an
inverter.  I made a low pass (L-C) filter so he could use a slide
projector.  His water was a community spring and his only import was LPG
for cooking and warm water.  His home was in a cavity in the side of the
hill and the part not was covered w/ sod.  It was South facing so warm
in the Winter and he used a reflective canvas cover in the Summer.  I
think wide use of such measure would significantly delay fossil exhaustion.

bc, who canceled his Prius green by purchasing an air chiller heat
engine.




John Denker wrote:

> Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
>
> > The Chicken Littles warn that we'll be weaned, of oil at least, in much
> > less than a century.  The alternative is switching to a coal economy,
> > but I think it'll be as difficult as the alternatives mentioned by RT.
>
>
> Chicken Little is the fairy-tale personification of paranoia.  Therefore
> I interpret BC's statement as highly derogatory.  If this was not the
> intended interpretation, please clarify.
>
> Some discussion of energy reserves and the exhaustion thereof can be
> found at:
>    http://www.av8n.com/physics/fossil-resources.htm
> which is based on a calculation that can be found at
>    http://www.av8n.com/physics/energy-reserves.html
>
> This concludes that "switching to coal" is not much of an "alternative".
> Extrapolating current usage suggests that coal will last longer than
> oil, but not much longer ... and switching doesn't solve the main problem,
> namely exhaustion of the *total* fossil energy reserves.  U235 doesn't
> change the story very much, either, because there's not enough of it.
>
> IMHO this is a methodical and dispassionate analysis.  If you disagree
> with the raw data, please provide better data.  If you disagree with
> the method of analysis, please present a more-meticulous analysis.
>
> I've presented my evidence in detail.  I see no reason to consider it
> a paranoid fairy tale.  If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see
> the evidence.  Name-calling is not helpful.