Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nobel Prizes and Winners Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Unread postby vegasmade » Sat 21 May 2005, 18:42:20

I hate to call this another 'science saves the day' idea, but it is. Besides his use of the word temporary, he seemed to convey a distant decline. How can we develop his energy source during the decline? If somebody kicked him in the pants and put a sense of urgency in him, something might get done. Somebody email him with the DoE report from earlier this year that says we need to start mitigation before the decline. His credentials alone might awaken the PO unaware.
remember-we don't inherit the earth from our parents, we lease it from our children
User avatar
vegasmade
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun 01 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Nobel Winner Discusses Potential Solutions

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sat 21 May 2005, 18:56:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', '
')Right now we grow corn/grain and make Ethanol out of it by using the starch only leaving the protein, minerals, fat and fiber which is concentrated during the production process to produce a highly valued and nutritious livestock feed called Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS).

Feed cattle too much protein and the neighbors start getting upset. Something about the farts smelling really awful.

BIGGus Dickus meet your new neighbor: Maximus Flatulus.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby bart » Sat 21 May 2005, 23:07:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nano', 'I')nteresting, so the limiting factor here is really only the available arable land and the energy capturing efficiency of the plants. Still, it leaves the world with much less energy than during the good ol' cheap oil days... Too much less to provide me with much comfort...

You've gotten to the nub of the issue, Nano. Agriculture can never provide the cheap energy of fossil fuels. Solar energy falling on the land is diffuse and much effort will be required to grow, harvest and process the crops -- so the EROEI will not be high.

Other possible limiting factors besides land and plant efficiency:
    water
    nutrients (N, P, K, etc.)
    soil in good tilth
    pests
Intensive farming on a large scale would wreak further havoc on the environment.

So, although Steven Chu is right that we will turn to biofuels, they will not be able to maintain us in the style to which we've become accustomed.

To me, the key is conservation and energy efficiency, not new sources of energy.
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif

Unread postby Chichis » Sun 22 May 2005, 09:28:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'Y')ou've gotten to the nub of the issue, Nano. Agriculture can never provide the cheap energy of fossil fuels. Solar energy falling on the land is diffuse and much effort will be required to grow, harvest and process the crops -- so the EROEI will not be high.


Yes but solar energy is the only true renewable source of energy, outside maybe geothermal which derives its energy from radition which leaks from the core of the Earth. The only sustainable high energy forms of societies will have to tap the Sun in some way, and doing it with various crops is our best bet so far. I personally don't see any of these solutions as being enough currently, but it seems to be our only way out over the long term, and I don't think we should just give up.
User avatar
Chichis
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cornwall, NY

Unread postby bart » Sun 22 May 2005, 14:43:08

You're right, Chichis. Ultimately we're going to go back to a solar economy. So, we'd better get good at it!

We need to become more efficient. For example, the following process will no longer fly:
    1. Grow sugar cane, grasses, or corn as as biofuels.
    2. Transport biofuels to a generating plant.
    3. Burn biofuels to produce electricity.
    4. Transport electricity to the consumer.
    5. Use the electricity for heating (heating the home, drying clothes, cooking food, heating water).

Better to use the solar energy directly or with as few intermediate steps as possible. For example: passive solar construction, solar cookers and clotheslines.

Kurt Cobb has an interesting post on Energy density--a key to understanding our energy dilemma.
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif

Unread postby Nano » Sun 22 May 2005, 15:34:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'I') personally don't see any of these solutions as being enough currently, but it seems to be our only way out over the long term, and I don't think we should just give up.


Your right, but the snag with this whole biofuel hype is that you have to convince starving people (about 20% of the world population) to let you harvest crops off their land for export. It could get very unpleasant and messy. Has the cost of paying off - or slaughtering - the natives been factored into the EROEI? :twisted:
User avatar
Nano
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 16 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Delft, Netherlands

Science and religion by Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes

Unread postby Graeme » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 07:12:32

I'm not a particularly religious person but I found the comments by Townes very interesting:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')eligion and science, faith and empirical experiment: these terms would seem to have as little in common as a Baptist preacher and a Berkeley physicist. And yet, according to Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor in the Graduate School, they are united by similar goals: science seeks to discern the laws and order of our universe; religion, to understand the universe's purpose and meaning, and how humankind fits into both.
Where these areas intersect is territory that Townes has been exploring for many of his 89 years, and in March his insights were honored with the 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. Worth about $1.5 million, the Templeton Prize recognizes those who, throughout their lives, have sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities.


Here is one of many questions put to Professor Townes by UCBerkeley News Editor, Bonnie Powell:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou've said "I believe there is no long-range question more important than the purpose and meaning of our lives and our universe." How have you attempted to answer that question?

Even as a youngster, you're usually taught that there's some purpose you'll try to do, how you are going to live. But that's a very localized thing, about what you want with your life. The broader question is, "What are humans all about in general, and what is this universe all about?" That comes as one tries to understand what is this beautiful world that we're in, that's so special: "Why has it come out this way? What is free will and why do we have it? What is a being? What is consciousness?" We can't even define consciousness. As one thinks about these broader problems, then one becomes more and more challenged by the question of what is the aim and purpose and meaning of this universe and of our lives.

Those aren't easy questions to answer, of course, but they're important and they're what religion is all about. I maintain that science is closely related to that, because science tries to understand how the universe is constructed and why it does what it does, including human life. If one understands the structure of the universe, maybe the purpose of man becomes a little clearer. I think maybe the best answer to that is that somehow, we humans were created somewhat in the likeness of God. We have free will. We have independence, we can do and create things, and that's amazing. And as we learn more and more — why, we become even more that way. What kind of a life will we build? That's what the universe is open about. The purpose of the universe, I think, is to see this develop and to allow humans the freedom to do the things that hopefully will work out well for them and for the rest of the world.


For answers to other questions and references, see this link:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... wnes.shtml
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand
Top

US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby oddone » Wed 24 May 2006, 17:20:03

In his speech
http://www.dagbladet.no/download/NobelSpeech.doc
the US Ambassador to Norway, Benson K. Whitney, outlines the future relationship between our two countries, but I feel it is all about energy and security.
Basically it is a speech about US need for "our" oil and gas, and that our comittment to US will be rewarded with security and stability.
User avatar
oddone
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 24 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Norway

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby Zardoz » Wed 24 May 2006, 17:42:54

That's hilarious, and pathetic. We've been reduced to sending officials off around the world, begging for oil.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby Specop_007 » Wed 24 May 2006, 19:09:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'T')hat's hilarious, and pathetic. We've been reduced to sending officials off around the world, begging for oil.


WE??
You realize virtually every first world and moving into first world country on the globe that doesnt have oil is sending our officials to, essentially, beg for oil. I would hardly say America is alone in that act.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby mekrob » Wed 24 May 2006, 19:37:01

Specop, I don't see how other doing it makes it any less pathetic on our part for doing it. If we are so high and mighty, we shouldn't have to go around begging.
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby Zardoz » Wed 24 May 2006, 20:39:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '[')i]WE??...every first world and moving into first world country on the globe...


That's true, of course. We're all being reduced to oil beggars.

We're going to see a lot more beggars of all kinds in the not-too-distant future, aren't we?
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Top

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby Colorado-Valley » Wed 24 May 2006, 22:44:05

I say send in the B-52s, led by Major Kong ... bomb the fjords!
User avatar
Colorado-Valley
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon 16 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby rwwff » Wed 24 May 2006, 23:04:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'S')pecop, I don't see how other doing it makes it any less pathetic on our part for doing it. If we are so high and mighty, we shouldn't have to go around begging.


Begging is cheaper than bombing.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby mekrob » Wed 24 May 2006, 23:06:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'S')pecop, I don't see how other doing it makes it any less pathetic on our part for doing it. If we are so high and mighty, we shouldn't have to go around begging.


Begging is cheaper than bombing.


What?
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby rwwff » Wed 24 May 2006, 23:10:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'S')pecop, I don't see how other doing it makes it any less pathetic on our part for doing it. If we are so high and mighty, we shouldn't have to go around begging.


Begging is cheaper than bombing.


What?


Don't drop a nuke if a daisy cutter will do.
Don't drop a daisy cutter if a tomahawk will do.
Don't fire a tomahawk if a JDAM will do.
Don't drop a JDAM if a 155mm shell will do.
Don't fire a 155mm if an RPG/TOW will do.
Don't shoot an RPG if throwing a plane grenade will do.
Don't throw a grenade if a bullet will do.
Don't shoot a bullet if a sicky-sweet word will do.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby LadyRuby » Wed 24 May 2006, 23:26:42

No ambassador serving under Bush has any credibility anywhere in the world. We're just passing time and hoping somehow the additional damage inflicted by the BushCo. can be minimized over the next 2 years. But of course that doesn't seem to be happening by any stretch.
User avatar
LadyRuby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Western US

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby oddone » Thu 25 May 2006, 17:09:55

The way I see it he did not beg, he threatened.
You're either with us or against us... again.
User avatar
oddone
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 24 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Norway

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby LadyRuby » Thu 25 May 2006, 20:07:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oddone', 'T')he way I see it he did not beg, he threatened.
You're either with us or against us... again.


Probably but they won't do anything anytime soon. With any luck these maniacs will be out of power in a couple of years.
User avatar
LadyRuby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Western US
Top

Re: US Ambassador to Norway speech at Nobel Institute

Unread postby rwwff » Thu 25 May 2006, 20:14:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LadyRuby', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oddone', 'T')he way I see it he did not beg, he threatened.
You're either with us or against us... again.


Probably but they won't do anything anytime soon. With any luck these maniacs will be out of power in a couple of years.


Thats the way it works, 4 years, vote, 4 more years, retire, all done. Finito.

Then again, Bush isn't a very strong militarist, his replacement could end up being much more aggressive; and Rumsfeld has been dutifully reshaping the armed forces into a tool of policy that can be deployed very, very quickly. Get the right guy and we could be kicking in doors in Tehran for our second resource war.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron