[Graeme]

Here is an important article by Richard E. Smalley, who is the 1996 Nobel Laureate in chemistry and a University Professor and professor of chemistry and physics at Rice University:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y 2050, if we have solved the problem, the world’s energy breakdown will probably look like a reverse of what it is today. Oil, hydroelectric, coal, and gas (in that order) would supply the least amount of energy, with fusion/fission and biomass processes being somewhat larger players, and solar/wind/geothermal resources providing the majority of the world’s energy. This new breakdown represents a revolution in the largest enterprise of humankind, an energy industry that currently runs about $3 trillion per year. Getting there will be incredibly difficult...
By developing new technologies, marshaling the excellent resources of
organizations like the Materials Research Society, and developing the talents of a new generation of scientists and engineers, I believe that we can solve even our most critical energy problems.

[MD]

That's my kind of optimist. The problem is very difficult, but solveable with concerted effort. We just need to get busy.

[skyemoor]

I agree 100%, but we have to start now. Hmmm, is there a recall for the Presidency?...

[bobcousins]

It looks incredibly naive to me. If we could all sit down and cooperate all the world's problems can be solved by simple engineering! Not even a communist state can achieve that.

Anyone who puts population at number 10 in top ten problems, or who seriously expects leaders hooked on the free market to start directing industry is obviously clueless.

I'm sorry, but it is really not an engineering problem. Its a social problem.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', '
')
I'm sorry, but it is really not an engineering problem. Its a social problem.

[Jaymax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'A')nyone who puts population at number 10 in top ten problems, or who seriously expects leaders hooked on the free market to start directing industry is obviously clueless.

I'm sorry, but it is really not an engineering problem. Its a social problem.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut when oil is at $200/bbl - and so energy production approaches $200 per barrel of oil equivalent however it is produced, you won't need any leaders to explain to the energy industry that developing wind etc is much more profitable than finding and extracting more oil...

[0mar]

We needed to have started the move towards alternatives 30 years to ago to maybe forestall a crisis. We are fundementally fucked now.

[shakespear1]

Wow, now we have another brainyek telling us his vision of the future. Funny that with so many Nobel winners etc. we are in this sad state.

He doesn't know what will happen next week much less in 2050. So this sounds like another Talking Head.

[Jaymax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut when oil is at $200/bbl - and so energy production approaches $200 per barrel of oil equivalent however it is produced, you won't need any leaders to explain to the energy industry that developing wind etc is much more profitable than finding and extracting more oil...

[Graeme]

Recently, I have been consumed by the problems associated with GW and have added comments in the thread “Humans cause global warming” as my understanding has increased. I just happened to pick up a book from our public library “Global Warming, the Greenpeace report” edited by Jeremy Leggett published in 1990. The first few chapters were quite informative but the one that struck me the most was chapter 11 on renewable energy by Carlo La Porta. He describes a report prepared by the Meridian Corporation for the US Department of Energy. In his table 11.3, he presents the US total resource base of energy (billions of barrels of oil equivalent) for identified and undiscovered resources that can be economically extracted with current or future technology. The first three are the ones mentioned in my initial post above:

Geothermal – 258,263
Solar and biomass (photoconversion) – 178,438
Wind – 176,910

He also presents other tables which show that some of the energy sources are “inaccessible” for various reasons or “proven” to exist. I think you can guess which resources move up the page (coal and shale oil).

Firstly, these resources have been known about by the US government for the last 15 years. Secondly, solutions to both peak oil and global warming lie mainly with the implementation of the above energy resources. In view of the present high prices for oil and other fossil fuels and the reduction in costs for renewables, I think that these resources will soon be exploited.

[bart]

If you like a high-powered scientific view of energy, don't miss the lecture by Nate Lewis of Caltech.

See the second item down the page at Caltech Today:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')athan Lewis: Powering the Planet: Where in the World Will Our Energy Come From? 5/25/2005
[56k modem] [broadband] [cable/DSL] 67 minutes
In a Watson lecture, Nate Lewis, Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry at Caltech, discussed what it would take for the world to turn away from fossil fuels and switch over to renewable energy. He outlined the hurdles that must be overcome in order to power the planet with abundant, clean, inexpensive energy in the 21st century.

[Jaymax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'I')n [La Porta's] table 11.3, he presents the US total resource base of energy (billions of barrels of oil equivalent) for identified and undiscovered resources that can be economically extracted with current or future technology. The first three are the ones mentioned in my initial post above:

Geothermal – 258,263
Solar and biomass (photoconversion) – 178,438
Wind – 176,910

[bjelkeman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'I')f you like a high-powered scientific view of energy, don't miss the lecture by Nate Lewis of Caltech.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I')t looks incredibly naive to me. If we could all sit down and cooperate all the world's problems can be solved by simple engineering! Not even a communist state can achieve that.

Anyone who puts population at number 10 in top ten problems, or who seriously expects leaders hooked on the free market to start directing industry is obviously clueless.

I'm sorry, but it is really not an engineering problem. Its a social problem.

[Graeme]

Bart, Thanks for your post. I read the earlier transcription and found that Professor Lewis did not discuss the contribution that geothermal energy could make in USA. It is capable of generating 1 TW from electricity generation:

http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/geothermalstatus.pdf

But also an unknown (but significant?) amount from geothermal heat pumps depending on who buys them. I'll try to find some info on this. . .

[Graeme]

Yes, the geothermal heat pump contribution could also be significant (around another 1 TW) by 2050 provided there are about 10 million users.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/pub ... eo/geo.asp

http://www.energy.sintef.no/prosjekt/An ... ew2005.pdf

[Graeme]

Apologies Bart, I found another site where Professor Lewis does discuss geothermal. Total terrestrial geothermal potential is 11.6 TW (this must include hot dry rock resources not explored to any great extent yet). And also oceanic geothermal potential of 30 TW! Page 23 here:

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/seminars/ ... _24_04.pdf

Oceanic geothermal is a new resource to me but I have found a reference where this has been discussed for the Gulf of California:

www.geothermie.de/egec-geothernet/ci_pr ... o/0373.PDF

[bart]

Thanks for the link to Lewis's slides on the Stanford site, Graeme. I'm collecting links to his work on energy.

I'm not as interested in his conclusions as much as in the methodical way he looks at the problem. For anybody serious in PO analysis, that's the direction to go, I think.

I'm sure there are other researchers and scientists who have been working on this problem. The challenge is to find them, publicize them and translate their ideas into terms that an educated, but non-technical, audience can understand.

As it is, the level of analysis among PO-niks is pretty low. Almost as low as that of the Cornucopian economists! (sorry for the insult, guys)

Seriously, we've got to do better job. There's more to the energy problem than Hubbert's Peak.

[Graeme]

I found this site which indicates the geothermal energy potential for the United States on a state by state basis:

http://www.geo-energy.org/UsResources.htm#_ftn1

See also the link at this to the right GEOTHERMAL ENERGY,
THE POTENTIAL FOR CLEAN POWER FROM THE EARTH

This shows the geothermal energy potential for the world on a country by country basis