patrick.net

The technology to convert electric power into motion is actually pretty simple.

Quite right. And also quite efficient. However, consider todays hybrid engines. Simple? Easy to work on? Hrm.

As you point out, it's the storage that's the killer.

Not that biodiesel is without problems. Right now algae seems like the most promising source of it, and the theoretical yield is about 15,000 gallons per acre, per year. Probably only enough to supply 10 to 20 heavy drivers per year.

_shrug_

Still, in the long run, I'd bet on bioengineering and a simple combustion engine. Also, diesel landcruisers rock.

Cheers,
prat

...the common sight of a homeless person loaded down with what looks like their own bodyweight in stuff...

I saw a homeless man downtown wearing a shirt that said "Another Andon College Success"

It used to be far cheaper to buy diesel, but now it’s even more expensive to buy per gallon than unleaded.

Yeah. Crazy, considering petro-diesel is much cheaper to make. In the Bay Area all diesel is lunatic expensive. You can get straight bio-diesel for $3.60 a gallon in Berkeley.

It really is sad that such a great engine technology got such a horrible reputation thanks to GM's engines back in the 70's. A bare-bones, small 4x4 with an inline CRD 4 cyl engine could get 30 mpg highway easily, with plenty of low-end torque.

Dammit.

Cheers,
prat

What's the difference between a Realtorâ„¢ and an elephant?

Ans. A Realtorâ„¢ always forgets.

And this is why it will take more than simply not buying their goo and vacating their soil to get the jihadists to back off, it will take stopping the reason for jihad, which means stopping the war against them by Israel, supported by us, that was started against them first.

Perhaps we could move the jews to Alaska...

Anyone seen any good cartoons lately?

Cheers,
prat

Sunnyvale_Renter Says:

"...it will take stopping the reason for jihad, which means stopping the war against them by Israel, supported by us, that was started against them first."

Ahh...No!

"This has NOTHING to do with being a homedebtor, the rare homeowner, or a renter, it has everything to do with our society being based on, He who dies with the most stuff wins."

Sad but true. I am reminded of the end of "Citizen Kane" where after Charlie Kane's death the camera pans across a vast ocean of consumer goods he has accumulated in his gigantic mansion and then falls upon some workers who are disposing of all of his crap by throwing it in the furnace! It all goes up in smoke and the man died lonely and alone, so look where the life-long quest for material shit got him!

DinOR, is your e-mail address working?

I guess I could have afforded a new boat but boats are only new the first year. It’s the payments that last forever!

Actually, it is new only right before you buy it. After then it would be used.

I remember my husband telling me that most people who retire early do so because they control their spending and save, not because they make tons of money.

If you ever played Cash Flow 101, you will notice that it is not easy to get out of a high-income/high-spending "rat race".

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of the game or the Rich Dad series, but I do have respect for Kiyosaki.

Does anyone else find it strange that entertainment centers often cost more than the new plasma screen they’re supposed to support?

Actually, many people like to hang their plasma TVs with wall-integrated surround speakers. The answer: a complete living room renovation.

Where can someone go for reasonably priced furniture?

I envision a future with custom out-sourced furniture. One should be able to choose the fabrics/funishes on the internet and have it shipped directly from Mexico at 1/2 the price (or less).

I thought the Jihadists hated the West because of the Crusades not cancer and staph.

Nuclear
Come on, it is not a safe option, Three Mile Island was my neighbor as a teenager, and nuclear is regressing folks. Even a tiny bit of fuel to dispose of will last thousands of years. -- newsfreak

With all due respect, this is a kneejerk reaction to a very serious problem that is many orders of magnitude more demanding than "feel good" solutions. There is no energy production technology yet feasible which doesn't cause safety and environmental stress, including photovoltaic solar and turbine wind. Of all the feasible, *large-scale* energy production technologies *currently available*, nuclear is by far the safest, both historically and trendwise. The current generation of FBRs are capable of reducing the "long-lived" waste by 95%.

Sorry for the direct response, but we have to approach energy policy rationally, not emotionally, if we're to have any hope of transitioning without causing a world war in the process.

This peak is Darwinian, evolve or DIE.

"Evolve" implies building upon past and existing technologies and techniques to ensure future viability. The must include *all* options, including nuclear, or you're not talking about "evolution" at all; only regressive reexploration.

Of all the feasible, *large-scale* energy production technologies *currently available*, nuclear is by far the safest, both historically and trendwise. The current generation of FBRs are capable of reducing the “long-lived” waste by 95%.

I agree. I am an absolute supporter of nuclear energy.

I also support wind energy. Offshore wind farms can provide much energy needs of some locations.

I thought the Jihadists hated the West because of the Crusades not cancer and staph.

They hated the west because of our apparent prosperity. Also, they need polarity for population control.

Any views on coal gasification?

"Any views on coal gasification?" --Jeffolie

Yes, I recently read a lot about it in "The End of Oil," by Paul Roberts. BTW, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is remotely enjoying this thread.

Anyway, coal gasification is costly, and expending the energy to remove the CO2 and sulpher and what not from the coal certainly decreases the effective energy yield of the coal. But given that the Earth has HUGE amounts of coal in the ground, and given that coal gasification technology will continue to increase the efficiency of the process, it is a good investment to make. So I do expect this "clean coal" technology to increase in popularity in the near future.

Wow, some great posts on alternative NRG --plus Prat & Escape from DC are back! Now all we need is for Jack to pop in agains.

newsfreak,

I have to second Randy H & Peter P on nuclear. Most people's perceptions are based on PAST technology --the old-fashioned light water Three-Mile style reactors. This design is inefficient and (as you mentioned) produces unacceptably large amounts of extremely dangerous and long-lived plutonium isotopes. The latest generations of Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs --not be be confused with "F@cked Buyers) are much more efficient and --as Randy H pointed out-- can cut radioactive waste by up to 95%. Also, the waste that is produced has a much shorter half-life (hundreds vs. hundreds-of-thousands of years). The whole discussion on using thorium to consume plutonium was also intriguing --it might even be possible someday to dispose of the remaining 5%.

Even so, I don't see next-gen nuclear as a permanent solution, anymore than moving to other fossil stores will be (clean coal, tar sands, etc.). However, every form of "bridging" energy technology buys us more time and brings us closer to long-term sustainable energy. Whether that will ultimately take the form of bio-diesel, wind, wave, solar, fusion or a combination thereof, I don't know. But I wouldn't completely dismiss something as proven and viable as nuclear at this point.

And after X years, (where X=12 to 30), what will you do with the used photovoltaics?

Use them as the next trendy kitchen countertops? :)

FBRs = Furious Bitter Renters? :)

I was always considered the “cheap” one in my family, but I am also in better shape financially than my parents, so I’m ok with being called cheap.

I hear you, SQT. Actually, one of my older brothers is nearly as cheap as I am ;-). Not surprising that we were raised by a Depression baby (our dad), so learned to embrace frugality despite living in the very capital of rampant consumerism (L.A.). The other brother, however, embraced the Dark Side and became the quintessential Boomer --McMansion, bling, trophy wives, Beemers, coke habit , etc. That is, he had all that until his past caught up with him.

I didn't realize you grew up in Oregon. May I ask where, and for how long (planning on moving there)?

"...they have passed a lot of it on to us. It still looks great and I like the fact that it has a family history. They love that some of the first furniture they ever bought is still in the family and being well cared for, so everyone benefits."

This is actually how I ended up with most of my furniture as well --and most of it's solid wood and much better quality than the typical parti-board crap you get from big-box retailers. If you don't have a lot of family around you for this to be an option, nor the budget for Ethan Allen, then like SQT said, there's always Craigslist, the Recycler, Pennysaver, yard sales, etc.

If you insist on buying new/matching, then there are often discount local furniture makers, even in places where you might not expect. For years, there was this place nearby me in Glendale called Furniture Barn that produced tons of great relatively inexpensive oak furniture in Mission (my favorite) and country style. They moved to the SFV, but are still in business as far as I know.

Any views on coal gasification?

It is promising as a mid-term bridging technology, although there is a severe net-energy loss in the fuel cycle which really only makes it viable assuming global adherence to a carbon-limiting regime (like Kyoto). Such regimes are historically never successful because the temptation to cheat/ignore is too great.

That said, there are tremendous coal reserves in the world. My fear is that they will be mostly burned the "old fashioned" way. By the way, coal combustion produces significantly more radioactive waste--most of it directly into the environment--than even the oldest, unsafest nuclear technologies.

Tidal: there are serious environmental impacts from this as well. Any titdal energy farms deployed on a large scale would disrupt wide ecosystems. Further, the cost to maintain these systems is even larger than wind farms, so there is still a net drag on the system cycle.

Solar: solar technologies are viable, now. But there's a catch. For any large-scale, efficient, environmentally safe architecture the solar arrays would need to be orbital, returning the energy to Earth as microwave. The problem here is the astronomical (pun intended) up-front investment necessary. This implies the necessity of building orbital elevators, which make a great read, even if a bit science fictiony (in fairness, we could build these now but for a few problems with material strengths, but this is being solved as we speak). There are great economic arguments for building space elevators, but I fear that we're far from any form of political discipline and international cooperation necessary to pull it off. One of the derivative uses of elevators could be the commercialization of mining in space by automatic mining craft, which could extract precious minerals and even Uranium from large asteroids.

Someone earlier mentioned sails (as in wind) for propulsion of ocean craft. Now it's my turn to say "c'mon". We are still talking about steel-hulled ships with enormous displacements, aren't we? Or are we going back to wooden square-riggers and Cap'n Hook?

One of the derivative uses of elevators could be the commercialization of mining in space by automatic mining craft, which could extract precious minerals and even Uranium from large asteroids.

Even gold may be mined. A gold-laden asteroid may crash (pun intended) the gold market.

Someone earlier mentioned sails (as in wind) for propulsion of ocean craft. Now it’s my turn to say “c’mon”. We are still talking about steel-hulled ships with enormous displacements, aren’t we? Or are we going back to wooden square-riggers and Cap’n Hook?

I think it is possible to use modern sails made of composite material to take adventage of the prevailing pacific wind, although wind should remain as a secondary form of power.

Enormous displacements? No problem, we just need enormous sails.

Would even the venerable Peter P finally agree the economy is not "zero-sum" once we start exploiting exogenous resources?

Enormous displacements? No problem, we just need enormous sails.

Remember, friction from displacement grows as a cubed factor. I'd like to see this tried just because them would be really unbelievably enormous friggin sails (even for composite materials, but then I was the one talking about space-ladders).

Would even the venerable Peter P finally agree the economy is not “zero-sum” once we start exploiting exogenous resources?

Randy, how could I disagree with you on economics? You win.

Remember, friction from displacement grows as a cubed factor. I’d like to see this tried just because them would be really unbelievably enormous friggin sails (even for composite materials, but then I was the one talking about space-ladders).

Perhaps a multi-hull design? If wind can help with 40% of the power one-way, we can save 20% of energy consumption round-trip.

Perhaps a multi-hull design? If wind can help with 40% of the power one-way, we can save 20% of energy consumption round-trip.

Perfect. And a reactor for the remaining 80% so these passenger ships can ferry tourists off to the ocean-space-elevator-platform so they can disembark on their vacation to the orbital hotel of love.

DinOR,

I agree for point of use solutions. I was referring more to plans I've read for tidal farms. The eco-damage would come in the form of light blockage, service vehicle traffic, disruption of breaking waves, and perhaps corrosion/cleaning agents. Wave energy generators are even worse than tidal energy generators.

The most efficient proposal I've read is in the low-tech form of coastal dams and reservoirs, using small-scale hydroelectric techniques. These would piss of environmentalists, though (rightfully so IMO).

If your ships run on wind, and if sleeker, smaller-hulled craft have an advantage (speed, cost, whatever), it is possible that the economics may shift a little bit in favor of a fleet.

We can also have a group of cargo boats controlled by one master boat. This can minimize the need for additional crew members.

As I have noted before, the transpacific fleet does not have panamax concerns.

DC, I am still laughing about your "Pokemon of Death"

Peter - yes - very advanced methodology that I employ!

My wife said that there is a little "Batman" from Jan 19.

http://tinyurl.com/3og25

Oh no, Cramer says "Drop in Gold Only Makes It Shine Brighter". Time to sell.

NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE

“However, I’ve stopped looking at the blogs here because it got too political.”

This is a false statement. I always lie.

SFW, Did you notice the picture of the woman raking leaves? She looks like one pissed off Centex customer/neighbor who closed on her home last month. She’s out $150k now. Thanks Centex.

I got the same impression. :)

Perhaps she should buy more on the dip. :)

All this talk about peak oil, does anybody have a peak oil analogy from the past? Has there been any other ‘necessary’ commodities from the past which became scarce or usage grew exponentially and forced change?

The closest analogy (I can come up with) is the exponential growth of telephones and the change from human operators to electronic switches. Here, human resource could not keep up with the demand and a replacement was found and changes were implemented.

Escaped,

While it's nice to see you posting again, I have to second Devin on the anti-Israel rant. While you may have very good reasons for feeling this way, please keep in mind that not everyone here necessarily agrees with you, nor comes here for political/religious commentary. This is after all, primarily a housing bubble blog. The more stuff related in some way to housing and the less inflammatory political content, the better. Thanks & welcome back.

"Has there been any other ‘necessary’ commodities from the past which became scarce or usage grew exponentially and forced change?" --Devin

Yes, for example: WOOD. Wood was the primary fuel for mankind during the Medeival period in Europe, prior to the discovery of coal. As the Medeival period went on Europe sufferred massive deforestation and the Feudal society sufferred a majory energy crunch for hundreds of years until coal was discovered. This energy shortage to due to wood/forest depletion was actually a major contributing factor to the length of the Dark Ages.