Comments on: Backward compatibility in energy technology

By: Scholars and Rogues » Global Carbon Project says 2007 CO2 emission higher than worst-case IPCC estimate

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:04:06 +0000

[...] not convinced that the total decarbonization of the U.S. economy in ten years is viable, but if we don’t start decarbonizing not just ourselves, but everyone, really soon, [...]

By: Energy-Technology » Backward compatibility in energy technology

Energy-Technology » Backward compatibility in energy technology — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:59:30 +0000

[...] Backward compatibility in energy technologyIf youâ€™ve ever worked for a manufacturing or software development company, youâ€™re probably familiar with the concept of backward compatibility. The basic idea is that any new product needs to be able to utilize the old productâ€™s … [...]

By: Lex

Lex — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:50:16 +0000

I would like to see some quantification of how much energy we can produce (though i suppose that “gather” is a better verb for renewable energies) put up against our current consumption of energy and projected increases. This is particularly true of converting our vehicular transportation to electric. As all for it as i am, i have a feeling that we don’t see these numbers because they don’t add up…at least not yet.

Brian, do you have any thoughts on the small, self-contained reactors being developed?

Has anyone done a study on how much longer the supply of nuclear fuel would last if we used all the stuff sitting in warheads?

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:37:38 +0000

Dan, you’re right, and I’m still waiting to see what that plan will be. I watched Gore’s speech on YouTube and wanted to be inspired to quit my job and go to work for a solar, wind, or geothermal energy company the next day. I didn’t. Whether that was skepticism or cynicism is a question I haven’t yet answered myself.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:34:48 +0000

Those who advocate nuclear power ignore studies done for the govenrments of Switzerland and France which indicate that there are not enough high grade uranium ore to supply everyone with electrical power.

Not true. There are some nuclear advocates, myself among them, who recognize that we’ll have to fall back on lower-grade ores and very likely go to breeder reactors as well. And that requires solving a host of nonproliferation problems in addition to the waste disposal issues (although breeder reactors tend to produce less waste, as do 3rd generation reactors).

I personally prefer other alternatives, but I’m not yet convinced that we can get them online fast enough to avoid needing to build large numbers of additional nuclear plants.

By: Dan Gambiera

Dan Gambiera — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:11:46 +0000

“Bold calls for action” are well and good. But they don’t mean jack unless they come with some sort of realistic plan for that action.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:46:16 +0000

The proposal already incorporates backward compatibility. The key to conversion is to recognize that almost all devises associated with modern life run on electricity. How the electricity is produced is irrelevant to operating any given device as long as the frequency, voltage, and amperage match. The frequency is the most critical (60 Hz in the US), because voltage and amperage can be adjusted by transformers. Even direct current devices, such a radios, convert alternating house current to direct current by using full wave rectifiers. Upgrading the electical grid is a key infrastructure investment that must be made. At some point, automobiles will most likely use electrical motors and servos to propel the vehicle, but the primary means of generating the power will change over time: ay going from current hybrid technology to electric motors driven by pertoleum engines, to fuel cell power generation, to solar cell – fuel cell hybrids. In each of these cases, the direct propulsion is by electric motors, but the primary power source changes. Railroads already have been using diesel powered generators to produce electrical power to run the actual propulsion system, brakes, and all sensors for years. The only ones who must change are those who supply the electrical power, the automobile companies, and other transportation system. Eventually, other systems, such as household heating, can be converted to operate off a different primary energy source. I expect the full conversion process to take longer than ten years for some categories. But in reality, with the eras of post-peak oil and global warming looming there really will not be much of choice as far as converting aweay from fossil fuels. Oil is expected to peak first, if it has not already done so, natural gas is expected to peak sometime around 2017, and coal is expected to peak soon after. Those who advocate nuclear power ignore studies done for the govenrments of Switzerland and France which indicate that there are not enough high grade uranium ore to supply everyone with electrical power. An fusion power has been the source of the future for the last sixty years, and no one has yet made a working generator from that source. At some point in the face of shortages, the available alternative technologies (solar, wind, and others) must be used if some semblence of modern life is to be preserved. RIght now, Denmark generates 25 % of the country’s electrical power from wind. The Netherlands and Germany are moving in that direction by building large, offshore windmill farms. There is movement in this country towards large windmill installations, particularly on the Great Plains. I frequently see windmill components being hauled on the freeways around where I live.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:52:09 +0000

Good questions, Denny, and Gore has offered no answers, at least not in that particular speech. Most of the sites I’ve been reading about his speech were focused on how his speech was like Kennedy’s man on the moon speech, and Kennedy didn’t really offer much beyond grand vision in that speech either.

On the other hand, Kennedy was President of the United States at the time, so when he said it was going to happen, it was going to happen. Gore isn’t President, neither is Obama, and I wouldn’t trust McCain to follow through on this one.

I don’t know who will control it, although I suspect it’ll be the same groups that control energy now, simply because they have the monetary resources to do so. Not a great solution, really, but not likely to be any worse than the current situation.

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:43:36 +0000

Thanks, Brian. The reporter in me now asks: How much will it cost, and who’s gonna pay for it? I must admit, Lex’s question about control troubles me as well.

By: Lex

Lex — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:33:19 +0000

While i agree that backward compatibility with our creaking infrastructure should probably be abandoned, i’m still not convinced that Gore’s proposal is anything close to realistic.

Moreover, i’m not too keen on changing one form of centralization for another…mostly because i think that industrial centralization is a root cause of our environmental mess. Of course, i don’t know exactly what Gore means. And thats another beef. He’s never very clear when he makes his proclamations. For a guy known for boring people to tears with his wonkishness, the ethereal nature of his plans frightens me.

Just how much energy would we have to generate to not only meet new demands but replace all the existing plants? And how much more would have to be generated to (and conserved) to power out stupid transit methods? According to the government, we use 9.25 million bbls/day just for vehicular transportation. That’s a lot of energy.

But my biggest question is: who’s going to control this new energy infrastructure?