Ethinol, nuclear and hydrogen: An excellent article.

[Peter 14.7]

Hi All

Another good thread started by Acey.

Like the comment by Topcropper why the US and Aust are pushing ethanol. Save the farmers or at least the multinational producers of fertilizer and large farm corps.

At least the US Pres is coming on side to Nuclear as if he leads others will follow. I have never even as a boy understood why nuclear was so bad.

BTW I have actually seen the reactor at Lucas Heights. It is the size of a washing machine. Therefore, I asked the scientist what the reaction of a serious accident would be and the answer was: inside the shield (essentially a shed) you could be in trouble) outside of the shed you would need a shower and homes in the local area would have to close their windows for day.

But sadly it is not in our nature to share. It is survival of the fittest. Rich Nations being the fittest. I have always said until:

a) Aliens arrive to wipe us out
b) we stuff our planet so much we are all going down,
c) we perfect living to 200

the human race will never unite for the common good. Sadly, I believe it will be too late in 100 years to say sorry grandkids.

What can we do now?

Enforce Solar /Water/Energy Efficient design in building (recently back-pedalled in NSW)
Enforce the Changeover of Inefficient Cars (thankfully the low cost on new vehicles helps this to occur naturally)
Base Rego Costs of Fuel Use (ala Europe)

Again if Australia was to improve by say 50% it would be nothing compared to the huge impact of new but old tech cars in India and China.

I guess it is blessing we don’t live to be 200.

Regards, Peter 14.7

 

[Aceyducey]

Another good thread started by Acey.

Except that Richard had that honour

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Aceyducey]

Music to my ears

Thought I'd share this article...

Demand up, but Australian oil production drops
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/demand-up-but-australian-oil-production-drops/2006/08/11/1154803094637.html

AUSTRALIA'S crude oil production declined by 10.3 per cent in 2005-06 in what is a long-term declining trend, according to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.

Crude oil production was down from 126.3 million barrels in 2004-05 to 113.3 million barrels last year, according to preliminary data.

However, production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) jumped 15.9 per cent to 569.6 million cubic feet, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) rose 3.3 per cent to 27 million barrels, condensate production increased 2.8 per cent to 45.9 million barrels and gas production managed a 1.5 per cent gain to 780.5 million cubic feet.

APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said there has been a very clear decline in production since 2000.

"We're producing 60 to 65 per cent of what we consume - it used to be 80 to 90 per cent," she said.

Ms Robinson also warned that unless substantial new oil discoveries were made, the decline would continue.

"We do have very large unexplored areas of Australia and we still don't know the extent of the reserves we have," she said.

"The finds are fewer and smaller, and that is primarily because exploration tends to be confined to the known areas."

(my bold)

This is why I'm in the oil game.....

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Olly]

Just saw an interview with a guy talking about fuel sources and their effects on the environment. The guys name is Tim Flannery and he has just released a book called The Weathermakers. Website - www.theweathermakers.com
He really knows his stuff and is book won Book of the Year.

Olly

 

[topcropper]

Some more stuff on ethanol,...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm



From the article,........

This year cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption. The problem is simple: It takes a whole lot of agricultural produce to create a modest amount of automotive fuel.

The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.

Worldwide increase in grain consumption
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that world grain consumption will increase by 20 million tons this year, roughly 1%. Of that, 14 million tons will be used to fuel cars in the U.S., leaving only six million tons to cover the world's growing food needs.

Already commodity prices are rising. Sugar prices have doubled over the past 18 months (driven in part by Brazil's use of sugar cane for fuel), and world corn and wheat prices are up one-fourth so far this year.


See ya's.

 

[adam31]

Hi, You folk all seem quite knowledgeable so i may be out of my league here, if we are talking about future energy viability in relation to nuc. fusion has anyone considered the effects of nano-technology. This technology in my unqualified opinion should be well and truly up and running by 2030.

From the info that is out there the only thing that seems to be holding this back is major issues with ethics. Now some Q's.

1. By 2030 what will the avg. life expectancy be? (think stem-cell research)

2. If a photo-voltaic cell can be made to the nanometre very cheaply who will pay an electrical company for electricity!!!

3. Will my brain be able to keep up with my computer in 2030!!!( I doubt it)

Sorry if i have gone way off topic just thought i would throw it out there

 

[Aceyducey]

Adam,

By 2030 your brain may be directly assisted by computing power so you will be able to keep up

It's only one step from an external memory, calculation and long-distance communicator (a mobile phone/internet device/PDA) to an integrated one.

Just like an artificial leg (mobility aid), eye (visual aid) or ear (communications aid).....we may well be able to have installed thinking aids.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[GreatPig]

Just like an artificial leg (mobility aid), eye (visual aid) or ear (communications aid).....we may well be able to have installed thinking aids.

I hope these future cybermen are not too like the fictional ones...

GP

 

[Patosan]

.....we may well be able to have installed thinking aids.

I could sure do with one of those.

 

[adam31]

Acey thanks for the reply, how far away do you think this technology is. Lots of info around but still seems a long way off being of any great use!
Have read that this technology will change the world more so then the renaissance age.

I bet you are ready to pounce on investments when this tech really peaks . When it happens it will be a very exciting time for us humans, this I am sure of!!!

 

[grossreal]

hi all
you must live in your own age not the future or the past.
grasp what your current age has to offer and try to work out how it will benefit you.
try to keep a breast of lots of different things from geo thermal thru to nano technologies and invest as you think it will go.
for me I look at things out side the box geotherm maybe a way to go but unfortunately for me its not going to be grasp at the speed it should here but grasp it will be.

 

[Aceyducey]

Acey thanks for the reply, how far away do you think this technology is. Lots of info around but still seems a long way off being of any great use!
Have read that this technology will change the world more so then the renaissance age.

No idea - but certainly we're becoming increasingly gadgetised. A good external gadget might achieve a similar end

As to the technology changing the world - we'll see. People remain people!


Gross, 'living in our own age' is an interesting statement to make after the twentieth century.

Look at the changes over the last sixty years - many of us are doing jobs that didn't exist twenty years ago, using technology that didn't exist five years ago

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[adam31]

That is true Acey but technology seems to be advancing exponentially which is quite scary considering the rapid rate of advancement in the last 100 years!

 

[Aceyducey]

Adam,

Actually there's strong evidence to suggest that innovation is slowing down, though knowledge is still increasing at an increasing rate.

I'd have to track down the references, but some people did a study looking at the rate of new inventions as opposed to refinements.

You could say that at the moment many of the new inventions are a natural progression from what has come before - there have been decreasing numbers of real 'breakthroughs'.

But with modern civilisation rapidly fouling it's own nest and running short of potential new energy supplies to sustain it's growth (and we live in a civilisation that must grow to remain stable), we'll see if some of the external pressures force us to a spurt of new innovation

Cheers,

Aceyducey