The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: January 29, 2007

239 comments on DrumBeat: January 29, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Sunspot on January 29, 2007 - 11:19am

The bridge between imagination and reality has to be built on sound science. We can all easily imagine spaceships zipping around the galaxy at many times the speed of light, but it will never happen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on January 29, 2007 - 11:27am

Just google "extracting lithium from seawater". I did not want to go into technical discussions but I am not talking about science fiction here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunspot on January 29, 2007 - 11:51am

So maybe it's easy to extract mountains of Lithium. Not really my point. You state that what is lacking out there is imagination, and I completely disagree. I think the opposite is the case: I see nothing but imagination, or what I call Fantasy. I'm totally in favor of whatever works. But when I can't get any gasoline to put in my car - and if things go the way I think they will in the ME then that should be this year, maybe even this spring - it won't help my situation at all to know that there's plenty of Lithium in the oceans.
Anyway, batteries are just a storage medium. Still have to generate that electricity somehow...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on January 29, 2007 - 12:50pm

But sorting out "scientific imagination" from "science fiction imagination" is the whole purpose of our discussions here. In this case I knew there are feasible methods to extract Li from seawater which I had accepted with a good degree of certainty will be working for us.

The lack of imagination I find in the way the picture was described by the article. It basically assumed we will continue extracting and using Li the way we used to and did not allow for innovation at all. In contrast I am allowing innovation, being more or less agnostic on it - it may or may not work. But this is not the point - the point is that this is not the time to tell whether potential innovations will work or not. This is what the article was leading us to the end - kill all Li batteries, because you see Li is will run out.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PhilRelig on January 29, 2007 - 11:56am

How energy-intensive is the extraction process? That is the question that needs to be asked in order to make imagination connect with reality.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sendoilplease on January 29, 2007 - 11:38am

That's a major problem with many of the Faithful of the godz of Technology and Science.

They usually have the same tendency as the CERA crowd to overestimate the positives "on paper" but neglect the "above ground" limitations such as geopolitical and physical constraints (such as infrastructure buildout etc), international competition and current technical limits to their proposed solution.

Many if not all of the techno solutions may come into play but it may be long after we've suffered through much of the growing pains of the Transition away from Fossil Fuels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on January 29, 2007 - 12:05pm

Let's compare the two sides of the story:
1) "Let us not do it because we will run out of this or that resource"
2) "Let's do it because we'll find ways to better extract the resources, find their substitutes and/or use them more efficiently"

At first glance it looks that the first claim is the more responsible one. Hell it's so tempting to just sit around and do nothing while the world around you is going to the waste bin. But if you just applied that same principle to all decisions made by humans throughout their history we would be back to the caves, or even to the trees. None of the things we humans did has ever been indefinately "renewable" or "sustainable". Even the bow and arrows are limited to the amount of wood you can cut to master them. And wind turbines or solar panels do not magically appear off the ground by themselves.

It all comes down to trial and errors and evolution of one technology to another. As long as lithium batteries are the best way to reduce fossil fuels usage available, I will support them until they are proven to fail in practice. Predictions by some fake prophets of doom, persuading us to not even try are hardly of any interest.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunspot on January 29, 2007 - 12:32pm

Here's what I need:

1. A car with a 200 mile range minimum.
2. Electricity
3. Heat
4. Food

When Lithium batteries can provide some of that I'll be interested. Go, try it, show me something useful! I want it and I'll take it - if, of course, I can afford it...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on January 29, 2007 - 12:44pm

why do you NEED #1 ?

If you are a rural large animal veterinarian I can understand the "need".

Odd that you do not NEED "#5. Shelter", although perhaps that is covered in #1. Or "#6. Human Contact and Society" with medical care included in #6 or a #7.

Best Hopes for NOT needing cars with 200 mile range.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunspot on January 29, 2007 - 1:00pm

Well, my current reality is that I live 45 miles from work, so I need a car. I know, move closer to work. But I live in a small town that might fare better post-crash. And I work in a high-tech industry that consumes mucho electricity. So moving closer to a job that will likely go away soon seems like a bad idea.
Sure, I need those other things too. It wasn't meant to be a complete list, just my major energy needs.
Certainly if there was alternate transportation available I would consider it. At least my (purchased used) Corolla gets 36 MPG. But I'm not holding my breath for light rail between Weare NH and Tyngsboro Mass. I'm all for it, though!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on January 29, 2007 - 1:20pm

I need to stop paying taxes to subsidize your absurd lifestyle.
No reason at all to suppose Weare will do well post-crash. Can't employ you now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PeakOil Tarzan on January 29, 2007 - 1:59pm

You are right, it is absurd. People like myself and Sunspot say that every morning as we roll out of bed. The problem is that a quick solution to the problem would mean that I lose a good bit of what I have invested in my rural home -- bought, I should add before I was fully aware of the consequences of buying such a property.

The problem is compounded by the fact that where I live, there is no broadband service so that precludes "telecommuting" (don't even say the word "dial-up." I'm lucky to get a stable 21k connection).

But I hear you. I know I'm only contributing to our current mess. I think about it every hour of the day.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on January 29, 2007 - 2:09pm

OK. I'll try to focus on the absurdity and not the person. Still. Choices.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sendoilplease on January 29, 2007 - 2:26pm

You make a very good point concerning 99.999% of the American public.

By the time they wake up to the crisis they will find themselve trapped in unsustainable living situations with very few alternatives available.

And they will not be as rational and calm as you are now when it happens.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

memmel on January 29, 2007 - 3:04pm

Try a satellite modem.
Also if you have some tech savvy friends and hills around you can set up some
nice line of site communications using readily available equipment.

I'd suggest you get very friendly with local employees of the phone and cable companies
also.

http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/casestudy.aspx?docid=133038

Generally if your tech savvy you can cobble together linux boxes to roll
your own network.

Laser links are cool and not that hard just they suffer from rain.

Finally high speed wireless from mobile providers is becoming common.

Last but not least check into buying a T1 or other fixed connection from your local provider or consider multiple pots lines with a linux load balancer.

A lot of times you can buy a 10 line business plan pretty cheap and get aggregate bandwidth thats not bad.

And of course get you lines checked and isolate the noise thats killing your connection.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PeakOil Tarzan on January 29, 2007 - 3:27pm

Thanks, memmel. I periodically re-evaluate what I ought to do. I was very close to signing on with a regional provider of satellite internet service when I discovered that they were no longer taking customers (they promised a return to enrollment in the near future, but I haven't taken the time to check back).

This is the sort of service I get from the phone company (won't say the name but it begins with a "V" and rhymes with "horizon"): This past fall, our phone line had become so static-y that it was unusable even for local calls, so I called the phone co. and asked them to come out and have a look. I wasn't there when they came to do the repair but the tech told my wife that "the cups on the pole are installed upside down and they fill up with water when you get an extended period of rain." I assumed that he had corrected this, but the next time we had a hard rain, the static returned. We're the last house on a dead-end road, so there's nothing in it for the phone company to fix the problem. I'm sure our neck of the woods was without phone and electric for much of the twentieth century and I expect to be one of the first to be cut off when things get tight. Like oldhippie said, "Choices."

Thanks for you suggestions though. I'm going to write them down.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

InfinitePossibilities on January 29, 2007 - 5:19pm

I am not a strong believer in telecommuting. But the broadband situation could most likely be fixed with a little bit of wireless equipment. My parents live in a village close to the middle of nowhere in Europe and they don't even have landlines for phones. The local telecom was dragging their feet about offering anything but cell-phone service and a few kbits/s for internet. A year and a half ago a small but rapidly growing company moved in, put a few antennas on a nearby tower and since then my parents have boradband for less than what I am paying for DSL. We use an IP phone application for free and have even a webcam going for less than what I would be paying for phone cards from the US to Europe.

If you have a line of sight to a nearby place with DSL, you should be able to get broadband. It wouldn't work in the middle of the forest, though...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PeakOil Tarzan on January 29, 2007 - 6:27pm

Thanks, IP. Problem is I don't. Hilly terrain, no cable, no DSL within 4 miles.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

InfinitePossibilities on January 29, 2007 - 6:45pm

That sucks... technologically speaking... since you seem to have a landline, in theory one can operate ADSL with line repeaters/loop extenders (bidirectional amplifiers) in the middle of the line over longer distances but I know that the phone companies are not keen on putting those in for customers. Not sure if there is any way of actually making them do it. Probably not... monopolists hardly ever move unless they are being forced by the government.

For what it's worth, if you haven't seen this, yet, here is what such a device looks like:

http://www.versatek.com/products/ver170r1.html

4 miles is at the limits of what these things can do, but they are, at least in theory, available.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Everett on January 29, 2007 - 7:50pm

Have you seen this (you would have to be somewhat desperate)?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2001/pulpit_20010628_000421.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

doug fir on January 29, 2007 - 10:32pm

I know your problem with DSL, cable etc. in rural hilly land To get around "dialup" with its peak speed of 18k for me, I went satelite. Which isn't as good as its cracked up to be. #1 is price-you have to pay for a new modem and a dish, plus installation. Some firms wave part of it. But often a big chunk-300 to 500 depending. Next is spotty transmission-forget it when it rains, or is foggy, or snowing. Then there's price again-monthly charges 3x dialup, for basic service, charges upped quickly if you use more bandwidth than min. Plus they want a credit card, and I liked my old local ISP-pay each month by mail or stopping in.

Still looking? I found Radioshack to be a satelite carrier/jobber for me.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ET on January 29, 2007 - 10:51pm

Can you get ISDN service? I know its 'obsolete' technology, but 3x faster than a dial-up is not all that bad. It was all I had for a year in my rural location until DSL came available much sooner than I had anticipated. Want to buy an ISDN modem - cheap?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

doug fir on January 29, 2007 - 11:11pm

Withdrawn

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mbkennel on January 29, 2007 - 6:16pm

I think small towns will fare worse post-crash.

Why? For the obvious reason that they're far from places with money, resources and power, and supplying them is petroleum intensive.

Electricity will not be going away, and in high tech at least there is now significant empahsis on using new technology for electric power efficiency.

High tech typically generates a fair amount of economic value per unit input petroleum.

I would think it's a good idea live in a district with a public utility with a modern nuclear power plant and a high standard of maintenance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sendoilplease on January 29, 2007 - 1:03pm

LevinK, I agree with most of what you said here. I did not mean to imply this is not an area to be explored - lithium batteries for storage could be a very valuable and technically realistic part of one of the solutions.

My point is that in general, when it comes to the various alternatives to fossil fuels, so many of the proposed technical solutions do not take into account the various real-world factors that might limit their usefulness. And in some cases pursuit of unrealistic technical solutions will be a drain on efforts to mitigate the effects of peak oil, or may even make the symptoms of peak oil worse (e.g. food vs fuel).

I would love to see advances in robust, reliable and affordable storage systems like lithium batteries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

239 comments on DrumBeat: January 29, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.' The former will win every time.”

—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006