DrumBeat: September 17, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 17, 2006 - 9:14am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Why the laws of economics don’t work well with oil
First, prices never really were as high as the industry’s critics contended. Even when the oil price reached $78 a barrel in July, it was still far below the inflation- adjusted price of almost $100 a barrel that it hit in April 1980.Second, the price drop shows that the markets are retreating from the nervousness created by the “peak oil” crowd that has been arguing that the world is running out of oil. So there is no need to subsidise oil substitutes.
Iran’s oil bourse to be launched
Krauthammer: Attack on Iran Inevitable
Petrol-hungry Iran still eyeing rationing
Tehran - Major crude producer Iran is still aiming to enforce petrol rationing to curb crippling domestic fuel consumption, as long as it wins parliamentary approval, its oil minister said Saturday.
From Jerome a Paris: Countdown to $100 oil - $15 oil? The cornucopians are fighting back
El Nino Delivers One-Two Punch to Natural Gas Stocks
U.K.: Ramblers demand an end to spread of wind farms
The Ramblers' Association is set to announce its opposition to the construction of onshore wind farms across the country. The move is a major blow for the government, which is struggling to maintain its pledge to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.
Builders adapt to demand for energy efficient homes
Don’t toss that gas receipt! Turn it into a voice for fuel-efficient choices!
Leak fuels Scandinavian nuclear debate
An internal leak was behind the high radioactivity levels that led to the emergency shut-down of a Norwegian nuclear reactor last weekend, officials have said.
Venezuela's China oil exports up
Caracas - Venezuelan oil exports to China have risen by a third to some 200 000 barrels a day as the South American nation diversifies its international clients, Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez said on Friday.
Polar bears drown, islands appear in Arctic thaw
Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic 2006 summer thaw widely blamed on global warming.
Bush 'prepares emissions U-turn'
President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say.After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources.
Creation of "Clear Morning Voluntary Energy Knowledge and National Security Directive For All American Public, Civic and Private Organizations, and Individuals
A national day of notice on Sept 11 2006, the 5 year anniversery of 9/11 and coincidentally at the same time as the next OPEC meeting, redeclaring the American energy crisis as a national security issue, based on the knowledge that almost no oil we import can be affirmed in it's reliability, is not third party confirmed, and thus subject to a catastrophic surprise/collapse/disruption for a multitude of reasons, and that it from this day, 9/11/06 be the responisibility of the local, township, municipal, county, state, regional, and national governments and organizations, business at all levels, educational organizations includng K through University, civic minded private colleges, civic and human service organizations, health care facilities and organizations, youth organizations, and any and all other organizations that profess to be civic minded in America, AND all private business, commercials utilities, sales and marketing organization, real estate and tourist development organizations, metro and private water and sewer districts, and private business of ALL TYPE, if they claim to be and strive to be civic minded, to establish clear and direct instructions, educational material, directives, activities and educational and public relations material to:
Mission Statement
A. Inform their employees, owners, boards, directors, customers and management of the clear fact that the United States has no reliable information and statistics on the fuel supply, refining and transport system in America, and thus must act accordingly, assuming the possibility of any surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE.
B. Inform any and all government agencies, neighborhood associations, municipal boards, city managers, alderman, county governments and departments, state governments, cabinets, legislatures, and state government departments, regional associations and departments, and interstate coordinating agencies, United States government legislative elected representatives, U.S. governent cabinents, departments, functionaries and managoers and directers of departments, bueareaus and agencies, and the United States Executive branch government departments, cabinets, and bueareaus, and all Staff Departments of America's highest executive agencies of the clear fact that the United States has no reliable information and statistics on the fuel supply, refining and transport system in America, and thus must act accordingly, assuming the possibility of any surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE.
C. Inform all civic groups, civic organizations, non profit groups, social and civic agencies, public action and political action groups, and any and all groups engaged in promotion of improving civic affairs in the United States at all levels, including groups engaged in public awareness and education of the clear fact that the United States has no reliable information and statistics on the fuel supply, refining and transport system in America, and thus must act accordingly, assuming the possibility of any surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE.
D. That all schools, colleges, universities, private educational facilities of a civic minded nature, educational institutions of a scientific, technical and research nature of a civic minded nature, of the clear fact that the United States has no reliable information and statistics on the fuel supply, refining and transport system in America, and thus must act accordingly, assuming the possibility of any surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE.
It is hereby requested that all the organizations, governemet agencies and groups at all levels, utilities, health care facilities and organizations, mission critical services, human and social services, businesses, groups, agencies, educational institutions, civic groups, public action groups, and any and all groups and organizations, chartered in the United States of America including all listed to this point above, but not exclusive only to these, and any and all organizations in the Untited States who hold as part of their mission or misssion statement dedication to the improvement of civic life in America, undertake actions to insure the education and information of al persons and parties involved with and attached to them to convey the central message of this statement:
The fact that the United States has no reliable information and statistics on the fuel supply, refining and transport system of critical fuel in America and the world, and thus must act accordingly, assuming the possibility of any surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE.
It is asked that this and the following actions be taken as a contribution to the national security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the United States of America, and to the security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the respective organizations listed above, and that all above organizations who hold as part of their mission or misssion statement dedication to the improvement of civic life in America, be directed by the responsible owners, directors, boards, board of directors, outside directors, employees, managers and customers that the organization in question should create, by whatever means customary to their respective organization, a mission statement, directives, goals, oversights, procedures and plans to implement the beginning stages of the above educational action and program, and to begiin the groundwork for planning and implementing the follow on steps to achieve the follow up goals, plans, procedures, commitments and steps, to achieve the following follow on steps as listed in section II.
It should further be made clear by all responsible owners, directors, boards, board of directors, outside directors, employees, managers and customers that the organization in question should be viewed as the fudiciary responsibly party, the party that will bear responsibility for beginning this openly public contribution to the national security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the United States of America, and to the security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the respective organization in particular, and will be held accountable to the public, and all involved and interested paties for the efficiency, effectiveness, creativity, reach, and innovation with which this program is carried out. Each respective organization will be expected as a matter of due dillagence, as a function of organization effectiveness, as management and fudiciary responsibility and as public indication of commitment to the stated mission of the organization in improving civic life in America, and as indication of their commitment to the national security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the United States of America, and to the security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the respective organization to implement, document, publicise, and enhance and improve on a continuing basis the ongoing funtion of the program.
THE CRITICAL NATURE OF WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO UNDERTAKE CANNOT BE UNDERESTIMATED IN THE POSITIVE EFFECT IT COULD HAVE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND ON YOUR ORGANIZATION AND ALL STAKE HOLDERS IN THE ONGOING SUCCESS, STABILITY, RELAVENCE, AND THE SURVIVAL OF YOUR RESPECTIVE ORGANIZATION.
After the opening phase of the program of education and public awareness of the serious energy information issues facing the United States and all respective public organization in America, in which the respective organizations have used the best of their respective talents, methods and tools to ensure complete distribution of the central message, the organization can begin to engage Section II of the plan directive in whatever way and using the best respective methods of each respective organization, including organization, documentation, publication, and continuing improvement.
As in Section I, Each respective organization will be expected as a matter of due dillagence, as a function of organization effectiveness, as management and fudiciary responsibility and as public indication of commitment to the stated mission of the organization in improving civic life in America, and as indication of their commitment to the national security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the United States of America, and to the security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the respective organization, and would be judged by their respective owners, directors, boards of directors, customers and stake holers on this criteria.
Section II
"Clear Morning Voluntary Energy Security and Contigency Plan Directive"
This Directive should be carried out in whatever manner is most effective, possible and viable for the respective organizations, including, but not exclusive to, all organizations listed above having agreed to the "Clear Morning Voluntary Energy Knowledge and National Security Directive For All American Public, Civic and Private Organizations".
The Mission Statement for Section II,
"Clear Morning Voluntary Energy Security and Contigency Plan Directive" is as follows:
The respective organization will research, plan, create, and implement a Change and Contigency Plan to:
- Enhance energy security of the respective organization in the event of and assuming the above mentioned possibility of any surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE IN ENERGY PRICE, RELIABILITY OR SUPPLY.
- Enhance the respective organization in it's ability to withstand energy surprise or disruption, or price or supply shock, and be able to continue normal operations throughout one or more EVENTS OF ANY LEVEL OF POSSIBLE UNPLEASANT AND THREATENING DISPRUPTION AND OR LEVEL OF MAGNITUDE IN ENERGY PRICE, RELIABILITY OR SUPPLY.
- Continue enhancement and improvement of Change and Contigency Plan plan to allow the respective organization to withstand above listed disruption in price, or any magnitude change in energy price, reliability, or supply.
- Document and publicise the ongoing implementation and improvement of the Change and Contigency Plan to the satisfaction of all respective owners, directors, boards of directors, customers and stake holders on this criteria, as goal of enhancing the national security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the United States of America, and to the security, safety, prosperity, stability and survival of the respective organization.
Implementation of Section II major goalsEach and every organization in the U.S. to pledge to consider the above goals as part of their overall corporate, governmental and organization civic responsponsibility, and to assist the United States of America in it's absolute imperative to become fortified to the greatest possible degree to weather energy price instability, possible supply disruptions, and catastrophic energy failures due to foriegn or domestic action, weather and other natural emergencies, and international or logistical failures.
THIS PLAN IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE BASIS THAT EXPEDIENCY ALLOWS.
(WORK IN PROGRESS-FIRST ROUGH DRAFT
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
P.S. Dates were date that first document was assembled and read by local supporters......RC
Please allow a few remarks.
- It's one thing to say people should prepare. But how do you want them to do that? What practical measures do you recommend?
- You want to reach as many people as possible. That means you have to write as accessible, and as concise, as possible. While the effect of repetition can be positive, it makes your piece unnecessarily long and hard to comprehend. The "explain it to me like I'm a six-year old" rule applies. Avoid bureaucratic blubber where you can.
- Run a spellchecker. It's an easy way to get rid of typo's, even in a first draft.
You mean to say "overestimated". Something that can't be underestimated approaches zero value, as in you can't go low enough in your estimate."Underestimate" as a verb means "To make too low an estimate of the quantity, degree, or worth of." So swap that into the sentence:
"The critical nature of what you are about to undertake cannot have made too low an estimate of its worth."
In other words:
"The critical nature of what you are about to undertake is worth less than you can possibly estimate."
So the poster really does want to say either "cannot be overestimated" or "should not be underestimated", depending on whether he wants to emphasize its innate importance or our risk of ignoring it.
Thank you for the kind words, but it is just what it says, a first rough draft, put together with several contributing ideas, to get us started. Thus, for those who beat up the grammar, my apologies, but there is a lot of cut and paste in there, as we built up all the things we want to start covering. This is to be a working document, not for publication or distribution in this form.
The grammar can be easily corrected, I put the rough here because I consider you guys "insiders", and online friends, given the volume of bad writing I have been forgiven for here! :-)
There is a companion Yahoo Group just set up, that has as it's first post the document in question
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Energy_Knowledge_Security/
usable, but still under construction/just began.
Your question is the one that is most pressing: "It's one thing to say people should prepare. But how do you want them to do that? What practical measures do you recommend?"
First, a sacrilegious premise: I have disavowed further interest about when Peak is going to occur, whether it has already occurred, or if it is even noticeable when it occurs (and it will, that is a geological/scientific fact if we are talking narrowly about what are by definition nonrenewable fuel sources) I disavow the usefulness of exactly how "Peak" per se is defined, as I have found no valid and consistent definition useful for planning in almost 4 years of contact with the issue named "Peak Oil".
I disavow the belief that anyone (with the possible exception of M. King Hubbert himself! :-) has been able to use the so called Hubbert Curve with enough reliability to act as a planning tool in any way, and if they have, it has not been accepted by enough people to make it influential in anyway. Thus, what it may or not have in predictive power is in enough debate so that it is destroyed by it's lack of credibility with experts and laymen alike, whether deserved or undeserved. This makes it useless as a tool of planning, or of communication.
The Hubbert Curve however is no less reliable than the methods used by all others in the oil and planning industry. The statistics from the EIA, IEA, USGS, CERA, the NPC and other advisory and informational groups are equally if not more muddled than other more controversial, less accepted methods of predicting.
Essential, all guessing about future oil supply, consumption, and possible depletion and so called peak regardless of source is to be regarded for planning purposes as exactly that: Guessing, and of no use in planning purposes.
-------------------
How to proceed, briefly, from the above assumptions, in a practical way:
The practical steps are based on models from other completely unpredictable scenarios, and one in particular: The markets. Given that despite decades of trying to guess the direction of financial markets no usable "system" has yet proved itself, but that the markets and how to respond to them must be considered minimally "rational", how does an investor act in market decisions:
He/she assumes that any scenario is "possible", but that some are "probable" and then plans in descending order the steps to take to plan for these scenarios. This is an effort that has not been made in any real systemic way in regards to energy, in which we are all, whether we like it or not, investors.
So, the practical steps:
- Rational Education. The energy consumer/investor must be informed. There is no system. There is loose flowing information that will only be correct by coincidence. You must also be made aware of the options available. There are many more energy options in the marketplace than most people know. It should be your goal to know what is available, and whether it works FOR YOU. Each situation is different. You energy plan should be as tailor made to you and or you organization as it's financial investment portfolio is. There are many options, and many mixes of options.
- There are ways to plan. Just as with your investments, you can diversify. (your business runs on essentially one fuel. Would you own just one stock?
You can conserve. (Are you so willing to waste fuel? Would you be so willing to waste money? You can bring in newer technology. Would you turn down new methods in business if they were shown to overcome most or all of the problems of your old methods? And you can plan strategically. Would you not keep some money in reserve, for opportunities, or in case of emergencies? Should you not have a strategic plan and a strategic source for spare energy?3. Action steps. When you take action, you should get credit for it. There are others who will be taking action on this issue. And you should have people and sources to communicate with. The actions taken to diversify, modernize and strategically strengthen America's energy situation is not only a valuable service to yourself and your organization, but puts you and your firm in the forefront of of strengthening your nation and enhancing your strategic responsibility to the nation and the world.
-------------------------------------
The above is pretty much the "pitch", and I don't mind calling it that. it is the case that needs to be made demonstrating that reduction of energy waste, and enhancing of diversity, decentralization, and modernization of American energy is not a "bad" thing that has to be done to dodge some "guess" that catastrophic things are going to happen. It is part of a program to assure continued operations, and be more competitive in the local region, the nation and the world. That's all. This plan should be undertaken even if any possibility of "peak oil" or depletion is 50 years away.
The step to be taken at this moment by the
Clear Morning Voluntary Energy Knowledge and Security Initiative
- Rationalize and prepare the above messages for distribution. Create a core philosophy around the effort to send a streamlined, easily understood version of this message.
- Structure of organization as a not for profit informational and civic group. Full staffing and contact with talent, advisors, and other concerned parties.
- Branding. The Easy Identification of documents, paperwork and web site through branding, images, logos, etc.
- Building support by exposing the message to individuals, groups, firms, organizations, and energy related firms and industries of priority importance. Exposing the firms able to provide or already attempting to provide needed advances and technology to possible customers as they are brought into contact with the group.
- Methods of succession, organization and structure to assure the ongoing and expanding mission of the group. Essentially, making the group permanent, refining and improving it's message, and outreach.
Lastly, resources. Like any group of this type, the idea and the structure will have to be done on the cheap, if not the free! I have left resources to one side, essentially because at this time there are virtually none! But, at some point, there could be, so it goes without saying that control, auditing, and correct distribution of resources must be planned by whatever way legally appropriate to the corporate form (nonprofit, foundation, etc.) that is taken.Exact technical details are not given as you may notice, because this to me has been one of the central holdups on energy education, security, diversity, and modernization. People get married to solar, or wind, or methane recapture from landfills, and advise everyone to adopt the new silver bullet.
The renewable fans often see fossil fuels as the evil enemy. Fossil fuel firms see renewable as an annoyance, and throw up roadblocks to distributed generation. NO ONE TECHNOLOGY will do the job.
Every alternative will be looked at, the ones that are already out there first (ground coupled heat pumps, solar water heating, LPG as CHP power in certain areas and seasons, natural gas where it can best be used as distributed power for CHP. The list is long and complex. Some work in one place, but market conditions prevent them in other places. The technical alternatives are much like the financial markets. A new instrument or mix of instruments is the only way forward. Diversity, strategic planning, seasonal flexibility, it all matters and will contribute.
(Sections extracted from other documents, forgive if grammar is not perfect, cut and paste warning!)
The most important point is to break out of this one size fits all either/or thinking.
"Peak will happen, or soon, or there's no point in being more efficient"?? That's the kind of logic you hear from grown ups.
"Nuclear has to work or we're screwed" ???
"If we drop 5, or 7 or 10 percent on crude oil in the summer, we're screwed, the economy will collapse." ??
THE FIRST GOAL: Education, rationalization, and distribution.
THE SECOND GOAL: Structure, improved and more complete message, hone the information
THE THIRD GOAL: LIKE A TREE, SET DOWN ROOTS AND GROW, PERMANENT, PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
(O.K., FOLKS, now you can laugh, or take it for what it's worth, you are getting to see the building stage before the pretty stuff goes on! We may run out of material and you never hear of it again, but on the other hand, who knows?
Somehow we have got to get this message back up on the tracks, though, and move forward, do something, and have some fun with this....
Everybody should tilt at a few windmills before they die! :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Hopefully, the electricity will come from conservation or wind, but still a net gain even if the electricity comes from coal.
Best of all, it is non-partisan and does not require any federal involvement to suceed, although federal backing would expidite its implementation.
I'm anxious to see how you roll this out...good luck!
It features an "oil industry critic" named Tyson Slocum, who argues that the reason the price of oil is dropping is because the recent bipartisan investigation of prices has scared all the speculators out of the market.
There's also the religious element in economics, you can always refer to a higher and highly complex mechanism full of unforeseeable factors. In the end, supply and demand will even everything out. If they don't, the market doesn't function properly, and must be changed. Not the principle.
God loves all children.
So why does he let them die in misery?
We cannot understand the unlimited wisdom of the mind of God.
So how do you know he loves all children?
I wish it were that simple.
The formal study of Economics is full of code words, words that trigger certain psychological responses of confusion and feelings of inferiority. Once you allow yourself to fall into the framework, you are trapped into a dizzing spin zone of your own making.
What does "market" mean?
What are the "fundamentals"?
And heavens if you cannot understand the "fundamentals", how do you stand a chance of understanding the market "complexities"? Best to leave it to the "experts" who are there to assure you every day that the "fundamentals" are "good", that "The Economy" is "strong". And if he is not feeling that well this morning, rest assure that Mr. Economy will be "recovering" soon and getting healthier by the minute.
As Big Daddy said:
"If you've got to use language like that about a thing, it's ninety-proof bull and I ain't buying any."
And yet, BMW is not laughing...
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm
Of course, there is another way, as some tinkers with a Mini found out:
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html
The performance of the Mini is astounding, and it doesn't take much imagination to see that in a normal car, tweaked to average good to better performance, we are very close to an energy supply revolution. Is it the "magic bullet". No. That is always such a red herring.
But what is happening, little by little, (and faster than some expected) is the technical side is doing their job. The breakthroughs are beginning to speed up. Unlike the United States, everyone else is not giving up, but taking a sane multi pronged developmental approach. Once more we risk being left in the lurch, as other nations devour markets while we said "can't be done."
This is now the greater and more immediate danger. We are becoming the "can't do" nation.
In 1980, Briggs&Stratton Corp. with Marathon Electric Car of Canada built the first fully developed prototype of a fully Plug Hybrid Electric Car.
And then walked away.
A couple of years ago, the EPA, Eaton Corp. and Ford Motor Company built a fully working Hydraulic Hybrid SUV. With a small Diesel engine, it would match the performance, towing capacity, and highway performance of the Ford Navigator that it was based on (I have linked it here before) but get mid 30's on fuel mileage. This was a fully equiped Navigator SUV, mind you.
Think what this would have done in a Contour or Tauras sized car?
They walked away. They are now struggling for corporate existance.
Someday, and soon, we may begin to see that the American crisis had nothing to do with peak oil. It had to do with what it took no Hubbert Curve to predict: A crisis of education and effort. This has been being warned about for a half century. The great British writer and poet W.H. Auden once said that in the declining days of the British empire, young boys would try to decide their career with a game of "church, soldiar, law". Clergyman, soldiar, or barrister, no one, he recounted wanted to be a "stink", their nickname for the technical scientific types (based on the chemical lab majors at Oxford who wore the white coats that always smelled of chemicals from the lab work). Think of this for a moment, from the British...the nation that had invented the steam engine and the modern technical age. Such had regard for technology and industry, the wealth providers of a nation, declined in only a few decades, and with it declined the wealth of a great power. It is sad and tragic beyond words.
A culture is indeed a fragile thing. it does not run on oil. Oil is filthy smelly stuff that can do nothing until it is applied. A culture runs on human brain.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Whoa.... the British Empire was certainly in decline during this period (late 1920s) but not for the reason you suggest.
I'm unsure from your statement whether it is the failure of science education or education in general that you attribute this decline to... so I'll tackle both...
Firstly, you have to remember that Auden was talking about the elevated circles of Oxford University (& Cambridge?) ... open to what... the top 1% of the population. Whilst many great scientists & inventors have certainly graduated from "Oxbridge"... the sciences were never the major areas of study. (I mean, would you make the same statement about science at Yale & Harvard, then or now??)
Furthermore, I don't think that British inventiveness/science started to decline until much later... I mean, in the 40s, Whittle invent the jet engine, Crick & Watson discovered DNA... Alan Turing's work... to name but three in different disciplines... off the top my head...
As for the general education system... I would contend that the decline in UK did not begin until the change from the "Grammar school" system in the 1970s... it was certainly intact in both science & arts when I passed through in 1960s...
But I agree that a failure to invest in general education reaps consequences for society later on.
As an international educator for 30 years... I find that students in western nations have too many "distractions" these days... I note with interest that science fairs/ robotic competitions on TV recently... predominantly seem to feature Americans/Canadians of Indian or Asian descent. I wonder why?
First, thank you for the reply, and I am certainly not willing to put myself out on a limb by debating too stridently on this point with a citizen of the realm! :-)
To say that I "attribute" the decline of the empire from it's highest days to the decline of technical education (which was the type of education I was most interested in for our purposes) may be giving a cause and effect link tighter than I intended, but that would be the fault of my own syntax. We know of course that the fortunes of the empire were much more complicated than that.
I would however, be willing to say that the decline not only of technical education and the decline of interest in it did deprive the empire of the needed tools and wealth at a time when it was most needed. I don't think this a radical thought, nor am I the first to make it, but it would be interesting to restudy the literature on this point.
Of Oxford, you say, "the sciences were never the major areas of study. (I mean, would you make the same statement about science at Yale & Harvard, then or now??)
That is true. To the second point of your question about Yale and Harvard, I most certainly would, sadly. I think that the education of and dedication to the technical arts are deplorable at Yale and Harvard. I know, they are not technical schools of the type that say MIT or CalTech are, but this is no excuse, when we know that Harvard and Yale have science departments, and that a Harvard Physics professor makes the public case for American interest in science education, asking if science is "Scientific Elite, or Outcast?:
http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/wh.pdf.
Sadly, however, in our time of greatest need, the only time we hear from Harvard and Yale's scientific community is when they come forth from those great stone castles to tell us how ignorant the rest of us are.
To your examples: It is inteeresting you should mention Sir Frank Whittle. He is one of my technical heros. He is also an example of what a great mind can do with almost no support from his culture. To me, he is a perfect example to indicate the decline of support for talented technicians and inventors in Britain in the decline period, as the lack of financial, political, military and social support for his work is legendary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle
"All of these delays and the lack of funding slowed the project. In Germany, Hans von Ohain had started work on a prototype in 1935 and had passed the prototype stage and was building the first flyable design, the Heinkel HeS 3. There is little reason to believe that Whittle's efforts would not have been at the same level or more advanced had the Air Ministry taken a greater interest in the design." Whittle worked 16 hours a day, and suffered health and narcotic addiction issues in his effort to push an idea that few in the circles of power showed any real interest in.
Alan Turing's story is too sad to recount, convicted of homosexual practices in 1954, forced to take hormones to avoid imprisonment, and dead of suicide by age 42, he never got to enjoy the full fruits of what he had done for Britain during the war.
By the time Crick and Watson came along, they could at least enjoy Britain's period of "penitence" as it tried to be more enlightened with it's science and technical community, but they too were at rarified levels, would we argue that the applied sciences have fared so well?
Your last question/observation..."I note with interest that science fairs/ robotic competitions on TV recently... predominantly seem to feature Americans/Canadians of Indian or Asian descent. I wonder why?"
The distractions are a real reason, I agree, but could it be that they are raised with a deeply rooted respect for not only science, but the applied sciences and technology that is sadly lacking in the West?
One last thought....look at the Mini reworked as a monster hybrid in the link I gave, http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html
Reread those statistics...if this thing is even half of what your countrymen claim it is....well, either Britian can jump in the gap and have the glory they knew in the days of the first Mini, or, the Chinese or Indians can read about it on the web, and given how cheap they can build.....do you really think they will sit on their hands and let something like that go by....to modify a common saying here, deal with change, or change will deal with you.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
They suggest that the value in these cars is that it allows us to build out infrastructure now, for those future fuel cell vehicles. Infrastructure based of course on hydrogen reformed from natural gas, or hydrogen as a fossil fuel.
Meanwhile GM is pleased to roll out the world's largest fuel cell fleet (100 vehicles), and hit the amazing product life of 50,000 miles.
You read that right, after thirty plus years we have a car that lasts 50,000 miles.
... anybody have something for my stomach?
odograph said
"BMW does us a great disservice by advancing hydrogen internal combustion vehicles. The technology isn't that different than a natural gas conversion. Just pipe the gas into the cylinders of your car, and blow it up. Add some hydrogen tanks and you could retrofit a '67 vette."
To your first sentence, I am at a loss in understanding why BMW is doing a "great disservice"?
Your second sentence is exactly right, it isn't that different from a natural gas conversion. I have always been mystified by the way hydrogen is viewed as almost a magical fuel. There are those that argue "It can't be done!" "It can't be used!" "It's too dangerous!" "It's only a carrier of energy!" (duh! Gasoline is only a "carrier of energy"!!) The layman's logic defies all rational thought!
I am sitting in a home heated by natural gas. Look at the chemical symbol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Now, look at methane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Now, look at propane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane
Whoa! Look at all that hydrogen! So when we say we cannot burn hydrogen as a fuel, that is absolutely incorrect. It is all we can burn. The carbon is nothing but an annoyance (the source of the hated CO2 greenhouse gas)
Is hydrogen dangerous? Well, is natural gas dangerous? Of course, if not handled carefully. People get killed in natural gas explosions, and by gas leaks causing suffocation every year. But the infrastructure used to handle natural gas and methane (of which there are millions of cubic feet produced daily by sewers, landfills and plant/animal processing), is equally well suited, with care and maintained to high standard to handle hydrogen. THAT is the infrastructure you and BMW refer to, but then you leave a different impression of what BMW is trying to do:
"Infrastructure based of course on hydrogen reformed from natural gas, or hydrogen as a fossil fuel."
That is decidedly not the case, as BMW's website and work over the last half decade make clear. The goal is to use solar energy to convert the hydrogen.
The methods are already well known, and they work. The quanity of sunlight falling on the Earth is more than enough to power a world that is FRUGAL and efficient with the hydrogen, and the price is not as high as many believe, and is already coming down.
( brief aside: this is why I am absolutely certain that crude oil per se will never be able to hold a price above $120 to $150 a barrel...it makes NO SENSE, there are far too many alternatives at below that price, what is in crisis is the technical class to get them out there and the management/financial class to support the effort, so if we have the "collapse" which is very possible, it will not be because of energy, but because WE FAILED. It will be a cultural collapse, which would have happened anyway.)
You mention the fuel cell car, and in that you are absolutely correct. That is a dead end for the foreseeable future. The fuel cell has applications, and work will continue, but an automotive application is not one of them. That is what BMW realized early on. Hydrogen is too easy to isolate and handle and leave fuel cells out of the loop, they only slow you down!
You gave the numbers..."world's largest fuel cell fleet (100 vehicles), and hit the amazing product life of 50,000 miles."
Let's make it a race...how long do you think it will take BMW to build 100 internal combustion hydrogen cars?....my guess, about a day and a half once they get underway! And they will sure as helll last far longer than 50,000 miles, no matter where the hydrogen came from, (and remember, GM is not even tackling the issue of gettng away from fossil fuel for hydrogen source, BMW and by the Honda, are)
When we look at the really big picture folks, the truth is, hydrogen as liquid transportable fuel produced by renewables is the only path that doesn't run out to a dead end. EVERY OTHER choice, if it can somehow last at least for awhile, still runs into either major greenhouse gas problems, or political issue (natural gas comes to mind) because it is in all the wrong places.
I have some time ago started to think in these terms: that what we should do is pour it on the clean renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, methane recapture)
and improved them as a reliable hydrogen electrolyzer/splitter, and stop all these "middle men" enriching boondoggles (fuel cells, coal to liquid, ethanol, tar sand, shale oil, etc, etc,) that are wasting our time and resources.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Leak fuels Scandinavian nuclear debate
Sure, these incidents have caused big headlines. But my feeling is that when people hear some of the environmentalists compare them to the Chernobyl incident, they know it is wild exaggerations.
Furthermore, the shutdown of the Swedish nuclear reactors has caused electricity prices to skyrocket. Given the debate these high electricy prices have sparked, I think people will sooner want to start up new plants rather than close existing ones.
Following closely behind an incident at a Swedish atomic power plant a month ago that has been described as the worst nuclear incident since Chernobyl (see related story), this latest Scandinavian scare story has reignited nuclear safety fears in the region.
Sure, these incidents have caused big headlines. But my feeling is that when people hear some of the environmentalists compare them to the Chernobyl incident, they know it is wild exaggerations.
No, you are the one claiming "wild exaggeration", the original claim was 'worst accident since Chernobyl'
Please show how the accident is not the worst from the date of Chernobly till present.
Furthermore, the shutdown of the Swedish nuclear reactors has caused electricity prices to skyrocket. Given the debate these high electricy prices have sparked, I think people will sooner want to start up new plants rather than close existing ones.
Arguing economics over saftey. Please feel free to agrue how safe nuclaer power is. Please explain why nuclear power is uninsurable in the US of A without the Price-Anderson law.
You've made a bunch of claims. Can you back them up with actual facts?
If the incident is the worst since Chernobyl, then it only goes to prove how safe nuclear is. In the Swedish incident the reactor had to shutdown, and one of several redundant systems that should help with the shutdown didn't work properly. But the reactor did shut down successfully without damage or injury.
People like you and me might not be willing to argue economics over safety, but 28 % percent of Norwegians seem to feel safe enough with nuclear that they want nuclear power plants. (article in Norwegian). The same poll (conducted after the leak at the Norwegian facility) shows 65% of the people against nuclear power. This explains why there is no nuclear power plant in Norway, and probably will not be for the foreseeable future.
Will the Norwegian reactors be shut down? This was the impression left by the original article.
->The environmental organizations are certainly pressing for this 1 . (I'm a member of one of them).
But the scientists working at the reactors, want to keep them 2 .
And although a leak is certainly an incident that indicates faulty equipment 3 , the only effect was insignificant leaks to the environment 4 5
Given the fact that the reactors are 39 and 47 years old, they might be due for decommisioning or replacement, which the government will consider in 2008. I fully expect the government to consider the reactors both on their benefits as well as from a safety point of view. Given that my own political party (which opposes nuclear) sanctioned a prolonging of the reactors' operating license when they last were a part of the government, I don't expect the present government (which also includes opponents of nuclear) to apply anything other than facts and realism when deciding the fates of the reactors.
More showing how safe and secure humans should feel with nuclear power can be found here:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/12/a-catalogue-of-idiocy/