Mr Seba your book is a cracking good read, the rent seekers, taking away the people's tax money instead of that money going to social programs and foreign aid, are increasingly worried about the positive feedback loops involved in clean energy. As in sprint evolution, we see a disruption, a punctuation in the equilibrium, if Australia with its small population of 23 million, and large desert, at 2/3 the size of the continent, were to use just 25% of that, for energy production, we would have 2,500 times our current energy usage. We could maybe use 75 times what we currently consume, and export the rest, say in the form of a trillion tons of liquid hydrogen, and or giant gas pipelines, huge capacity undersea power lines. Or perhaps enough high rise agriculture to feed every person on Earth, a mix is probably more likely, 25% of the world's food supply, 250 billion tons of liquid hydrogen, 250 billion tons of hydrogen through gas pipelines. However much electricity can be generated from a quarter of, a thousand kilometers by a thousand kilometers square, or a trillion square meters, at around a kilowatt per meter, 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, 4 quadrillion Watt hours, I think that is. Of course Australia isn't the only place in the world with vast deserts, 25% of the world's deserts could yield 25 times, the current world energy consumption some of these in convenient locations, China's Gobi desert, Spain's desert, the Sahara desert, bordering the Mediterranean shipping region. Your correct, electric vehicles need 1/10 the energy of an internal combustion engine, as well as 1/10 th of the maintainance, with for example Afghanistan having a trillion dollars worth of lithium reserves. Your also correct that this kind of thing has happened before, 1915-25, Ford, Edison, Tesla, change transport and energy, building on the work of Faraday and Maxwell. With the usual 5 year lagging economic indicators, this then leads to the roaring twenties. The work of the quantum physicists a Century ago, is giving us photovoltaic energy (solar) and photovoltaic lighting (LEDs,) which along with reverse osmosis desalination. Gives us high rise farming, through aerophonics, now of course people will say you can't rapidly change energy and transport, not only did this happen a Century ago, it happened recently. The US once the largest transport energy importer, now imports 1/3 as much energy, due to fracking, shale oil, tar sands, 2011-16, China with the world's largest population, changed to high speed rail, out competing their domestic airlines, freeing up the freight lines 2008-13. That's right, not in a decade but in half a decade and now China is exporting transcontinental high speed railways, the unconventional hydrocarbon sites are getting more expensive, per kilowatt hour deliverable. It was only ever going to be a transition fuel, giving the US the sugar rush, it needed, to develop a new industrial revolution, 2nd IR 1915-25 and 3rd 2015-25, lagging economic indicators, meaning a return to the roaring 20's. Roughly every Century, theory and math, then the novelties at the half century mark, then the efficiency, mass manufacturing breakout point, at the Century mark again thank you, a very good read.
What about the environmental and resource costs of making PV and decommissioning them at end-of-life? And the labor costs of maintaining them (wiping dust off)? I know Si is abundant, but what about the doping materials that have to be added to make semiconductors (which is what PV are)?
a) recycling regulations b) maintenance and decommissioning are part of the levelized cost c) doping materials are not scarce - if at all, it would be silver
Even though to an extent, PV are proposed for rooftops and other areas that currently don't have competing uses proposed or needed for them e. g. raising food, a comparison between PV and other energy sources should take into account how much land may, according to calculations based on need or demand for energy, have to be dedicated to the PV or partly withdrawn from competing uses.
Private insurance companies' notion of the risks of nuclear power are based on experience with the current technology. When they understand the risks of LFTR, they may well change their tune.
LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) are research projects, not operating commercial power reactors. Private insurance companies are conservative and will tell you to come back in a few decades from now.
That's all substances in the future will be used for, is manufacture of objects. But with recycling we need FAR less of it. It will be a marginal commodity. We have SO MUCH plastic just floating in the Pacific that it will be easier to harvest that than pump and process oil. Also, plastics are easily made from biofuels.
What is the plan to deliver enough fixed nitrogen as needed in the human diet so the already-born can survive to age 80? Currently about half of it comes from a reaction involving methane and releasing carbon dioxide.
You do NOT need chemically fixed nitrogen if you crop properly and recycle animal and human waste into compost-manure. It has NEVER been necessary, only convenient.
What are you talking about? Nitrogen is available in the air, use nitrogen fixing bacteria and manure that already contains nitrogen. The only reason we invented the Haber-Bosch process was so that we needed fewer farmers. People appear to be going back to the land these days. And most of the H-B production is used for high explosives in war!!
Make sense first: the human diet does not need fixed nitrogen. Only plants do. "It has been estimated that fertilizer production accounts for approximately 1.2% of the world's energy". (Mengyao Yuan, Stanford University, Fall 2014)
Consumers (you and me) will have much higher disposable incomes, and therefore will be able to increase the amount we spend on other goods and services. These are (in general) taxed (sales taxes) and sales tax is in many cases, higher than commodity tax. So the gross tax revenues will GO UP. In many cases, such as State sales tax, this revenue is not federal tax, but "local" tax, and local communities (states in the USA) will have a far greater degree of control over how it spends its tax revenues for its local populations. This leads to spending efficiency (less beaurocracy = lower cost), and people get better benefits from their taxes paid.
Too bad he keeps adding the superfluous "for the whole year," when he says, for example, that the area occupied by parking lots could power such and such "for the whole year."
Mr Seba your book is a cracking good read, the rent seekers, taking away the people's tax money instead of that money going to social programs and foreign aid, are increasingly worried about the positive feedback loops involved in clean energy. As in sprint evolution, we see a disruption, a punctuation in the equilibrium, if Australia with its small population of 23 million, and large desert, at 2/3 the size of the continent, were to use just 25% of that, for energy production, we would have 2,500 times our current energy usage. We could maybe use 75 times what we currently consume, and export the rest, say in the form of a trillion tons of liquid hydrogen, and or giant gas pipelines, huge capacity undersea power lines. Or perhaps enough high rise agriculture to feed every person on Earth, a mix is probably more likely, 25% of the world's food supply, 250 billion tons of liquid hydrogen, 250 billion tons of hydrogen through gas pipelines. However much electricity can be generated from a quarter of, a thousand kilometers by a thousand kilometers square, or a trillion square meters, at around a kilowatt per meter, 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, 4 quadrillion Watt hours, I think that is. Of course Australia isn't the only place in the world with vast deserts, 25% of the world's deserts could yield 25 times, the current world energy consumption some of these in convenient locations, China's Gobi desert, Spain's desert, the Sahara desert, bordering the Mediterranean shipping region. Your correct, electric vehicles need 1/10 the energy of an internal combustion engine, as well as 1/10 th of the maintainance, with for example Afghanistan having a trillion dollars worth of lithium reserves. Your also correct that this kind of thing has happened before, 1915-25, Ford, Edison, Tesla, change transport and energy, building on the work of Faraday and Maxwell. With the usual 5 year lagging economic indicators, this then leads to the roaring twenties. The work of the quantum physicists a Century ago, is giving us photovoltaic energy (solar) and photovoltaic lighting (LEDs,) which along with reverse osmosis desalination. Gives us high rise farming, through aerophonics, now of course people will say you can't rapidly change energy and transport, not only did this happen a Century ago, it happened recently. The US once the largest transport energy importer, now imports 1/3 as much energy, due to fracking, shale oil, tar sands, 2011-16, China with the world's largest population, changed to high speed rail, out competing their domestic airlines, freeing up the freight lines 2008-13. That's right, not in a decade but in half a decade and now China is exporting transcontinental high speed railways, the unconventional hydrocarbon sites are getting more expensive, per kilowatt hour deliverable. It was only ever going to be a transition fuel, giving the US the sugar rush, it needed, to develop a new industrial revolution, 2nd IR 1915-25 and 3rd 2015-25, lagging economic indicators, meaning a return to the roaring 20's. Roughly every Century, theory and math, then the novelties at the half century mark, then the efficiency, mass manufacturing breakout point, at the Century mark again thank you, a very good read.
This is the best of the best from Tony Seba RUclips, we need the same report in today date.
Great talk, thank you.
Thanks - now I can be more optimistic about life quality of my grand kids !
Mr Seba your book is a cracking good read, the rent seekers, taking away the people's tax money instead of that money going to social programs and foreign aid, are increasingly worried about the positive feedback loops involved in clean energy. As in sprint evolution, we see a disruption, a punctuation in the equilibrium, if Australia with its small population of 23 million, and large desert, at 2/3 the size of the continent, were to use just 25% of that, for energy production, we would have 2,500 times our current energy usage. We could maybe use 75 times what we currently consume, and export the rest, say in the form of a trillion tons of liquid hydrogen, and or giant gas pipelines, huge capacity undersea power lines. Or perhaps enough high rise agriculture to feed every person on Earth, a mix is probably more likely, 25% of the world's food supply, 250 billion tons of liquid hydrogen, 250 billion tons of hydrogen through gas pipelines. However much electricity can be generated from a quarter of, a thousand kilometers by a thousand kilometers square, or a trillion square meters, at around a kilowatt per meter, 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, 4 quadrillion Watt hours, I think that is.
Of course Australia isn't the only place in the world with vast deserts, 25% of the world's deserts could yield 25 times, the current world energy consumption some of these in convenient locations, China's Gobi desert, Spain's desert, the Sahara desert, bordering the Mediterranean shipping region. Your correct, electric vehicles need 1/10 the energy of an internal combustion engine, as well as 1/10 th of the maintainance, with for example Afghanistan having a trillion dollars worth of lithium reserves. Your also correct that this kind of thing has happened before, 1915-25, Ford, Edison, Tesla, change transport and energy, building on the work of Faraday and Maxwell. With the usual 5 year lagging economic indicators, this then leads to the roaring twenties. The work of the quantum physicists a Century ago, is giving us photovoltaic energy (solar) and photovoltaic lighting (LEDs,) which along with reverse osmosis desalination. Gives us high rise farming, through aerophonics, now of course people will say you can't rapidly change energy and transport, not only did this happen a Century ago, it happened recently. The US once the largest transport energy importer, now imports 1/3 as much energy, due to fracking, shale oil, tar sands, 2011-16, China with the world's largest population, changed to high speed rail, out competing their domestic airlines, freeing up the freight lines 2008-13. That's right, not in a decade but in half a decade and now China is exporting transcontinental high speed railways, the unconventional hydrocarbon sites are getting more expensive, per kilowatt hour deliverable. It was only ever going to be a transition fuel, giving the US the sugar rush, it needed, to develop a new industrial revolution, 2nd IR 1915-25 and 3rd 2015-25, lagging economic indicators, meaning a return to the roaring 20's. Roughly every Century, theory and math, then the novelties at the half century mark, then the efficiency, mass manufacturing breakout point, at the Century mark again thank you, a very good read.
very informative, thanks
How to store 1 day of energy?
Batteries
What about the environmental and resource costs of making PV and decommissioning them at end-of-life? And the labor costs of maintaining them (wiping dust off)? I know Si is abundant, but what about the doping materials that have to be added to make semiconductors (which is what PV are)?
a) recycling regulations
b) maintenance and decommissioning are part of the levelized cost
c) doping materials are not scarce - if at all, it would be silver
Isn't levelized cost usually quoted in dollars? Doesn't the money economy fail sometimes to reflect properly the reality?
If the recycling regulations really take care of the environment, then maybe the human race is onto something good here with this PV.
Even though to an extent, PV are proposed for rooftops and other areas that currently don't have competing uses proposed or needed for them e. g. raising food, a comparison between PV and other energy sources should take into account how much land may, according to calculations based on need or demand for energy, have to be dedicated to the PV or partly withdrawn from competing uses.
Private insurance companies' notion of the risks of nuclear power are based on experience with the current technology. When they understand the risks of LFTR, they may well change their tune.
LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) are research projects, not operating commercial power reactors. Private insurance companies are conservative and will tell you to come back in a few decades from now.
"come back in a few decades from now" ... by which time nuclear power generation will have been economically obsolete by several decades...
... by which time it's fairly likely humankind shall have gone extinct.
how will oil be obsolete when it's used to make tires and is in approximately 6,000 items made today?
obsolete as source for fuel, energy
That's all substances in the future will be used for, is manufacture of objects. But with recycling we need FAR less of it. It will be a marginal commodity. We have SO MUCH plastic just floating in the Pacific that it will be easier to harvest that than pump and process oil. Also, plastics are easily made from biofuels.
About 90 million barrels of oil are used globally every day. What do you think these stupid six thousand tires need?
Redesigning for recumbent electric bicycles with enclosures and spring loaded wheels with hard composite tires.
All plastics can be made from the chemistry in farm waste, it's just a little more laborious.
I don't understand the comment about Ohio having $150k tariff on rooftop solar. I can't find any reference to that.
I work in solar in Ohio. That statement is completely false.
What is the plan to deliver enough fixed nitrogen as needed in the human diet so the already-born can survive to age 80? Currently about half of it comes from a reaction involving methane and releasing carbon dioxide.
You do NOT need chemically fixed nitrogen if you crop properly and recycle animal and human waste into compost-manure. It has NEVER been necessary, only convenient.
How do you know that the numbers add up? Land area of a given quality, etc.
What are you talking about? Nitrogen is available in the air, use nitrogen fixing bacteria and manure that already contains nitrogen. The only reason we invented the Haber-Bosch process was so that we needed fewer farmers. People appear to be going back to the land these days. And most of the H-B production is used for high explosives in war!!
Numbers.
Make sense first: the human diet does not need fixed nitrogen. Only plants do. "It has been estimated that fertilizer production accounts for approximately 1.2% of the world's energy". (Mengyao Yuan, Stanford University, Fall 2014)
Does not talk about the taxes that will be lost with other energies...ie .. Petrol that will be added to this new this new clean energies..
Consumers (you and me) will have much higher disposable incomes, and therefore will be able to increase the amount we spend on other goods and services. These are (in general) taxed (sales taxes) and sales tax is in many cases, higher than commodity tax. So the gross tax revenues will GO UP. In many cases, such as State sales tax, this revenue is not federal tax, but "local" tax, and local communities (states in the USA) will have a far greater degree of control over how it spends its tax revenues for its local populations. This leads to spending efficiency (less beaurocracy = lower cost), and people get better benefits from their taxes paid.
Too bad he keeps adding the superfluous "for the whole year," when he says, for example, that the area occupied by parking lots could power such and such "for the whole year."
Mr Seba your book is a cracking good read, the rent seekers, taking away the people's tax money instead of that money going to social programs and foreign aid, are increasingly worried about the positive feedback loops involved in clean energy. As in sprint evolution, we see a disruption, a punctuation in the equilibrium, if Australia with its small population of 23 million, and large desert, at 2/3 the size of the continent, were to use just 25% of that, for energy production, we would have 2,500 times our current energy usage. We could maybe use 75 times what we currently consume, and export the rest, say in the form of a trillion tons of liquid hydrogen, and or giant gas pipelines, huge capacity undersea power lines. Or perhaps enough high rise agriculture to feed every person on Earth, a mix is probably more likely, 25% of the world's food supply, 250 billion tons of liquid hydrogen, 250 billion tons of hydrogen through gas pipelines. However much electricity can be generated from a quarter of, a thousand kilometers by a thousand kilometers square, or a trillion square meters, at around a kilowatt per meter, 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, 4 quadrillion Watt hours, I think that is.
Of course Australia isn't the only place in the world with vast deserts, 25% of the world's deserts could yield 25 times, the current world energy consumption some of these in convenient locations, China's Gobi desert, Spain's desert, the Sahara desert, bordering the Mediterranean shipping region. Your correct, electric vehicles need 1/10 the energy of an internal combustion engine, as well as 1/10 th of the maintainance, with for example Afghanistan having a trillion dollars worth of lithium reserves. Your also correct that this kind of thing has happened before, 1915-25, Ford, Edison, Tesla, change transport and energy, building on the work of Faraday and Maxwell. With the usual 5 year lagging economic indicators, this then leads to the roaring twenties. The work of the quantum physicists a Century ago, is giving us photovoltaic energy (solar) and photovoltaic lighting (LEDs,) which along with reverse osmosis desalination. Gives us high rise farming, through aerophonics, now of course people will say you can't rapidly change energy and transport, not only did this happen a Century ago, it happened recently. The US once the largest transport energy importer, now imports 1/3 as much energy, due to fracking, shale oil, tar sands, 2011-16, China with the world's largest population, changed to high speed rail, out competing their domestic airlines, freeing up the freight lines 2008-13. That's right, not in a decade but in half a decade and now China is exporting transcontinental high speed railways, the unconventional hydrocarbon sites are getting more expensive, per kilowatt hour deliverable. It was only ever going to be a transition fuel, giving the US the sugar rush, it needed, to develop a new industrial revolution, 2nd IR 1915-25 and 3rd 2015-25, lagging economic indicators, meaning a return to the roaring 20's. Roughly every Century, theory and math, then the novelties at the half century mark, then the efficiency, mass manufacturing breakout point, at the Century mark again thank you, a very good read.