Re: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay

Glenn -

I not only "should know" but do know that hydrogen has to be extracted from
its oxide at an energy cost, so that it has to be regarded as a carrier of
energy from other sources. Apparently you missed my phrase " together with
nuclear power plants to supply the energy for hydrolysis."

Which brings us to the issue of nuclear energy. I grant that the concerns
about it that you cite are legitimate, though too dismissive of prospects
for breeder reactors & ignoring possibilities for recycling spent nuclear
fuels (yes, I read the article by Von Hippel in the recent Sci Am) &
recycling of a great deal of our weapons stockpile (though not
unilaterally). & I doubt that fusion will always be 50 years in the future.

But the main point of my argument was the desirability of replacing a large
fraction of our petroleum powered transportation with a modern railroad
system. Whether or not that system would run on hydrogen, & if so whether
the energy to obtain it would come from nuclear sources, are other
questions. If solar or geothermal, e.g., can make an important
contribution, fine. & no, that doesn't mean that I'm either ignoring or
downplaying the need for an adequate energy supply or that I imagine that
we're guaranteed always to have such a supply.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'George Murphy'" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay

> Ok, lets talk hydrogen. Where is your hydrogen mine, George? Where are you
> going to drill a well to produce hydrogen? It corrodes everything it
> contacts. How are you going to ship it in bulk quantities. You are a
> physicist and should know that hydrogen is an energy CARRIER, not an
> energy
> source. Aren't you aware that to generate hydrogen requires lots of coal
> to
> be burned to produce electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in
> the
> water molecule? And if it isn't coal, it is natural gas being burned, or
> we
> are using solar or wind, neither of which is there in sufficient supply.
>
> Oil represents 35% of the world's energy use. To replace it means one of
> the other primary energy sources must be increased. Which one are you
> going
> to increase?
>
> Don't look at nuclear. This is a report from an energy conference
>
> Michael Dittmar then talked about Nuclear Energy and some of the issues
> that
> face that industry. There are currently some 439 plants, producing 371 GWe
> and in 2005 this was 15% of the world electric power generation. There are
> currently 30 reactors under construction. The age of the reactors,
> however,
> means that soon some of this fleet must be closed down which will lead for
> the need for some form of action.
> Breeder reactors, that were once held to be very promising, have not
> proven
> as successful as hoped. He had tried but was unable to find how long it
> took
> to double the fuel elements concerned, and there Is only one breeder
> operating, with two under construction. Ho noted documentation that said
> that the (current) world uranium reserve will be gone in the time range
> between 2030 and 2040, meaning that we must anticipate developing
> 'speculative' resources. A 7 GWe reactor needs 180 tons of uranium/year.
> And
> the 371 GWe production from 439 reactors adds up to a need for 67,000
> ton/year. With a 1 - 2% growth for 20 years, this will lead to a need for
> between 51 and 130,000 tons of uranium. The reserve is thus going to run
> out
> in less than 50 years. In regard to those who say that uranium can be
> recovered from seawater, he noted that:
> A reactor uses 6 gm/sec which, at seawater concentrations will require
> processing 10,000 cu m/sec of water. To put that in context the Rhine
> river
> flows at 2,000 cu m/sec.
>
> He noted the flooding of the Cigar Lake mine and subsequent setbacks which
> was supposed to re-open in 2008 has led to the mine being set back to
> possibly 2011 , with the likelihood that this will lead to international
> shortages of fuel.
>
> In looking at fusion, the current goal is to get to a prototype reactor by
> 2060, however this requires 56 kg of tritium/year. However, at best, the
> world supply of tritium in 2027 is expected to be 30 kg. This, and similar
> problems, leads him to state that "commercial nuclear fusion energy will
> always be 50 years away."
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2994
>
>
> Run the numbers, not what the news media claims.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of George Murphy
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:52 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay
>>
>> One of the biggest mistakes this country made following WWII was the
>> decision to subsidize automobile travl & the trucking industry with the
>> interstate highway system at the expense of passenger &, to a lesser
>> extent,
>> freight railroads. (Of course "decision" is a loose term there - I
>> don't
>> think anyone in power said "Let's shut down the passenger trains" &c.)
>>
>> If I were elected dictator today I would mandate a major program to
>> develop
>> hydrogen propulsion systems, not for personal cars & trucks but for a
>> new
>> generation of hydrogen powered high speed trains, both pasenger &
>> freight,
>> together with the infrastructure (tracks &c) needed for the system,
>> together
>> with nuclear power plants to supply the energy for hydrolysis. Such a
>> system, when developed, could replace a good deal of automotive traffic
>> &
>> trucking transport, especially with tax dis-incentives for use of
>> petroleum
>> powered transport. Quite apart from questions about energy and fuel
>> availability, it would make more sense for several reasons to do this
>> instead of just trying to keep the same system we have but switch from
>> petroleum to hydrogen power. There's economy of scale & safety
>> considerations for a start.
>>
>> A really good 21st century rail system could also handle a good deal of
>> traffic that now goes by air. Of course you can't take a train
>> overseas &
>> sometimes you do need to get from NY to SF in one day, but for many
>> trips
>> some speed could easily be sacrificed. When I went to Philadelphia
>> last
>> month it would have been much better if I could have hopped on a fast
>> train
>> (Eilzug) in Akron & taken a few hours to cross Pennsylvania instead of
>> going
>> throough the standard airport ordeal (with delays) that we're all
>> accustomed
>> to now.
>>
>> "Only the details are missing" - please remember that I'm a theorist.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
>> To: "'j burg'" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 8:52 PM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay
>>
>>
>> > Hi Burgy, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>> On
>> >> Behalf Of j burg
>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:52 AM
>> >>
>> >> On 6/4/08, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Last month there was a discussion of $4 gasoline and is it here to
>> >> stay. Way
>> >> > back in 1999 I wrote an article entitled "The Coming Energy
>> Crisis,
>> >> which
>> >> > was eventually published in the ASA in 2000.
>> >>
>> >> FWIW, Glenn, I did not think you "nutty" back then or now.
>> >
>> > My broker, who went and checked with other people in the oil
>> industry, all
>> > of whom said we didn't have a problem, thought me batty when I told
>> him
>> > what
>> > I wanted to do.Even today the talking-heads on TV will often say
>> things
>> > that
>> > can't possibly be true. Steve Forbes said the other day that 80% of
>> the
>> > rise
>> > in the price of oil was due to the falling dollar. Since the dollar
>> has
>> > only
>> > fallen about 30% since 2001 and oil has nearly quintupled, that can't
>> > possibly be true. Sean Hannity citing a USGS report which claims
>> that
>> > there
>> > are huge volumes of oil in the Bakken formation of North Dakota
>> thinks
>> > that
>> > we have enough oil there to run our nation's cars for several years.
>> He
>> > doesn't seem to understand the difference between oil in place and
>> what
>> > can
>> > be gotten out and moved to market. George Soros thinks oil is a
>> bubble. I
>> > sincerely hope that guy goes short on oil. Daniel Yergin, of The
>> Prize,
>> > founded a company which advises oil companies. I once asked a vice
>> > president
>> > and Kerr-McGee why on earth we paid for his advice since he was wrong
>> all
>> > the time. For the past many years, he has been predicting a decline
>> in the
>> > price of oil (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.htm). Only in the
>> last
>> > month has he actually predicted that the price would rise--it then
>> fell
>> > from
>> > $135/bbl to $120/bbl!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Using some of your thinking, I added an article on my web site
>> >> predicting $4 gas by last summer. Later, I revised it to this
>> summer.
>> >>
>> >> Now where are we going? There are suddenly all sorts of alternative
>> >> energies and auto-propellents being developed. I see these --
>> >> eventually -- having an effect, even as conservation and car pooling
>> >> have an effect. But slow -- and the ramp getting there will be
>> >> painful.
>> >
>> > I would be interested in what 'auto-propellents you are thinking of.
>> I can
>> > think of none that will work. You are a physicist, Burgy, surely you
>> have
>> > run the numbers comparing the amount of energy burned each day in oil
>> vs
>> > the
>> > rate of rise of wind and solar. There is a huge disparity.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> My guess is $6.00 gas next summer -- and this is independent of what
>> >> candidate wins in November.
>> >
>> > Agreed. But, if we pull our troops out of Iraq precipitously, and
>> Iraq
>> > descends into chaos, it will remove 2.1 million barrels per day of
>> oil
>> > from
>> > the world markets--2.5%. Now, if you think gas prices are high now,
>> just
>> > try doing that and see what happens. Same thing goes if Israel
>> becomes
>> > convinced that Obama won't protect them from Iran and they decide to
>> nuke
>> > Iran first, then the price of oil will look fantastic today. If any
>> of
>> > that
>> > happens be ready to lose your job.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Here is another perspective though:
>> >>
>> >> I keep records a lot. Recently I found my auto records from 1962-
>> 1964.
>> >> An analysis of these may be of interest. All numbers rounded.
>> >>
>> >> 1. My primary car during these years was a simple sedan, getting 13
>> >> mpg on 32c gas.
>> >> 2. The inflation factor 1963 to 2007 is about 7.
>> >> 3. So I really paid $2.24 for gas. 17c per mile.
>> >> 4. My daughter today also has a simple sedan. It gets on average 26
>> mpg
>> >> 5. You can do the math. She pays less per mile today than I did in
>> >> 1962-64. At $4.00, 15c per mile.
>> >>
>> >> Her car has A/C, and a host of gadgets that mine (in 1962) were
>> >> luxuries or only pipe dreams. .
>> >>
>> >> In 1963 I bought a Chevy compact -- 19 mpg. Now my cost was 12c per
>> >> mile. But I had to pay (in 2007 dollars) about $20,000. Still no AC
>> or
>> >> other amenities though.
>> >>
>> >> I think my daughter might be able to buy a 32 mpg economy car --
>> that
>> >> would get her per mile cost down to 12c also.
>> >>
>> >> So -- $4.00 a gallon is "OK." At least for now.
>> >
>> > Yeah, but, even in Houston now, I can walk into restaurants on a
>> Saturday
>> > night which used to require an hour's wait and be seated immediately.
>> > People
>> > aren't eating out as much as they used to. I suspect that it is gas
>> and
>> > food
>> > which are causing this change.
>> >
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 6 15:26:28 2008