Redstate

First, technology requires energy.  Period.  Having not read the book, I cannot comment precisely on the reference to LASERs, except to say that all technology uses energy, and making technology more efficient is extremely important in the advance of technology into our daily lives.  Intel, for example, cares deeply about the power efficiency of its processors, not for environmental reasons but for scalability.  Inefficient technology that uses too much energy cannot be made smaller and therefore cannot be integrated into our daily lives.

On the topic of energy demand, I doubt that mainstream environmentalists would challenge the notion that energy demand will keep rising in the US, due to both population increases and new technologies that require energy (whether efficient or not).  This is precisely why environmentalists are so concerned.  Making more efficient appliances is good because it eases the rise of energy demand, and therefore environmentalists want the government to use incentives to encourage the use of more efficient appliances (e.g., not drive Hummers or SUVs).  Also, the recognition of rising energy demand would point to a need for more renewable energy source development, not a continued dependence on limited (especially foreign) resources which are known to pollute as well (hence the recent alliances between neo-conservatives and environmentalists in encouraging alternative energies).

As for global warming, the thinking tends to be very dogmatic as to whether people in this country want to recognize the issue or not.  At its most basic level, however, one must recognize that even with these "new forested lands," if new greenhouse gas output > input into new greenhouse gas sinks, we're still contributing to global warming.

From what I've read about the energy bill, it does little to promote cleaner renewable energy resource development and leaves our national security open to foreign oil dependence.  Energy demand will keep rising, and we have to get it from somewhere or reduce the rise in how much of it we consume.

the amazon link you posted goes to some 2 star book on conservatism, not Bottomless Well

just fyi

That said, I haven't read the book, but it sounds good, since its mostly technical without trying to largely take political sides (though they lean right, according to amazon reviews)

I'm not a fan of their "we have gotten more efficient yet energy use has not gone down" argument because, as the previous poster mentioned, the population is increasing. Energy use is not a self fulfilling process - if a person is given a more fuel efficient car, then usually that person will consume less overall gas. It's common sense. Some people will say "hey gas is cheaper, I'll drive more often!" but most won't.

They also seem to advocate the fact that "energy" won't run out, based on (what I gather) the logic of "because it hasn't run out before." That's pretty naive, in my view. We're running out of gas, both physically (on Earth, its a limited resource, obviously) and politically, since most of the remaining gas is in areas we don't have the greatest relations with. However, gas prices aren't bad enough in America to really drive the technological push for more fuel efficient cars. (If gas was 5 bucks a gallon, there would be a LOT less SUVS on the road, until somebody improved their fuel efficiency considerably, for example) Somebody else advocated a fuel tax in another topic for this reason. I'd hate to have to pay it, but it certainly would improve the drive towards an all hybrid highway.

The authors also seem to advocate solar energy as the future, which is again pretty unrealisitic, just because of the rather low output of solar plants. I agree with teh book in that nuclear reactors are pretty much our best optin right now, despite enviromentalist's complaints. Its obviously better than coal, or any other hydrocarbon, since emissions are reduced, and you can power a city with nuclear.

I can't think of any meaningful conclusion to this post, hmmmm.... guess I'll leave it at this.

Is ultimatly unstustanible, a temporary solution to a growing problem just as continued use of fossil fuels are.  Because ultimatly we have to dispose of the waste, we have to place it somewhere that is can remain undisturbed for 10 to 100's of thousands of years.  To believe that humans could ever make a structure capable of containing the radiation that can last even 10,000 years is laughable at best.

He is theoretically correct that raw energy will never "run out" but oil eventually will.  Unless we advance some major new breakthrough to CREATE oil we will run out.  To claim otherwise undermines his whole argument.  But there is ultimatly other sources like the solar, wind, and hydro that are sustainable indefinatly without serious long term damage to the planet.

As long as scientists keep talking to engineers, and engineers keep talking to venture capitalists, then we'll always have plenty of energy. The mistake is to be too dependent on one source. With competing sources, the free market works. The only role I see for government is to keep pollution in check, and maybe fund science projects, here and there, in the early stages.

You missed the point entirely.  The point is that high technology energy is important, but that highly ordered energy entails "waste."  Yes, scientists are seeking more efficient lasers but the process itself is not efficient because a lot of heat is burned in order to get the intense light involved.  Yes, all technology uses energy but highly order energy is different than other types and it requires a lot of waste - i.e. energy used to refine energy itself rather than to produce something.  That is the point of the phrase "the virtue of waste." What is traditionally considered waste - is non-productive energy - is in fact useful because it gets us to highly ordered and useful energy.

I think you misunderstand the point about energy use and efficiency as well.  Environmentalist want us to use less and less energy that is why they encourage efficiency.  But what the authors show is that efficiency doesn't lead to less usage it leads to more.  It is a basic principle of life if you make something easier or cheaper you will get more of it.  That is why many are calling for high taxes on energy because they know that will discourage use.

I fixed the link!

I think you are wrong on the efficiency issue.  A basic principle of economics is that if you make something easier or cheaper you will get more of it.  This is true of efficiency as well.  People use more efficient things to save money not to do less.  Name something in your life that has caused you to use less energy.  Practically ever appliance and tool we use is more efficient than previous versions and yet we as individuals use more energy than ever before.

If you have a fuel efficient car it is cheaper to drive but that doesn't mean you drive less; in fact it probably means you drive more because you can go farther for the same amount of money.

This doesn't mean efficient cars are bad just that we should quit thinking that by being efficient we are going to lower the energy use in this country.

The authors in know way advocate solar energy.  In fact they think renewable energy sources are simply not able to meet demand in anything like the near future.  If anything they push nuclear.

With all due respect I trust the authors technical knowledge a little more than yours.  The technology in fact exists.  The arguement is about the politics not the science.

I live in Australia where LPG conversions are encouraged by keeping the price of LPG well below that of gasoline. I pay US$1.10 per US Gallon for LPG. Gasoline, or as we call it petrol, is going for US$3.50 per US Gallon. You get slightly less MPG from LPG - the bigger the engine the lower the loss - but I'm way ahead. So what do I do? I drive without a second thought for cost because it costs me about US$.035 a mile for fuel. That's 3 and a half cents. My behaviour fits the notion that increasing efficiency just allows us to increase consumption. Same with my evaporative air con. Pennies an hour to run so I let it run. I find it hard to argue on the basis of my own behaviour that the human demand for energy is anything short of insatiable. Interesting book considering that it seems to challenge a lot of current popular thinking.  

There is no shortage of energy.  The shortage is in high-grade energy.  Hydrogen, hydrocarbons, and nuclear power are high-grade sources of energy.  Wind and wave power are low-grade sources of energy.  Wind and wave power are also intermittent.

All energy ultimately is nuclear energy or solar energy, which is itself nuclear energy.  The sun drives the weather, which drives wind and waves.  The sun also causes the grass and trees to grow into hydrocarbons.  

Nuclear energy is the least polluting of the high-grade sources of energy, except for hydrogen produced from low-grade sources of energy.  

The secret is to harness low-grade energy into the production of high-grade hydrogen economically.  That will provide an endless source of non-polluting energy, with your primary discharge being plain water.

Local production and use of hydrogen from low-grade energy sources has many advantages, including, notably, reduction of logistics footprints and shipping/ transmission costs.  The cost of energy is a primary cost of virtually all other goods and services; transportation, manufacturing, travel, etc.

The problem is in the economics.  But when Halliburton solves the energy equation in favor of hydrogen, it will create a massive improvement in our lives and balance of payments, among other things.

I got that "they seem to advocate solar energy" from a comment on amazon regarding the book, if its untrue than I obviously retract my comment above. (As I said, i haven't read the book)

I agree there is logic that if your car is more efficient you will drive more, but not everyone thinks that way. Or acts that way.

If everyone gets a more efficient car, some people will say "gas is cheaper, lets drive farther" and their net gas usage will remain the same. However, some people will drive the same amount as before (to and from work every day, plus errands and so on) and be happy with that, and thus their use of gas will go down, as their cars use less gas for the same amount of travel. The net result is, total energy consumption goes down.

Yes more machines are efficient but we use the same amount of energy because we use more of those machines. If machines used the same amount of energy as they did in 1985, yet the same number of people used machines as they do today, then the energy consumption would be far GREATER than what it is today.

The fact that energy use in the country "hasn't gone down" due to efficiency doesn't mean that efficiency isn't helping anything. Without efficiency, energy consumption would have gone way up, to reflect population growth. In this respect, keeping energy consumption stable is a victory for efficiency

Indeed, I missed the point, but I think the premise is still flawed.  I guess I don't exactly follow what accepted notion this so-called "virtue of waste" is challenging.  What you are describing is the "waste" involved in research and development, which is not considered "waste" at all.  It's considered an investment, if anything, since the resources spent developing technology eventually pay off in the end (e.g., Thomas Edison trying out thousands of materials before finding a good light bulb filament, and now we have electric lighting).

It sounds to me that the "virtue of waste" is being used as an excuse to justify inefficient technologies (e.g., SUVs not used for sport or utility), which is lumping productive and unproductive types of waste together.  "Wasting" resources to develop new technologies is much different than "wasting" resources for, say, the option of driving a big automobile.  One results in new technology, whereas the other results in benefits that are less concrete.

I do follow your second point, and without seeing the authors' analysis I don't know that a clear line can necessarily be drawn between higher efficiency and higher use.  This is one case where the environmentalists' goals may be untenable, but they still are advocating the right action.  I think efficient use of resources in the end is still a desirable goal, even if the same amount of resources (or even more) are used.  In the end, more wealth will be created from the limited resources than would have been created with less efficient technology.  So while productive waste certainly exists, better use of resources is still the right way to go for our society.

On a side note, an excellent primer on laser physics can be found in Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics (http://www.britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm).  Your arguments about energy do not make much sense because that technology has "waste" is part of the technology itself.  In the case of lasers, photons in the same mode are desired, and to get that, a certain amount of loss (heat, etc.) is required.  But given the choice between a high-loss and low-loss laser, we want the low-loss one because we can use more of them in, say, a DVD or CD player or whatever.  To say that environmentalists, in their pursuit of efficient use of resources, would get rid of lasers altogether I think is ridiculous.  They recognize that new technologies will be created and require energy, and that more people and more technologies mean the need for more energy.  They just encourage higher efficiency since better use of limited resources is desired, especially when those limited resources cause pollution.  What some neo-conservatives have recognized is that the environmentalists' desire for less pollution actually can be coincident with lessening our dependence on foreign energy by developing renewable alternative energy sources, which happen to be cleaner.

doesn't always result in useful technology. And people with big SUVs get concrete benifits, such as enough room to transport the whole family.

The idea that "renewable alternative energy sources" are cleaner may not be true. So far, solar and wind fail at providing sufficient energy, and likely they always will. Further, they have their own impacts.

Oil has consistently remained cheap (i.e., the market is saying "use oil"), and it is actually a farily clean source of energy. And there is nothing wrong with buying oil from forigners. Why do leftists hade trade and mutually benificient transactions so?

I have to say that the statement:

>>> Yes, scientists are seeking more efficient lasers but the process itself is not efficient because a lot of heat is burned in order to get the intense light involved.  Yes, all technology uses energy but highly order energy is different than other types and it requires a lot of waste - i.e. energy used to refine energy itself rather than to produce something. <<<

is too incoherent to make any real sense (as was the comment in the article itself about "burning" light).

No process can be made 100% efficient (that's a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics), but there is certainly no inherent value to inefficiency either.

The history of human technology has been one of continued improvement in energy efficiency, of doing more with less.

nowadays, how much room is needed? All but the smallest vehcicles (that is, anything with a back seat) can fit a driver and three-four passengers.

Moreover the modern penchant for driving one's children everywhere and anywhere they take a fancy to go strikes me as silly.  At the risk of sounding like a classic old grouch, I recall having to get most places under my own power when I was growing up, either by foot or by bicycle. Chauffeurage by car was reserved for long distances, truly atrocious weather, or special occasions (or trips the the whole family was taking of course). Maybe if today's kids were told to do the same there would be less childhood and teenage obesity.

That's the way I was raised also. But that was a time before Amber Alerts and sex offenders registries and Meaghan's law, and Polly Klaas, ...

that do not fit in a car (mine is one of them).

But I am more interested in your other question.

I think we live in a society that is scared of the boogyman now, when I was a kid I rode my bike everywhere with my friends and no other adults around.  I just had to tell my mom where I was going and who I was with.

I think the fact that we see child murderers around every corner makes us moms much more protective of our children (and the media plays into these fears) and it isn't that the concern shouldn't be there at all-after all there are some scary child molesters who have proven that recently, but most kids aren't in that kind of danger.

But I do think this fear has played the biggest role in why kids are kept close to home and driven everywhere they go.  Also, you could probably add that when I was a kid, I couldn't go anywhere in my neighborhood without somebody's mom seeing me and knowing what I was up to (and if I was up to no good, that behavior getting back to my parents)-now most neighborhoods just aren't like that anymore.

I was with you until the end, thinking "Wow, someone who actually talks Hydrogen without forgetting that Hydrogen is an energy store, not an energy source," but then you went off the rails here:

"The problem is in the economics.  But when Halliburton solves the energy equation in favor of hydrogen, it will create a massive improvement in our lives and balance of payments, among other things."

The problem is in the technology, not the economics.  We simply have no way of getting enough energy from wind, water, or sunlight in order to make it economical to use hydrogen fuel instead of oil.

Once we find a way to get energy from the sun as cheaply as we get it from oil, we'll do it.  Not before then, though, because it just doesn't make any sense to.  Oil is here, it works, and it's cheap.  Until the oil market is showing signs that peak oil production can be foreseen, money spent looking at other sources instead of making the most of oil is just money wasted.

Companies like Halliburton have a job to do, and it's not "solving the energy equation in favor of Hydrogen."  Their job is to make good for their investors, and for now, that means listening to the market.

How about storing nuclear waste on the moon?

and worse have been around forever. I can very much recall the strident warnings about not taking candy from (or even talking to) strangers in my own childhood. And realistically, by far the biggest danger is from people who know your children. Most molesters are relatives or family friends, and most child abuse occurs in the home.

Re:  Until the oil market is showing signs that peak oil production can be foreseen, money spent looking at other sources instead of making the most of oil is just money wasted.

For centuries after the ancient Greek Hieron first invented it the steam engine was too inefficient and uneconomical to use except as a curiosity. Yet all during those centuries technogical tinkerers gradually worked on it. Had that not been the case James Watt would have been helpless to make the final modifications the gave us a steam engine that was more efficient than wind, water or animal power.

but our media driven culture makes us see a child molester around every corner, and it doesn't help that there have been a rash of child molesters who have murdered children getting wall to wall coverage.

You are right that the fears are to some degree unfounded, but when you have kids you just can't help yourself.

"Hydrogen is an energy store, not an energy source."

You want to clarify that?  Hydrogen in a container is potential energy.  Hydrogen burned (in an engine or a fuel cell, for example) yields kinetic energy.  Hydrogen is a "source" of energy as much as gasoline or water falling through a turbine at Hoover Dam.

"The problem is in the technology, not the economics."

"Once we find a way to get energy from the sun as cheaply as we get it from oil, we'll do it."

Do you see the contradiction in your two statements?  

There are indirect and uncaptured costs with both fossil and nuclear fuels.  I do not accept the Kyoto nonsense, of course, but we are pumping umpty-ump gazillion tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere, and we are not through paying for nuclear waste storage.  These costs should be recognized now, rather than passed on to the future, and that would suddenly make alternate fuels very much more attractive.

"Companies like Halliburton have a job to do, and it's not 'solving the energy equation in favor of Hydrogen.'"  

Technology is not stable, but moves in spurts, and in unexpected direction.  You sound as if Halliburton has no R&D, and no need for R&D, but in fact they are leaders in the field.  I use Halliburton as a metaphor for American technology; beside, Halliburton has done more for American and world well being than all the people who complain about Halliburton put together.

Hideous stuff has always happened, but nowadays it becomes national news whereas 30 or 40 years (or longer) ago you didn't hear that much about stuff in parts distant unless it involved someone of importance (like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, obviously)

Of course if I had kids I would probably be one of those nervous, over-protective parents. I am already with my cats :)

Is then transporting the materal through our atmosphere strapped to a hundred thousands pounds of explosives.  Until we can send things into space without the real risk of detonation ( space eleavator ) the risk is not worth the reward.  If you can get it to the moon might as well fire it into the sun at that point.

 Liberal loonies are the main obstacles (like always) to solving future energy problems.

   Nuclear energy is pure, cheap and environmentally sound. The tiny problems we face with regards to storage are not big enough to make this an unsurmountable task. Storage problems is a highly exaggerated fiction put out by the ecofascist mafia and liberals that get their science knowledge from the Nation.

  And containing most nuclear waste is really simple as all (if not all) nuclear waste eventually attenuate towards Pb. Leaded containers for nuclear waste is no rocket science.

 The main problem with nuclear waste is the danger of it getting in hands of terrorists, but if we can keep USA free of terror-attacks despite the best efforts of liberals to help their islamofascist "victims" to "regian civil liberties", I am sure we have the capacity to handle this problem as well.

CAvH

Free hydrogen is generally considered an energy storage medium rather than an energy source because it does not occur naturally in the environment (at least not in useful quantities).  Wood and coal, by counterexample, can be picked up off the ground and burned.  Hydrogen has to be manufactured, by using energy from an actual energy source.  One might burn oil or collect solar energy to power the hydrogen manufacturing process.

It could be argued that there isn't really any such thing as an energy source and that harvesting any kind of energy requires an energy investment in the first place.  While that's true, there is still a qualitative difference between finding a log on the ground and tossing it on the fire, and building a hydrogen reformer to extract the gas from seawater.

-joachim

is to address the problem of nuclear waste.  We could build all the nuke power plants we want, and when we collect the waste, we can hoist all of it on a space elevator (no rockets that could blow up) and push the waste off to the sun.