REPLY: Hmmm, I didn’t notice any such thing when I connected, and my spyware scan comes up clean

REPLY 2: from charles the moderator–Anthony, I just checked and this requirement has been added, so IT Guy may be correct, but the need to install Zango was not there last week when you originally made this posting.

REPLY 3: Thanks for the heads up, I’ve removed the link to VREEL and added links to YouTube, which has the video now. When it first was released, only VREEL had it, and yes VREEL has started installing spyware. I’ll never use them again for any purpose – idiots. – Anthony

http://steveward.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/live-better/

Before we get too excited about Peak Oil, there’s some interesting thinking in that arena which, if true, would make concerns about natural resource exhaustion (at least for oil) a bit silly. Check out this article:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952

As well, check out a more in-depth look at the resurrected theory of the abiotic origins of oil at:

http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm

Now if (and that’s a mighty big if) this idea holds water, then oil will never run out as it’s being continuously created. Just some fascinating thinking for the geology community.

Assuming a ‘rectantenna’ 10km x 20km in size (how many GaAS diodes will that need?) and 1 GW power at 100% conversion, it works out to about 5 watts/m^2 on average. Assume Gaussian distribution and you have 10 W/m^2 near the center, or 1 mw/cm^2. The Federal exposure standard is 10 microwatts/cm^2, the Euro standard is 1 microwatt. So you are 100x over the limit. Death Star, anyone ?

Conversion efficiency: Glaser didn’t invent the concept, he was a strong proponent. He claimed 90% end-to-end efficiency. My associates in the microwave business said 1% was probable. NASA tried it, put 2 MW in, got 100 W out. Not a lot of publicity on that one. Space isn’t empty, you will have absorption and scattering losses. The air will cause as much or more, even though it is only the last 10 or so miles. PV conversion runs no more than 20%. Assuming 10% RF conversion, you’ll need to start with at least 10 GW to get 1 GW out, and that will require a collector of about 36 million m^2 (9000 acres). A whole lot of silicon, for 1 GW output power. The U.S. currently produces around 100 GW of electricity.

Assuming geostationary or geosync orbit, the satellite should see sun all the time, with the Earth’s axial tilt. With a big enough dish antenna on the transmitting end, you could keep the beam focused. But every antenna has side lobes, and with a multi GW source, not trivial. Even 0.01% (absurdly small) gives you 100+ KW. Compared with the 100 W of comm satellites. Goodbye communication. And radio astronomy. Not the same frequency, doesn’t matter. You de-sensitize the RF front end of the receiver on all frequencies. (been there, done that)

Somehow, I rather doubt space access will get much less expensive. The physics of that hasn’t changed since Goddard was tinkering 80 years ago. Rutan’s Space Ship 1 could never make orbit. And building high efficiency solar cells on one of the dirtiest places in the neighborhood doesn’t sound overly practical, let alone getting the equipment needed to the moon in the first place.

These were only a few of the problems with the SPS, which is why it was abandoned in the early 80′s.

/anti-SPS rant off

Peak Oil = Resource Half Consumed (typically 55% consumed at peak). Yes 45% will still be discovered. BUT the price rises till you have “demand destruction” OR provide alternative fuels in sufficient supply to meet transport desires.

The challenge is the dynamics of the transition the transition. Welcome to the fuel transition roller coaster!
And pray that you don’t crash.

In the context of your post, you might find this article interesting:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908

We have learned that the industry in any given bubble must support hundreds or thousands of separate firms financed by not billions but trillions of dollars in new securities that Wall Street will create and sell. Like housing in the late 1990s, this sector of the economy must already be formed and growing even as the previous bubble deflates. For those investing in that sector, legislation guaranteeing favorable tax treatment, along with other protections and advantages for investors, should already be in place or under review. Finally, the industry must be popular, its name on the lips of government policymakers and journalists. It should be familiar to those who watch television news or read newspapers.

There are a number of plausible candidates for the next bubble, but only a few meet all the criteria…

[SNIP]

…There is one industry that fits the bill: alternative energy, the development of more energy-efficient products, along with viable alternatives to oil, including wind, solar, and geothermal power, along with the use of nuclear energy to produce sustainable oil substitutes, such as liquefied hydrogen from water. Indeed, the next bubble is already being branded.

And there may be a lot of light crude out there–exploration is still very restricted. The Bakken Shale is light crude (though it requires horizontal drilling to get that dolomite strip) and may run a half trillion barrels by the time they’re through with it. The 3+ billion barrel number is up 20-fold from a few years back. Expect that number to keep growing.

I think the Peak Oil flap is the same basic error the Club of Rome made back in the ’70s and ’80s, recycled.