EJ on BNN today

[Chris Coles]

Re: EJ on BNN today

A 2008 report from the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee describes the energy challenge we face, and then says, "the magnitude of the challenge is so immense that existing energy approaches – even with improvements from advanced engineering and improved technology based on known concepts – will not be enough to secure our energy future. [We need] technologies with performance levels far beyond what is now possible... scientific breakthroughs.... a major national mobilization of basic energy research.... Entirely new ways of producing, storing and using energy are required. (pages 1-2.)

The report, "New Science for a Secure and Sustainable Energy Future," is here: http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/NSSSEF_rpt.pdf
It identifies three major strategic goals, areas where scientific breakthroughs are needed:
** Making fuels from sunlight
** Generating electricity without carbon dioxide emissions
** Revolutionizing energy efficiency and use

In July the U.S. Department of Energy announced a $129 million, five-year grant to the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP), modeled on the Manhattan Project, to research ways of creating fuels from sunlight. The California Institute of Technology leads the JCAP team, with other California universities and research organizations participating.

Thank you for that Ellen. But you also highlight the underlying problem by showing the report also notes the input of funding to CALTECH. Researchers embedded within existing institutions will covet any funding to encompass their own existing ideas. Such institutions do not bring in new thinking from outside if it will in any way show any failure of imagination on their own part.

But all long term research funding comes from government sources that are as mentally fixated as the institutions they fund. Neither side will entertain new thinking from outside. each side will do everything they can to prevent such. Not invented here always prevails.

If an outsider takes their new ideas to the funding source, the government immediately asks the opinion of their existing recipients of their funding; CALTECH and the like. They in turn have EVERY reason to diminish the quality of the new thinking to protect their own funding. A classic "Catch 22".

What those of us outside of the existing institutions need is a clear headed source of funding that has the courage to look at completely new ideas.

Let me give you an example. In 2009 a book was published that brings into question almost every aspect of present thinking on the structure of the proton which in turn leads to completely new thinking about the nature of gravity and as an aside, the manner of how electrons are generated. But to do that it has destroyed Ideal Gas Law and Big Bang theory. It has been presented to every scientific magazine but no one will review it or give it any publicity. I must add that the web site now generates many hits every day from China.

Yes, I am ahead of you; why not go to a VC?

The author has no intention of becoming the slave of any VC to be ASAP sold on to the largest company via M&A.

Again, one might suggest that government has to step out of the existing structures to be able to fund such new thinking, but they do not have anything like enough money available today to even fund the existing research institutions. In which case, the only other answer is to encourage everyone to place trust in the quality of new thinking and fund via charitable donation. But that in turn opens the door to being called both a crank and a thief of other peoples money from the existing institutions.

I am reminded, as I write that the development of the then new Rolls Royce Merlin Engine actually stemmed from a donation from a wealthy widow.

In 1929, at Cowes, Supermarine won again in the Supermarine S.6 with the new Rolls-Royce R engine with an average speed of 328.63 mph (528.85 km/h).^[5]
In 1931 the British government withdrew support but a private donation of £100,000 from Lucy, Lady Houston allowed Supermarine to compete and win on 13 September against only British opposition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Trophy

What we need is another Lucy Houston.

[Ellen Z]

Re: EJ on BNN today

From where I stand, the solution will come from completely new technology. From thinking that takes technology into a new paradigm.

A 2008 report from the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee describes the energy challenge we face, and then says, "the magnitude of the challenge is so immense that existing energy approaches – even with improvements from advanced engineering and improved technology based on known concepts – will not be enough to secure our energy future. [We need] technologies with performance levels far beyond what is now possible... scientific breakthroughs.... a major national mobilization of basic energy research.... Entirely new ways of producing, storing and using energy are required. (pages 1-2.)

The report, "New Science for a Secure and Sustainable Energy Future," is here: http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/NSSSEF_rpt.pdf
It identifies three major strategic goals, areas where scientific breakthroughs are needed:
** Making fuels from sunlight
** Generating electricity without carbon dioxide emissions
** Revolutionizing energy efficiency and use

In July the U.S. Department of Energy announced a $129 million, five-year grant to the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP), modeled on the Manhattan Project, to research ways of creating fuels from sunlight. The California Institute of Technology leads the JCAP team, with other California universities and research organizations participating.

[doom&gloom]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Yeah, it was around an hour long (excluding commercials) so one of the longest ha has done and quite good. Right up there with FSN but more expanded. And Medved was pretty gracious -- sometimes he can insert his own opinion and derail things.

[LargoWinch]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Uh, huh? Link? [seriously, WTF]

Chomsky, I think what metalman meant, is that Michael Medved interview of EJ is fee-based only.

See Micheal Medved site here.

See also metalman cost-benefit analysis here ().

[Chomsky]

Re: EJ on BNN today

$$$$$$$$

Uh, huh? Link? [seriously, WTF]

[metalman]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Huh? link?

$$$$$$$$

[Chomsky]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Fred, you need to get Medved to supply his show w/EJ for everyone. That was a particularly good one.

Huh? link?

[doom&gloom]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Interviewed on BNN today: the book, gold, and government.

Fred, you need to get Medved to supply his show w/EJ for everyone. That was a particularly good one.

[Chris Coles]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Well, to place the cat amongst the pigeons; I do not wholly agree with either side of this debate. From where I stand, the solution will come from completely new technology. From thinking that takes technology into a new paradigm. When that does occur, you will discover, as always with such matters; the ideas have been on the ground for decades, but laughed at, demeaned as impossible. Or even more likely, because they were of no interest to the major players for the very simple reason; they would, will, close down their existing operations from the delivery of competing solutions.

[we_are_toast]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Wherever did you get the idea that oil, natgas, coal and nuclear are NOT long term economically viable resources? It's all a matter of the value of what they are used for. And if you can use less of that stuff on the low value consumptions by conservation methods it is most definitely a solution. At the risk of sounding like Starving Steve, it's the idea that "renewables" are going to displace these that is not the [realistic] solution.

GRG55, do you subscribe to the Peak Cheap Oil thesis, which is pretty much the basis of iTulips forward looking economic projections? Unless you believe there is an endless supply, or even a long term supply that is available at a reasonable price, conservation only delays the day of reckoning and makes matters much worse, IF you don't have a plan to move away from these limited resources.

[Chris Coles]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Excellent interview. EJ comes across well. Here in the UK we have had new forms of diesel engine for many years and they really are THAT efficient and nowadays run like a petrol engine. You will not be able to hear or feel any difference while sitting in the car, or, for that matter, while standing alongside.

No, in some ways, I do not wholly agree with EJ. Particularly about Public Private funding. Our experience here is very mixed.

But as a sane voice with credibility, he carries the hopes of many of us and I for one am a firm believer in his concept of a return to technology and inspired thinking.

[GRG55]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Hybrid diesels?!

I have this argument with my environmental friends all the time. They push very hard for energy conservation as the solution for our energy problems. I argue that conservation, whether it is more efficient gasoline, more efficient light bulbs, or hybrid diesels, is only a stop gap measure that buys you time for a solution that does not involve rapidly depleting resources such as oil, NG, Coal, nuclear. So, unless one proposes a solution based on renewable, or long term economically available resources, while proposing efficiency and conservation as the transitional method to get us to the sustainable solution, one has not proposed a solution to our energy problems at all. In fact the energy writing has been on the wall for 40 years, and great strides in efficiency and conservation were made in the 70's and 80's. But conservation and efficiency were viewed as the solution and we've squandered 40 critical years where we could have been building a sustainable energy source for a sustainable economy.

Hybrid diesels are not a solution.

Wherever did you get the idea that oil, natgas, coal and nuclear are NOT long term economically viable resources? It's all a matter of the value of what they are used for. And if you can use less of that stuff on the low value consumptions by conservation methods it is most definitely a solution. At the risk of sounding like Starving Steve, it's the idea that "renewables" are going to displace these that is not the [realistic] solution.

[jk]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Another problem is that transportation fuel efficiency improvements often get squandered on higher performance/heavier vehicles. My understanding is that fuel use is regulated more by cost than by efficiency. Improved efficiency only buys us time if we actually reduce energy consumption as a result, rather than continuing to use as much energy as we can afford.

energy taxes might take care of that problem, if only we had the nerve.

[ASH]

Re: EJ on BNN today

Hybrid diesels?!

I have this argument with my environmental friends all the time. They push very hard for energy conservation as the solution for our energy problems. I argue that conservation, whether it is more efficient gasoline, more efficient light bulbs, or hybrid diesels, is only a stop gap measure that buys you time for a solution that does not involve rapidly depleting resources such as oil, NG, Coal, nuclear. So, unless one proposes a solution based on renewable, or long term economically available resources, while proposing efficiency and conservation as the transitional method to get us to the sustainable solution, one has not proposed a solution to our energy problems at all. In fact the energy writing has been on the wall for 40 years, and great strides in efficiency and conservation were made in the 70's and 80's. But conservation and efficiency were viewed as the solution and we've squandered 40 critical years where we could have been building a sustainable energy source for a sustainable economy.

Hybrid diesels are not a solution.

Excellent, I'll take it.
Time bought is very useful on it's own. Secondly, once we transition to some future energy that will likely be more expensive than petroleum, we will have lower per capita energy use and per capita costs.
Conservation is therefore good.

In hindsight we should have been seriously conserving since we first discussed it nationally in the mid 1970s; we'd be better off today if we had done so 35 years ago.

Another problem is that transportation fuel efficiency improvements often get squandered on higher performance/heavier vehicles. My understanding is that fuel use is regulated more by cost than by efficiency. Improved efficiency only buys us time if we actually reduce energy consumption as a result, rather than continuing to use as much energy as we can afford.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: EJ on BNN today

...I argue that conservation, whether it is more efficient gasoline, more efficient light bulbs, or hybrid diesels, is only a stop gap measure that buys you time for a solution ....

Excellent, I'll take it.
Time bought is very useful on it's own. Secondly, once we transition to some future energy that will likely be more expensive than petroleum, we will have lower per capita energy use and per capita costs.
Conservation is therefore good.

In hindsight we should have been seriously conserving since we first discussed it nationally in the mid 1970s; we'd be better off today if we had done so 35 years ago.