A Look At Freedom's Currents

A Look At Freedom's Currents
Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others. . .they send forth a ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." Robert F. Kennedy

21st Century's Priority One

1) Implementation of: The Promise of New Energy Systems & Beyond Oil ___________________________________________ #1 Disolves the Problem of the ill designed "Corporism: The Systemic Disease that Destroys Civilization." through simple scientific common sense ___________________________________________ _________ Using grade school physics of both Newtonian and Nuclear models, does anyone foresee counter currents of sufficient size to minimize/change direction of the huge Tsunami roaring down on us, taking away not only our Freedom, but our Lives? Regardless if our salaries are dependant on us not knowing the inconvenient truths of reality (global warming, corporate rule, stagnant energy science) portrayed by the rare articles in the news media? I know only one - a free science, our window to Reality - that easily resolves the Foundational Problem of Quantum Physics and takes E=MC2 out of Kindergarten

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Oil Demand, the Climate and the Energy Ladder

Fuel 2000 & Beyond ".......The most important aspect of the factor which we have named the quantity C. C is a constant, the only true constant in the universe, because it is the pivotal point about which the natural laws become manifest. It is the factor for which many great physicists have spent years of search, even though they had it constantly in their possession. In short, the quantity C is the measure of the radius of curvature of natural law. It is the factor which will enable us to determine precisely the degree of change in the curvature of one law which will be brought about by a specified change in the application of the others. When we state that the quantity C is the radius of the curvature of natural law, we mean simply that if a differential of energy equal to this quantity exists between the observer and the point which he is observing, the natural laws will be suspended. If the energy differential is in excess of the quantity C, the laws will appear to operate in reverse at that point. While we have repeatedly referred to the quantity C as an energy differential, we have heretofore considered it only in terms of kinetic energy. Some may believe that it can be reached only when there is a rate of increase or decrease in the degree of spatial separation between the reference points, equal to 3x10*10th centimeters per second, or in simpler terms, a velocity equal to that of light. It is necessary therefore to point out the fact that an energy differential does not necessarily manifest itself as a velocity. It can also exist as a frequency. Our present laws of physics state that the energy level upon which an electron, a photon, or other particle exists is proportionate to its frequency. The mathematical rule is E equals Fh where E is the energy, F is the frequency and h is a factor called Planck's constant. We can now see that a frequency differential which by the above formula is equal to 9x10*20th ergs per gram also represents the quantity C. When such a frequency differential exists between the observer and the point which he is observing, we again find that the natural laws at the observed point reach zero value with respect to the observer. If the frequency differential exceeds this value, the action of the laws will become negative. We must clear our minds of the thought block produced by the assumption that the quantity C is a factor of absolute limit. We must realize that it is a limiting factor only with respect to two given reference points, and that it is perfectly possible to conceive of a series of consecutive reference points between each two of which a differential equal to the quantity C may exist..........

Now back to big, big, CO2 bugs for carbon capture and sequestration, umbrellas for plant earth, 100 years more of fossil fuel with a bit of "corny" - pun intended - (corn/ethanol) alternatives

January 19, 2008 Saturday Interview
Oil Demand, the Climate and the Energy Ladder
Energy demand is expected to grow in coming decades. Jeroen van der Veer, 60, Royal Dutch Shell’s chief executive, recently offered his views on the energy challenge facing the world and the challenge posed by global warming. He spoke of the need for governments to set limits on carbon emissions. He also lifted the veil on Shell’s latest long-term energy scenarios, titled Scramble and Blueprints, which he will make public next week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Following are excerpts from the interview:
Q. What are the main findings of Shell’s two scenarios?
A. Scramble is where key actors, like governments, make it their primary focus to do a good job for their own country. So they look after their self-interest and try to optimize within their own boundaries what they try to do. Blueprints is basically all the international initiatives, like Kyoto, like Bali, or like a future Copenhagen. They start very slowly but before not too long they become relatively successful. This is a model of international cooperation.
Q. Your first scenario looks very similar to today’s world, with energy nationalism, competition for resources and little attention to consumption.
A. It depends where you live. I realize there are different opinions about Kyoto in the world. But if you think about Bali, Bali is a good outcome if people can agree how to have useful discussion in the coming two years and the United States, China and India are on board. The Blueprints world is maybe a world that starts slowly and is not that easily feasible, but you see some early indicators that it is a realistic possibility.
Q. The world seems to be at some form of inflection point with a big shift in demand.
A. The basic drivers are pretty easy and they are twofold. You go from six billion people to nine billion people basically in 2050. This combination of many more people climbing the energy ladder, which is basically welfare for a lot of people who live in poverty, creates that enormous demand for energy.
Q. How will the demand be fulfilled?
A. Many politicians think we have to make a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. We have to grow both fossil fuels and renewables. And that will be a huge effort for both.
Q. More energy means more carbon emissions. How do you deal with that?
A. That is absolutely the crux of the matter. The principal way we see is that in the very short term, man-made carbon emissions will increase. But over time people will figure out ways — and we work very hard on that — that while using fossil fuels you try to find carbon dioxide solutions. For instance, carbon sequestration. The problem is that many of the renewables, if you take the subsidies out, are still too expensive. That is the dilemma we face now.
Q. Fossil fuels are still going to represent the lion’s share of the energy mix in the next century?
A. First, there is no lack in itself of oil or gas, or coal for that matter. But the problem is that the easy-to-produce oil or easy-to-produce gas will be depleted or with difficult access. But if you look at difficult oil or difficult gas, which we in the industry call the unconventionals, such as oil sands or shales, they may be exploitable. But per barrel, you need a lot more technology and a lot more investments, and per barrel you need a lot more brain to produce it. It’s much more expensive.
Q. What kind of alternatives can compete?
A. The competition is partly true competition — markets, inventions — and part of it is governments. I think if you can price carbon dioxide, probably you can stimulate carbon capture and sequestration. If you tax a certain form of energy, over time it gets more expensive and you may use less of it.
Q. It still seems there is a gap that is hard to bridge.
A. If carbon is the real bottleneck, as a world it makes sense that we use our money where we get the biggest reduction for the lowest cost. You get more carbon reduction for less money by tackling the power sector and maybe the building sector.
Q. It is still hard to see that people are willing to pay more for greener energy.
A. I am a strong believer and strong advocate of free enterprise. If you would like to solve the carbon problem in the world, free enterprise has to work in close cooperation with governments to form the right framework. How you tackled the sulfur dioxide problem in the United States was the basic inspiration for the European trading system of carbon. So there are examples from the past we can apply to overcome that problem. But we can’t do it on our own as an industry. We need cooperation from governments.
Q. How close are we to an understanding globally that climate policy and energy policy are all interrelated issues?
A. Thanks to Al Gore, and many others, the awareness is there. There is a kind of sense of urgency. Secondly, there is a preparedness to do things. Thirdly, do we agree who has to take what action? I think that is still a huge problem.
Q. There was a lot of disagreement at the Bali climate conference.
A. That is correct. I realize that Bali is still very difficult. I am not a pessimist. I see it as a very difficult start-up. The crux of the matter is, if the people say, “Hang on, we are really concerned about the climate and we’d better do something on carbon emissions,” that is in the end the powerful force which politicians and companies cannot ignore. And I think we are past that point.

No comments: