http://www.smh.com.au/environment/the-answer-to-everything-20110803-1ibh9.html
I do and always have seen peak oil as a promise not a threat.
This may not be the answer but it could be part of it.
I ask do other posters share my fears self interest, from those who own current fuels, stand in the way of our progression?
And too we must ask, what if.
What short term and long term impacts on the world economy if some thing like this replaces currently use fuels in just years.

belly..the joe fuel cell provides free energy
costs arround 100$ to make
and few are using it

we can generate power..by driving the magnet in the coil
with other magnets..instead of coal or gas[both of which make greenhouse gasses]..both release methane in getting them out of the ground

the joecell just needs 4 stainless steel cylenders
and the generators just need a few big magnets

but then energy would be free
then we wouldnt be 'consuming'[ie needing to by petrol or even coal gas]..and guess what..they love the income

your link seems to be
about replicating what algie allready does
only doing it 'artificially'..meaning we will be eating some form of gmo like algie...when others have allready found algies that would do the job..[on captured c02]

mate its all about money
even if we got free energy today
the price will still go up..cause people love income

its the love of income
that keeps free energy from us

im angry that all these 'new' ideas
allways want govt funds

giving the big business the income from carbon trading
only means they get more income...

buy it [carbon crdit]..cheap in nz..or europe
with american dollars [amero's]
then trade it on the market...
to the 500 held hostage

[we are subsidising at 23 bucks [au$]..per 'ton']

the industrial revolution only happend cause of cheap energy
once that is gone..no more income..except for those 'clever people'..getting govt cash..[coorperate welfare]

Belly I'm sure private industry, as distinct from publicly funded institutions, will come up with a number of sources of energy , provided idiots like Obama, & Gillard have not caused too much destruction of the industry that must do it.

Of course it's probable that Asia will drive future development, as the west continues to loose it's way.

I wonder who inserted all the hype in the article? It certainly avoids anything other than a good reason for a holiday on Lord Howe.
It really does read like an application for funding, than an announcement of a break threw.

I did not see any discussion of the area required to collect the sunlight. If you think the vegetation currently doing the job, it does take quite a bit of space.

I do wish the media was smart enough to differentiate between love-ins & actual announcements of something.

Yes, Belly there have been quite a number of articles on those techniques.
On the hydrogen producing one it fell over to some extent by
the energy needed to compress the hydrogen for storage.

Most of these suddenly appearing systems fail either because of the
very large area ponds needed or other difficulties in scaling them up.
Still they are working on it and that is a good thing.

I see that the latest deviation to the fashionable is a high speed
train, Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra (couldn't miss that) and Melbourne.
Will they never learn ?

It is not like building a normal railway it is really a line of sight
project. That means massive earth works.
It is a good project for the 1990s, but it is now too late.
There will be no way to finance such a project since the end of growth.
It might have just been possible to build some of it if they had
used the funds devoted to the NBN. However if I remember correctly
the cost was in the 100s of billions.
They would be much better off duplicating, some triplicating and
electricfying all main lines. We will need them to get our food
moved around the country.
Remember the current lines were built when earthworks was done with
horses and scoops. So the tracks went around hills instead of how it
would be done now with cuttings etc. We would get more bang for our
buck by straightening out the present track through hills while
duplicating the line. The speed increase would be dramatic.

No, projects like that have gone for good.
Why the even discuss it is strange, have they not heard of the US &
Europe going broke ?
We will probably be next.

OUG you know more about this than I do, but if it is so my roof should be covered with them, power is my greatest need.
Bazz I think it is known you have little faith in the future without Petroleum.
When you and I are silent key [ a team us old fuddy duddy ham radio operators use for dead]
The same youthful drive that saw our hobby develop radio TV coast watchers of ww2 even satelights will exist.
And as Hasbeen says we will develop one day, maybe ten new ideas.
Yes hasbeen but such is the very nature of media, to invent story's but those who attend are not floor sweepers.
I see a black and a White here, other shades no doubt exist.
Black are the self interested owners of todays fuels/technology's.
Hopefully the fate of new fuels and tec is in the hands of private enterprise too, self interest drives best.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for this thread and the link you provided.
The article is right on topic. Nobody denies that
the planet has a finite amount of resources or
that it can tolerate only a limited amount of
pollution. If world population continues to grow
rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the
world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues
at an increasing rate - and all these things happen -
where is human society headed? Your link provides
some food for thought.

The global economic impact of an alternative energy source would be devastating.

Considering that the US dollar gets ALL its value from maintaining it's Petrodollar Status, their economy would collapse very quickly indeed. Socially, imagine a nation of people unemployed and hungry for the first time since the Depression but also armed to the teeth.

If there are still a billion barrels of oil left underground, at $100 per barrel, then that's 100 billion reasons that nobody wants to change things.

That also applies to coal.

Thanks Lexi almost every one will know more about this than me.
We have some very bright and informed posters.
In the past I have followed every link such post and links that leads to.
I truly feel we will find answers, but my understanding of self interest is strong.
I sorry if it offends anyone, truly think the messy debate on climate change is in part started and funded, on both sides, by self interest.
Any one know what world war two Germany made it fuel out of?
If war came about sad but true we would develop a fuel within weeks.
I think if this or anything produced a fuel that cost less governments and profiteers would still charge us too much.
But if we halved fuel tax , deep hole in the budget, but the economy would boom.

Ah the old tech that imitates plants through the use of a catalyst.

How wonderful it hasn't progressed past creating minute portions of H2 and O efficiently in over a decade.

This is just another article trying to sway peoples opinion on alternative energies which by the way don't work in the real world!

There's another one were a young chap from MIT I think, was working on converting water directly from sunshine into H2 and O using parabolic collectors and a catalyst made up of palladium.

The problem with all these techs is the A: The catalysts(Extremely expensive energy and money wise to produce) B: The energy required to store both gasses far outweighs the energy they produce.

These techs are not new, man has been trying to efficiently convert water and sunshine to H2 and O for over a hundred years and we're no closer so I wouldn't be holding my breath!

There's a reason why PV cell tech is so popular, because it's the cheapest, easiest way to convert solar energy to electricity otherwise these techs would already be rompin' it in!

Belly commented;
Bazz I think it is known you have little faith in the future without Petroleum.

Not quite true, you see the problem is with all the suggested
alternative fuels is that they are replacing a fuel that has very
high energy content.
That together with a poorer Energy Return on Energy invested (ERoEI)
makes them, in comparison very poor substitutes.
Because of that very much larger quantities of the alternatives have
to be produced to get the same result.

Rache said;
The global economic impact of an alternative energy source would be devastating.

Did you mean that it would have adverse affects ?
If so and it could replace 18 Million barrels a day in the US at near
that same cost it would be a bonanza, as the US could save
9 Million x $95 a day in foreign exchange and solve most of
their debt problem.
Unfortunately there is no suggested alternative energy that is cheaper.
There is still about the same amount underground as we have used
since 1900, but the increasing cost of discovery and development is
ruling out most of it.

Belly asked;
Any one know what world war two Germany made it fuel out of?
Yes, coal using a process called Fischer-Tropsch and this process is
used in Sth Africa by SASOL. I don't know how more expensive it is
or indeed if it is more expensive these days.

So to sum up, alternative systems if they are implemented will result
in a reduction of our disposable income because energy will cost more.
As I said earlier, we have the option to use our coal and gas while
we work like mad to find an alternative that will not send us broke
using it.

Already the 200% price increase in oil since 2000 has deprived us of
the means to grow our economies. From around 2003 we have run mad on
borrowed money by governments and individuals and it has now caught
up with us.

Lexi said;
- and all these things happen - where is human society headed?

That is why we should use what resources to which we currently have
access to our best advantage as the cost of the transition is going
to be very great.
That is why I have advocated that we stop export of coal and gas as
we have no idea how long it will take to find viable alternatives.
If we run out of of energy before we find an alternative we will go
back to the 17th century very fast.
That will not worry most of us but it will be so for our grandchildren.
The amount of cheap energy we can produce will set the world population level.
More energy, more food, more population.

Which leads me to our current problem, which is the poor growth we are
seeing around the world except in Chindia. Until the politicians and
economists realise that geology and physics do not obey the laws of
economics we will continue to bungle our way along.
Since the start of the modern industrial age growth has been the
result of cheap energy. It has enabled everything we know about our
civilisation but the increasing cost of energy is reducing our GDP.
Our excess of GDP over costs has been used to pay back loans and pay
the interest on those loans and the loans enabled growth.
The reduction of that excess of GDP because of increased energy costs
was never recognised by economists so they thought growth could go on forever.
That is why all governments are worrying about poor growth.
No increase in energy, no growth, it really is as simple as that !

Ah Belly puts his thunking cap on to address “peak oil” and finds it not scary at all

Wonderful, I am so pleased.

I don’t worry either because I agree with hasbeen

Any advancement in technologies which alleviate fossil fuel reliance will be the product of one persons

idea

Diligence and Faith to see it through to benefitting consumers

Preparedness to take the risk

Motivated by commercial reward

(in short the libertarian capitalist way)

Of course, It will never be achieved by

Government

Throwing taxes (be they sourced from income, GST, capital gains, stamp & other duties or carbon theory)

And paying their "socialist mate" bureaucrats who fill the hallowed halls of Canberra

To “pick rank outside Winners” ready for the next election

(in short – the socialist way)

Whatever the politics, the reality will be the same

Depleting natural resources

Now I saw this vile video thrown up by Greenpeace featuring some scruffy kid whining on about how things were going to be tough in the future

Then I thought…

You ungrateful little sock-puppet for watermelons

Two hundred years ago the oceans were plentiful but

He stood a much better chance of being still born or dead from diphtheria or to lose his life getting stuck up a narrow chimney with his brush.

And before that… when the earth was new…

A 30% chance of death below school age (if they had schools) either by being fed as a sacrifice to or just caught by a dinosaur

A pox on greenpeace and all the other luddites and levelers who just cannot deal with the realities of life and expect government levying additional taxes to “fix the problem”

Col know you are not my number one poster.
And that I now hold the view the world has too many who like you have closed minds.
But much of what you said, well some, is true.
Stunning!
As a kid, not unlike the snotty nosed brat you describe, fuel cost about 16 cents in todays money,1 shilling and 6 penths a gallon.
Diesel on coming was only 11 pence!
It had been intended that it not petrol would run cars, still could,and as for power Bazz it can be gained.
Me Socialistic grub that I am,think too private Enterprise or our Australian CSIRO an excellent driver of change despite very form of government trying to kill it will find answers.
In our youth Bazz Col me we still had kero fridges lamps trams and steam trains.
Have faith in this generation and the next only war or financial collapse, we have not learned to change that, can stop us/them.

Belly, I would have liked to respond to your last post but it was largely unintelligible

I have to admit to limited abilities

Nature confined my language skills exclusively to English.

Please indulge me just this once... try writing with an English translation or at least a precis (you know, deleting the ad hominines and attempts at smartness) as a footnote

AH! Col! so sorry, not worth the effort replying to you.
A thread like this, about a promising chance of a future far better, just maybe the answer to energy and fuels, food too.
Can get bogged down in silliness, we should understand ,humanity is like that.
I do not know if this is the answer,have no intention of bolting my self on top the greens wheel barrow.
Fact is every party is a conservationist one, some more than others.
If we consider the lies science tells us, so Germany can take over the world/the very rich can get even richer, on the carbon tax.
We then must look at the rest of the deeds of these lying Beggars!
Are the planets real or painted on the sky.
Is sex really the way kids come, trust no one those Scientists lie.

And our Col? wounder? maybe it is rude of me? if Col slandered the Conservatives, in the heavy handed way he does us SOCIALIST LEFTY well no.
Yes my English nonfreind I write strangely, but bet bloke I am about ten points higher up the IQ ladder than you.

Dear Belly,

Logically thinking when the most technologically advanced societies
are now digging even deeper into the planetary environment for the
raw materials and energy they need to fuel their economic development,
and as their populations grow, it's only natural that sooner or later
their expanding demand will exceedthe planet's finite resources.

Indeed, if the current patterns
of extraction are continued
most of the known resources will be exhausted
fairly soon, in many cases
within a century. New resources will no doubt be found, but the rate
of discovery of new deposits is dropping off rapidly.
In some cases, shortages can be met
by resorting to lower-grade deposits
that were considered too expensive to exploit in the past.
In other cases a
technological fix comes to the rescue in the form of synthetic
substitutes, such as already has happened with plastic for wood or
carbon fiber for steel. As demand grows in the future, however, some
shortages and resulting price increases are inevitable.

In the case of vital commodities, the results could be economic
dislocation. For example, rises in the price of oil in the early 1970s
when gasoline rose at an incredible price - shocked the world economy.
In the inflation slump that followed, some 45 million workers in the
industrialised countries lost their jobs.
Oil is a non-renewable resource
which will inevitably be exhausted one day.

One resource that is very much in short supply everywhere is fresh water.
Anyway, we have no choice but to look towards
relying on technological innovations to solve problems for our future, especially
if we continue on our current path of population growth and consumption.
So as I stated previously - Thank You for this thread -
and for your attempts to try to have a reasoned intelligent discussion.

Thank-Q lexi

Couldn't of expressed it better myself.

"Logically thinking when the most technologically advanced societies
are now digging even deeper into the planetary environment for the
raw materials and energy they need to fuel their economic development,
and as their populations grow, it's only natural that sooner or later
their expanding demand will exceed-the planet's finite resources."

Now we will put space exploration on hold for just a moment ( since MARS is back in the lime-light with its possible saltwater on the cards.....and any geologist knows what this means.

Future could be wonderful, if and only if...when we talk contradictions that our effects/populations see the never-ending-story that seems to be not in our grasps of our currant IQ.

Birth control on a global scale has and is the only commonsensical answer.

I can put endless links on how the human condition has gotten out of control.

All the warning signs are here.

Good luck.

LEAP

Dear QL,

The prospect of the possibility of water
on Mars is a rather exciting concept.
Who knows where that may lead?

It is an old cliche that goes, the stone age did not end because they ran out of stones, the bronze age did not end because, etc.

At one time the British admiralty became quite worried that England was running out of the oak trees to build the ships of the line. What do you think Admiral Lord Horitio Nelson would have thought of you, had you told him the Royal Navy would sail in ships, made of steel, with no sails, that sailed under water. He'd have had you locked up.

As a young man I was involved in developing techniques to mold things as large as a telephone out of thermo plastics. Now they mold a 1/3Rd of a car. Just in passing, I'm not too sure that was any improvement.

So don't worry, we will develop new materials, & production techniques, for products we can't even dream of now. The future will be wonderful, if we just stop shooting ourselves in the foot, & we get rid of that awful woman.

Oh hasbeen, I love your Clearasil ban-aided quick fixes, however like any border line answer, its just a bit late for SORRY we didn't see coming. But your right, the future could be just that wonderful place.

LEAP

Hasbeen you could be right, if we get rid of Gillard the boats will stop coming.
Stock exchange will rise 1.000 points, America and Europe will find enough Gold to pay their debts.
We can stop looking for new fuels and energy the sky will rain milk and Honey.
Naughty Girl Julia!

Hay quantum, the problem is that the warmers saw us coming, & decided to have a lend of us. Pity our pollys are either so dumb, or so ravenous for our cash, that they went along.

Belly, have a laugh mate, it will all be the same in 1000 years, provided they don't preserve any films of that dreadful woman.

Mate the US has all the gold, [black gold], they need to get out of trouble, just that fool Obama won't let them drill for it.

The stock exchange probably would actually rise a lot, although perhaps not a 1000 points, We don't actually need an new fuel, we have enough for quite a while, at least a centuary, but I'm sure there are manny working on something better. What we need, is to ignore all the carpetbaggers, claiming any of the current substitutes are of any use.

God I hope it doesn't rain milk & honey, can you imagine how sticky we'd all be, & it would make the dust stick to my car.

I don't know if she's naughty, that might be fun, & that's one thing she aint.

Oh Belly, I forgot the boats.

Mate, you'd better believe, the next government, of any colour, will do one thing. Even if they get nothing else right, they will stop the bl00dy boats.

Dear Hasbeen,

At least "that awful woman" (as you put it) is trying to get things
done and is taking responsibility for the consequences of her
decisions. A decision has been made to stop the boats - to deter
the people smugglers - and she's sticking to it - no matter
what the criticism is from the Opposition. Who by the way placed
children behind barbed wire for years (something Mr Hockey chooses
to forget when he talks about the "evils" of sending children back).
It's all very well to criticise - but why should anyone vote for you
when you're not offering anything better - and are simply stirring.

I have made a number of comments on the current energy, finance and
political scene of recent times.
Here is a link to two US experts in this field.
One of their discussion points is on ERoEI that I mentioned previously.
It is of course US orientated but then this is a real international problem.

http://www.businessinsider.com/were-not-facing-a-shortage-of-energy-but-a-longage-of-expectations-2011-8

or

http://tinyurl.com/3n8ezg3

If you are wondering whats going on in the world finance this makes
a good starting place.
The EIA they mention is the Energy Information Authority of the
US Government Energy Dept.
The IEA they mention is the International Energy Authority set up by
the OECD countries to advise governments on the energy situation.
Australia is an OECD country, so I wonder why our government does not
listen to the IEA ?
Their World Energy Outlook 2010 stated that crude oil peaked in 2006.
I recommend you set aside some time to read this link.

As you are aware I first expressed the view I did not trust Julia Gillard here in my first post after she took over.
In that post I said she would govern well, and that I thought she would fall the same way Rudd did, I still think that she will fall but was wrong in the other.
She is on a high wire doing a balancing act Abbott would have to do if in power.
Both them and us, are untrained for this.
Time will prove an assertion I state now, Rupert Murdock's Media is and has played a roll, unclean and unfair, in her down fall in the polls.
But few, very very few, will look, yet, truly look, at the plans others have.
Tony Abbott, unless something earth shattering, like the truth behind press manipulation comes sooner, she will fall.
We will live then under Abbott,and rest assured it will be bad government with bad policy's but that is a fact.
If Gillard, she is you know not a leader,was a bloke? she would be ten points higher in polling.
Some, too many, dislike her only for being female.
I dislike what is in her heart and have watched her for a very long time, she still! fails to understand,far too many Australians believe the Abbott fairy tale.

Dear Belly,

The future could be wonderful!

I gave this quote on another thread but I think
it's also appropriate here. As Tony Windsor
said about the carbon tax hysteria:

"There should be substantive debates on substantive
issues, not just slogans and one-liners and abuse
on the airwaves. If we construe this debate
narrowly in terms of fuel prices and electricity
bills, rather than in ways we may adjust our
patterns of consumption we will miss an opportunity to
adjust to a low carbon-future.

We will be trapped in an absolete and uncompetitive
economy and we will still be paying high prices for
fuel and electricity."

Sorry Lexi, I have not seen any evidence that the awful woman is doing anything except fight tooth & nail, to keep her pajamas under a pillow in The Lodge. Otherwise everything she has done has been to buy the vote of some of the ratbags, the same thing really.

I do agree with you about some of the opposition statements. These people have to remember what they are likely to have to do in a couple of years, or less. Raining crocodile tears about something they would do themselves, is not a good look.

From me, they would get more brownie points, if they they were lavish in their praise, any time the awful lady got something right. After all, it's not like they would have to do it very often.