Will our wallpaper someday help power our homes?

[Sinndel]

Tell that to the people in 3rd world countries dying of cholera and diarrhea. Tell that to the city of Atlanta, GA where the spigots ran dry last year. Tell that to the Texas Water Development Board where they are fretting about what will happen in the next 20 years when the Ogallala aquifer which prevents the desertification of Texas runs dry.

Water is running out too, and you are kidding yourself if you don't see it. It's being redistributed --just like the O2. There is roughly the same amount of water there has been for a few billion years (as is the case with O2,) but much of it isn't potable, and even more of it is salinated due to us mining the ground water faster than it can replenish itself. If you mine the ground water faster than it replenishes it winds up in the ocean.

Yes, we could in fact desalinate the water, but that's horribly inefficient and currently impossible to sustain any sizable population on top of being cost prohibitive.

You're right, it's being redistributed but it's not running out.

[joanlewiswrites]

I would differ with you on one point. (I work in IP) Independent inventors cannot hold up against a major corporation in IP litigation, so since in the US the owner of the IP is responsible to enforce any applicable patent copyright or trademark in cases of infringement by another entity (outside of media which got the laws changed to make piracy criminal in the past few years) the independent inventor either sells his patents or gets them stolen. Exxon Mobile is the largest owner of alternative energy patents in the world, and they will pull them all out when they run out of cheap to drill oil. Other companies like them do similar things.

Other than that you're spot on.

This is going to sound terrible, but I hope you're right, and I hope they don't cut it too close and kill us all. And if you are right, then after they pull these miracle technologies out of storage, we shall proceed to execute the lot of them and distribute their wealth to those most in need. Who is with me? Viva la revolution and so on and so forth.

But I don't believe the patent lock down theory, either. There are too many places in this world where patents can't be enforced. And someone, somewhere, would eventually just give that kind of technology away, rather than sell it. I know the conspiracy theory then goes something along the lines of, "People have tried that, and they all end up dead under mysterious circumstances," but I'm not buying that one, either.

If technology capable of resolving the energy crisis could be created in a basement lab on a low budget, then it would already be everywhere. And if it can't be created that way, then there's no reason for energy company execs and their shareholders to endure world wars, massive pollution, and widespread poverty that threatens them and their loved ones along with the rest of us. They could just reveal their bought and paid for tech right now and set up shop churning it out in well-funded, high tech plants. They'd make a fortune, they'd be global heroes, and it wouldn't be worthwhile trying to rip them off or argue against letting them profit from it because it isn't basement tech.

It's already possible to buy a home with solar panels and other technology that reduces or eliminates your electric bill. It's even possible to sell energy back to the power companies. So why isn't everyone doing it? Because of the cost of the initial outlay. Even with tax incentives to utilize this existing technology, right now it's too expensive. It's the same reason the world has oil sources we aren't going to be drilling for anytime soon, if ever. What we can do and what we will benefit from doing given our current technology level are two different things.

[Rich Aemry]

You're right, it's being redistributed but it's not running out.

Just like air isn't running out....It takes about a quarter-million years to put it back where it can sustain a large primate population again. So no there won't be less of it, but there will be less that we humans can consume. We usually call that potable or clean water, and that's what we're discussing; --the kind of water that keeps us alive.

[Rich Aemry]

But I don't believe the patent lock down theory, either. There are too many places in this world where patents can't be enforced. And someone, somewhere, would eventually just give that kind of technology away, rather than sell it.

I don't believe in conspiracies, I leave that to Law and Order or The X Files.

However, these technologies which are owned buy petrochemical corporations which are then not sold in order to preserve current forms of revenue are just too expensive currently to mass produce in any meaningful way. Niche markets establish mass markets though economies of scale. Without the owners of such technologies producing them there isn't really a way to make it affordable to give away.

The places patents aren't enforced also have a nasty tendency to be in the third world. Have you ever been to a third world country? People are too busy staying alive to even bother with attempting energy efficiency or things like conservation or resources. Some of those countries have started successful parks systems, but they have major poaching problems because of the need of people to eat, and wild meats may be the only available and viable meat source.

You're idea there just isn't feasible.

[joanlewiswrites]

I don't believe in conspiracies, I leave that to Law and Order or The X Files.

However, these technologies which are owned buy petrochemical corporations which are then not sold in order to preserve current forms of revenue are just too expensive currently to mass produce in any meaningful way. Niche markets establish mass markets though economies of scale. Without the owners of such technologies producing them there isn't really a way to make it affordable to give away.

The places patents aren't enforced also have a nasty tendency to be in the third world. Have you ever been to a third world country? People are too busy staying alive to even bother with attempting energy efficiency or things like conservation or resources. Some of those countries have started successful parks systems, but they have major poaching problems because of the need of people to eat, and wild meats may be the only available and viable meat source.

You're idea there just isn't feasible.

Before I accuse the world's energy execs of crimes against humanity (the deaths of tens of millions from resource scarcity, resource wars and pollution, all for the sake of profit), I need some proof, not conjecture based on isolated incidents of patent squelching (which I've no doubt does and has happened, but which are crimes against humanity on a lesser scale). Not to say that people aren't capable of crimes so widespread and heinous, because our species is capable of that and worse, for nothing more nor less than simple greed, but again, why not merely sell the technology rather than hold onto it?

If it can't be easily and cheaply invented, how likely is it to be easily utilized and maintained on a national and global scale? Storage and transmission of energy is a good chunk of the technological barrier to cheap energy, too, so the creation and maintenance of an infrastructure to support it should be profitable. The wealth these technologies would create for their patent holders should exceed the wealth expected from fossil fuel extraction over the next decade or so, unless it's something so ridiculously easy to build and maintain once discovered that anyone could do it in their basement over the weekend.

I'm going entirely in the dark from here on out, because I don't have the technical background necessary to theorize a device in between the basement magnet generator that actually works and a complicated project such as ocean turbines that will be easy for their creators to profit from. As a shot in complete darkness, let us say that rare earth magnets could greatly reduce our fossil fuel needs. The vast majority of these rare earth resources are in China. Let us say that the United States would far rather go to war in the Middle East and elsewhere for oil rather than depend on China for the building of its energy infrastructure (even if that meant going to war eventually with China, not exactly a good trade off).

Even so, Chinese scientists would certainly prefer to get their energy from those rare earths, so how long would it be before their government funded the necessary research and produced the device? It would have already happened, patents would be cheerfully ignored, especially since, a few years ago, the US government did solemnly warn China that it needs to come up with alternative energy sources and technology. Why would the US, so tied into the world's largest energy corporations, tell China's government to pursue alternative energy if corporations entwined with the US already possess the knowledge to create it? Much better to have a technology to sell back to China to pay off our debt and delay the inevitable patent theft while the money rolls in.

Both the words and actions of the energy companies and the governments funding the current resource wars only makes sense in the context of limited resources with no alternatives on the horizon. Either that, or our species is completely psychotic and will probably destroy itself with the technology we already have on hand.

[xtorma]

Oil is a huge part of the world economy. to stop using it abruptly would make the last two years we have gone through look like economic paradise. It needs to be phased out slowly.

[xtorma]

I am all for solar power also , but then what do we do with all the batteries? Every energy source has waste associated with it. Natural gas burns clean , but its a hydrocarbon , and mined in the same way as oil. The only real difference is a few molecules.

fusion is our next best hope, but we are looking at quite a few years down the road.

[joanlewiswrites]

Oil is a huge part of the world economy. to stop using it abruptly would make the last two years we have gone through look like economic paradise. It needs to be phased out slowly.

That is a heck of a sweeping statement and assumption. Suppose the manufacture, today, of viable alternative energy technology will miraculously lead to its immediate implementation, which in itself is extremely unlikely. But suppose it were so for the sake of argument.

What economic problems would ensue from the immediate implementation of this technology, and for whom, and why wouldn't those problems be far more easily resolved than the problems we face with no known energy alternatives in our future?

[joanlewiswrites]

I am all for solar power also , but then what do we do with all the batteries? Every energy source has waste associated with it. Natural gas burns clean , but its a hydrocarbon , and mined in the same way as oil. The only real difference is a few molecules.

fusion is our next best hope, but we are looking at quite a few years down the road.

This is why clean water is also a consideration in the manufacture of alternative energy. It takes a lot of fresh water and energy resources to make those batteries. Never mind the disposal of them, which is another issue as well. It also takes a lot of fresh water and other resources to manufacture conventional solar panels. That is what the technology in the article addresses, it may reduce much of the cost associated with the manufacture of solar energy, if not with the storage, if the efficiency issue of the printed panels is addressed without adding too much to the resource cost of manufacture.

[Rich Aemry]

Before I accuse the world's energy execs of crimes against humanity (the deaths of tens of millions from resource scarcity, resource wars and pollution, all for the sake of profit), I need some proof, not conjecture based on isolated incidents of patent squelching (which I've no doubt does and has happened, but which are crimes against humanity on a lesser scale). Not to say that people aren't capable of crimes so widespread and heinous, because our species is capable of that and worse, for nothing more nor less than simple greed, but again, why not merely sell the technology rather than hold onto it?

Do a quick Google with alternative energy and the name of your petrochemical firm of choice and you'll see they own most of it. They legitimately own a whole lot of it, and they purchase large amounts more. I got dozens of hits for the dozens of projects Exxon Mobile is working on right now. Petroleum firms are going to invest billions into alternative energy over the next 50 years because they know we are running out, but want the higher margin petroleum in the mean time. Diversity is good business in that regard the anti-competitive nature aside. Calling it crimes against humanity is a little harsh, it's shortsighted and possibly immoral, but not exactly a human rights violation. They are violated a couple civil trade practice laws by bullying the independent inventors, but that's not the same thing at all. They'd be bullying another industry if it were threatening them too.

If it can't be easily and cheaply invented, how likely is it to be easily utilized and maintained on a national and global scale? Storage and transmission of energy is a good chunk of the technological barrier to cheap energy, too, so the creation and maintenance of an infrastructure to support it should be profitable. The wealth these technologies would create for their patent holders should exceed the wealth expected from fossil fuel extraction over the next decade or so, unless it's something so ridiculously easy to build and maintain once discovered that anyone could do it in their basement over the weekend.

Everyone seems obsessed with maintaining the grid as it currently exists for some strange reason transmitting it down the same lines from alternate sources of power. The real key is that each local region has enough energy to power itself, you just have to find the local source. Decentralize and deconstruct the grid, it's more than useless --it's wasteful.

The way to start is to first retrofit all homes with LED lighting systems, alternate decentralized HVAC systems like evaporation cooling and EROHS a few high quality batteries, solar panels and emergency diesel generators in case of catastrophic failure. If you live in the right place you can also add a windmill. Your day to day car will easily be powered of such a setup.

Currently that kind of setup generates more power than you will use if you reduce your consumption with the other technologies I showed so you can even sell that power back to the power company for use back in the grid. The downside is the setup for your house is roughly 20-25k, though you can go off-grid for around 10k and mix the grid with your existing setup reducing use by 80% for about 4k. The electric car is a bat out of hell, and so it's 50k, but the same company will have a 25k model out sometime in 2013.

The key is decentralization, and on-site production. There are some building that are larger and will need grid solutions still, and those will be harder to produce and will include tidal energy and algae-based systems along with stuff we've never even heard of yet b/c we haven't invented it yet. We can also use the other buildings which overproduce power to supply power to the grids in the city center making the homeowners and commercial/industrial landowners money from selling their excess power. We as a culture keep looking for a one stop solution for this, but their isn't one petroleum was unique as far as we know, and is the only fuel on earth that we could use as the only fuel to power a global civilization. The post-petroleum world will be a mix-mash of alternate energy and hyper efficiency if it's really going to work at all.


BTW just think about how much juice a high end gaming PC sucks down, a big one under full load uses more power than a microwave. Food for though.

[xtorma]

That is a heck of a sweeping statement and assumption. Suppose the manufacture, today, of viable alternative energy technology will miraculously lead to its immediate implementation, which in itself is extremely unlikely. But suppose it were so for the sake of argument.

What economic problems would ensue from the immediate implementation of this technology, and for whom, and why wouldn't those problems be far more easily resolved than the problems we face with no known energy alternatives in our future?

There are plenty of energy alternatives for the future. why don't we use them on a large scale now?

[Rich Aemry]

fusion is our next best hope, but we are looking at quite a few years down the road.

Fusion as in thermonuclear fusion? Let the atoms stay as they are, they are in their current form for a reason. Moving subatomic particles around has a nasty tendency to cause problems, as the Japanese can tell you. 3 bombs (one a test that veered off course) and a meltdown, --damn.

Then after that where the hell do you store the stuff? Grids are old school thoughts on energy, and we really should just produce as much as possible on site.

[xtorma]

Fusion as in thermonuclear fusion? Let the atoms stay as they are, they are in their current form for a reason. Moving subatomic particles around has a nasty tendency to cause problems, as the Japanese can tell you. 3 bombs (one a test that veered off course) and a meltdown, --damn.

Then after that where the hell do you store the stuff? Grids are old school thoughts on energy, and we really should just produce as much as possible on site.

fusion not fission. All we need is a containment field stong enough to contain the reaction. It's what is barring us from making progress.

[Rich Aemry]

fusion not fission. All we need is a containment field stong enough to contain the reaction. It's what is barring us from making progress.

Fusion is still a thermonuclear reaction. The big bombs use this method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCM3MvlXks

[xtorma]

Fusion is still a thermonuclear reaction. The big bombs use this method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCM3MvlXks

but not the power plants, they use fission. a fusion power plant is not the same as a bomb.