"The end of Energy Research"




Note: Emails are organized in the order received, with first received at the top.

***

With all due respect Sir, I found your post to be ridiculous!

Given the incredible energy waste in our society, to posit the notion that we'll run out of the need for energy conservation is absurd, especially considering the road we're going down. From retrofitting homes, building transmission lines, recouping energy from industrial processes, building more efficient engines (and I'm not talking about internal combustion) I just don't know where you're coming from.

Have you noticed the push toward "clean" coal, nuclear, oil shale, etc. These ENERGY WASTEFUL technologies are moving forward without any concept of cost effectiveness, energy efficiency or even a modest energy balance. For example, to develop oil share or deep pockets of natural gas, may require COAL FIRED POWERED PLANTS TO BE BUILT TO PROVIDE THE HEAT NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY. Just look at the Alberta tar sands. And you write we'll be running out of the need for energy efficiency professionals!!!

When [name withheld] was proposing to build a $1 billion dollar coal fired line at their existing [place withheld] facility, my analysis and [name withheld] INTERNAL ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT ENERGY CONSERVATION AND WIND ENERGY COULD ACHIEVE THE SAME NET ENERGY for the same price without new GHG, water consumption, toxic emissions including mercury, or waste disposal. Yet, [state withheld] taxpayers are paying the $1 billion for this fiasco and all the GHGs, pollution and waste. If there were enough energy efficiency professionals organizing and testifying to stop this WASTEFUL and POLLUTING PROJECT, we might have been able to stop it. And this is just one example.

A coherent analysis would show we're in a "waste as much energy as possible" paradigm. Given the scope of the problem, energy efficiency improvement over the past years have been modest at best (with some exceptions, including the moment(sic) toward florescent light bulbs). Consider the internal combustion engine, or fossil fuel power plants. 30-33% efficiency on a good day. Contrary to your perspective, I would argue we're barely making progress toward real energy efficiency.

I encourage you to try inspiring the next generation of energy efficiency professional with a CALL TO ACTION, not a call to retreat OR GIVE UP.

With dismay,

Carl Lehrburger
Fort Lupton, Colorado
USA

---

In the column last week, I said nothing about conservation or greenhouse gases. I was merely pointing out a thermodynamic reality which no politician or interest group can rescind. Further, young people considering a career in energy research may want to consider that this field will be contracting at some time in the future, possibly before their careers are over.

Jim

***

Hi Jim

Your article on energy consumption was thought provoking, but I think we have a long way to go to improve energy use in a couple of major areas; power generation and transport. Most brown coal fired power generation plants in southern Australia are only ~30% energy efficient due to high water content of the coal and the also the usual loss at the final condenser. The water content of our coal can be 60%, all of which must be evaporated during the combustion process. In addition, the energy lost at the final condenser goes up the cooling tower.

In transport the average internal combustion engine may be only ~ 30% energy efficient. ie: 30% reaches to the wheels. The majority of the loss is from the cooling system (radiator). Again we have a long way to go to make this more efficient. About 20 years ago car makers were dabbling with ceramic cylinders operating at high temperature but this obviously encountered major problems and went no further.

In the paper industry, by contrast we are relatively energy efficient. I remember as a junior process engineer doing an energy efficiency assessment on one of our new gas fired boilers. The result was ~ 85% (only 15% loss mostly up the stack). The really nice thing about an integrated paper mill is that after we pass the steam through a turbine, make some power, we then send the low pressure steam to the paper machine to dry the paper. Any flash steam is used to heat the air going into the dryer hood. Finally we bring back the hot condensate to the power plant for re-use. I estimate we only lose another 10% after the boiler. Pretty good compared to our mates in the power industry.

Cheers

Doug Veldman
Victoria
Australia

---

See answer above. We will probably abandon some technologies (such as the internal combustion engine) as we find others, just like we abandoned the steam engine (Flux Capacitor and Mr. Fusion, anyone?). Just because internal combustion engines are 30% efficient does not mean the other 70 percentage points are available; this may be as good as it gets which was my point. Transportation, in particular, has many losses. A clue to these come from the Nebraska Tractor Tests (http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/) way back in the 1930's. The move from steel to rubber for tractors tires greatly improved the transference of power to the ground. This is just one example.

Jim

***

Just finished reading your article and have a couple of observations:

My physics teachers show us many times that energy in equals energy out. Doesn't mean you get all out you put in as heat as energy into a boiler for instance, will come out as many sources, not all 100% efficient.

Case to point: The Amish have been touting heaters for homes, saying that they produce heat for the home and you get warm. I think that it is foolish to suggest that you get out more than you put in. The energy put into the heater, what ever form, will not come out higher than the input. Ergo; energy in equals energy out. While these heaters may be efficient, still they don't produce energy, they use it to produce the heat.

2nd case that comes to mind, years ago a company was advertising in paper trade journals to make bleached pulp without chemicals. It, too, was a farce as they told you to put the brown pulp in water, add salt, and apply electrolysis. Guess what, salt is a chemical and breaks down to sodium and chlorine when electrolysis is applied, DUH.

Tommy Surles
Pensacola, Florida
USA

---

I don't think the Amish are dong the touting, they just make the cases if you watch those ads closely.

Jim

***

Jim

Wow what a response on the paper towel vs hot air dryer issue! I think it's funny and sad that a company can advertise something as true that is false. Perhaps someone should sue.

And from your present writing on careers: The first time I saw a paper mill in 1974 I thought: Hmmm, I could work my entire career here. And when I left the mill retiring in Christmas of 2003, I thought the same thing.

Thanks for your thought generating work.

Gene Canavan
Prattville, Alabama
USA

***

Hey,

Hope this note finds everyone OK and maybe a little warmer than the last time I talked to you. We are doing better and ready for spring! We are suppose to get ice and 4-7 inches of snow tomorrow. I'm glad I have been cutting wood this week. I finally bought a new wood boiler. I figured the money I spent on it would bring more of a return than being in the bank or losing it in the stock market like I have been. Now I got to get it all hooked up, it will heat the house and the garage. Should cut the gas and electric bill significantly.

The reason for this email is I wanted to compliment you on the new picture of yourself in Nip Impressions. It is a good pic. Well, as good as can be.
I LOVE this staying at home and getting paid!

Till Later,

Chuck Thompson
Dodd's Bridge, Indiana
USA

---

Well, Chuck, your email would not normally make the cut, but you mentioned boilers. It is probably also noteworthy to note your retirement referenced in your last line was from one of those old nasty coal-fired power plants our first correspondent seems to dislike.

Jim

***

Greetings Jim!

The scissors problem is a problem of "special relativity". In the special relativity world, the scissors do not close instantaneously when you close the handle. What "happens" is that the blades of the scissors flex. Special relativity sets a theoretical upper limit to the rigidity of the scissors, so the blades bend. The point at which the blades bend propagates down the blades at some speed below the speed of light (c). You might think of this as a wave of information being sent down the blades that the scissors have been closed. Again, the wave is traveling at a speed of less than c.

By the way, the theoretical upper limit to the rigidity of the scissors is greater than the rigidity of any known real material. Thus, if the scissors were real, the wave would be even slower than the "super-rigid" imaginary pair of scissors.

Now, as you mentioned, the contact point between the two blades is not a physical object. The laws of the universe provide that no object can move faster than c. Thus, there is no fundamental reason why the contact point cannot move faster than c, IF the experiment is set up correctly. It can be done if the scissors are short enough and wide open to start. The time it will take to bring the handles closed will be more than enough time for light to travel to the tips of the blades. When the blades do come together, if they are shaped properly (curved away from each other), the contact point can indeed move faster than c.

I might add that this experiment has never been confirmed empirically!!

Thanks for getting my brain cells moving again!!

Steven J. Moore
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
USA

---

Thanks, Steve, I knew we could count on you to clarify this problem.

Jim

***

Hi Mr. Thompson,

I just wanted to thank you for your help in improving my resume.

I took into account all your feedback and the general tips you offered and I am certain that applying those were crucial in helping me get more interviews this semester, I have already got 3!

Thanks so much again,

Apoorva Sinha
Atlanta, Georgia
USA

---

You are most welcome. Write again when you have a job!

Jim

###

Have a comment? Send your email to jthompson@taii.com. Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we can use your name if we publish your letter.

A convenient shortcut: