The barbarians ban the lightbulb

[Wolf DeVoon]

Hey, what's a respectable person doing on this thread?! Please pass the rope.

I agree about government. Drill offshore California and the Great Lakes.

W.

[tjohnson]

It seems to me that most posters here are allowing their philosophical/political beliefs to sway their judgment in this matter. Just because you have chosen the name 'objectivism' does not assure objectivity. I really think many do not understand the difference between world reserves and world production.

[tjohnson]

OK, here's what Don Paul, chief technology officer for Chevron, says

Whether you believe oil is nearing its peak, as Simmons does, or decades away from it, like Yergin, Paul says it is important to consider alternative sources of energy. He says new fuels will be needed to supplement oil, even if they are not needed to replace it.

"Energy demands in the world are not going to go down," Paul says. "The way I'd put it, we're going to need every molecule and every electron."

I don't think there can be any doubt that conservation is going to be an increasingly important issue.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5374852

[Brant Gaede]

It seems to me that most posters here are allowing their philosophical/political beliefs to sway their judgment in this matter. Just because you have chosen the name 'objectivism' does not assure objectivity. I really think many do not understand the difference between world reserves and world production.

Ah, the non-objective philosophy of Objectivism. No wonder we lack objectivity. Seriously, GS, I get the impression you aren't clear on supply-demand in a free economy. Your thesis holds the most water when politics, home and world-wide, are factored into it. In 1972 I saw the need for much more nuclear power and saw this energy grind down/prices up play out over time. Now we are having oil wars in the Middle East trying to secure supplies while our money spent on oil enriches unproductive slugs who fly around in $200 million 747s dropping dollars on Mosques preaching jihad.

--Brant

[sjw]

It seems to me that most posters here are allowing their philosophical/political beliefs to sway their judgment in this matter.

A lot of things seem a certain way to you that aren't in fact that way.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

A lot of things seem a certain way to you that aren't in fact that way.

Shayne

Shayne, I doubt very much you could give me a satisfactory explanation of what you mean by the term 'fact'.

[tjohnson]

Seriously, GS, I get the impression you aren't clear on supply-demand in a free economy. Your thesis holds the most water when politics, home and world-wide, are factored into it. In 1972 I saw the need for much more nuclear power and saw this energy grind down/prices up play out over time. Now we are having oil wars in the Middle East trying to secure supplies while our money spent on oil enriches unproductive slugs who fly around in $200 million 747s dropping dollars on Mosques preaching jihad.

--Brant

I assume your comments about politics refer to this notion;

These are temporary fixes, analysts say, for an oil shortage which, like the 1973 oil crisis, is triggered more by politics and economics than a natural paucity of global reserves or an inability to extract and produce new oil.

The 1973 bottleneck was the result of Middle Eastern oil-producing nations cutting off oil shipments to Western countries that supported Israel in its war against Egypt and Syria.

Current escalating oil prices are driven by fears of Iran's developing nuclear program and the ongoing war in Iraq, as well as worries over the political stability of places such as the Middle East and Nigeria and what some see as possible price-gouging by oil companies.

But this view refers to what is happening independent of politics;

But many scientists warn that there will come a day when rising oil prices will not be due to political or economic pressures, but because a natural peak in global oil production will have been reached.

Once we reach this tipping point, known as "Hubbert's Peak," also known as "peak oil," global oil production will begin an irreversible decline and less oil will be available with every passing year, scientists say.

Energy experts no longer debate about whether Hubbert's peak will occur, but when.

On this point, estimates vary wildly. Kenneth Deffeyes, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, believes it has already happened — in late 2005. Others figure we still have another 20-30 years.

There will be a peak in conventional oil production, politics or no politics. It's true there are unconventional sources of oil but the viability of these remains to be seen. So, I take it you are a gambling man? You prefer to use it as fast as possible and hope the new technology will be there when the time comes? I would rather be more proactive.

[sjw]

Shayne, I doubt very much you could give me a satisfactory explanation of what you mean by the term 'fact'.

Fortunately, your mind isn't the standard of truth in the universe.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

There will be a peak in conventional oil production, politics or no politics. It's true there are unconventional sources of oil but the viability of these remains to be seen. So, I take it you are a gambling man? You prefer to use it as fast as possible and hope the new technology will be there when the time comes? I would rather be more proactive.

You are mistaking me for a politician who thinks the solution is more government involvement in energy markets. For me being "proactive" means more freedom in energy markets from top to bottom. People can buy and use what they can afford without rationing or nutso lip service to "conservation." Conservation is determined by market pricing.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

You are mistaking me for a politician who thinks the solution is more government involvement in energy markets. For me being "proactive" means more freedom in energy markets from top to bottom. People can buy and use what they can afford without rationing or nutso lip service to "conservation." Conservation is determined by market pricing.

--Brant

If there was a grass roots movement towards conservation there would be less "government involvement in energy markets". The way I see it If people were more interested in conservation it wouldn't be such an issue. What ever happened to that adage "waste not want not"?

Edited April 11, 2008 by general semanticist

[tjohnson]

Shayne, I doubt very much you could give me a satisfactory explanation of what you mean by the term 'fact'.

Fortunately, your mind isn't the standard of truth in the universe.

Shayne

You can say that again!

[jordanz]

It seems to me that most posters here are allowing their philosophical/political beliefs to sway their judgment in this matter. Just because you have chosen the name 'objectivism' does not assure objectivity. I really think many do not understand the difference between world reserves and world production.

Pot calls kettle black. - news at 11

[sjw]

Pot calls kettle black. - news at 11

His sig says it all: "Always' and 'Never' are two words you should always remember never to use. :-)"

Shayne

[tjohnson]

You are mistaking me for a politician who thinks the solution is more government involvement in energy markets. For me being "proactive" means more freedom in energy markets from top to bottom. People can buy and use what they can afford without rationing or nutso lip service to "conservation." Conservation is determined by market pricing.

--Brant

So Brant, in a perfect world, how would you expect to see the energy market play out, ie. if there was no government interference in it? Would you expect this "peak oil" situation would not exist in such a world?

[Brant Gaede]

You are mistaking me for a politician who thinks the solution is more government involvement in energy markets. For me being "proactive" means more freedom in energy markets from top to bottom. People can buy and use what they can afford without rationing or nutso lip service to "conservation." Conservation is determined by market pricing.

--Brant

So Brant, in a perfect world, how would you expect to see the energy market play out, ie. if there was no government interference in it? Would you expect this "peak oil" situation would not exist in such a world?

I am not in the energy business. I think energy would be cheaper over time for consumers generally. Most things are, but if not look for government interference as in education and medicine.

I can say that for the production of electricity hydro is about maxed out, oil is too expensive period, natural gas is borderline, there is a lot of coal in America, nuclear can expand from 20 to 50 percent but it would probably be unwise to exceed that figure because there is safety in diversification, wind power is too capital intensive and irregular, solar is limited by the amount of sunlight that can hit a square meter of earth and it is also too capital intensive except for special applications.

My friend Petr Beckmann published "Access to Energy" for many years. When he died in 1993 Arthur Robinson took it over and changed the emphasis away from energy. Another physicist started his own publication on energy, but while the information appeared to be excellent I couldn't take the strident voice which was much worse than Beckmann's and Beckmann took no prisoners. I still subscribe to AtE, which I consider an invaluable publication for its scientific focus on current events, science, home-schooling and phlegmatic style. Dr. Robinson used to work with Linus Pauling, but when the data showed vitamin C accelerated cancer growth Pauling destroyed the research and tried to destroy Dr. Robinson. He did not succeed. Pauling assumed Robinson could not afford a lawsuit, but Robinson and his wife devised a computer program to successfully trade in futures' markets and beat Pauling whose institute had to pay Robinson for damages.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I remember Dr Beckmann fondly, one of those saints who helped me when I was out on a limb. I liked your summary of energy supplies, Brant. I agree in the main, but I want to add a few insider comments about oil. The $5 trillion or so that's been handed to dictators and politburos was pretty dopey, so say we all. That's why Cheney proposed to take over Iraq, then Iran if necessary. Didn't work out as planned, but easy to see why it made sense. Domestic oil production is finished except for dinky little plays that are meaningless to the integrated majors. California and the Great Lakes are proven undeveloped, but politically impossible. Deep water Gulf of Mexico mostly gas, not oil. Mexico and Venezuela are nearly kaput, partly incompetence and partly geology. So, like Simmonds explained, it's decline of Saudi-Kuwait that matters most. Decline has already set in, and when a pressurized field goes down, it's a drop to zero, not a nice curve or anything orderly. Drilling new wells in Saudi-Kuwait is no answer, although maybe there's a dinky little lump of pay in contested waters offshore. Maybe there's a new field or two offshore Greenland. Maybe offshore Burma and Vietnam. Loaded with political risk. Who's got money to throw away?

Consequently, the business strategy at the majors works out like this: 1. We know for a fact that our booked reserves are wrong. 2. The Russians screwed us and we're not going back. 3. None of the other greenfields are worth it, not even Libya. 4. Let's do a stock buyback.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[syrakusos]

Let's go back to the differences between incandescent and fluorescent lights. The former produce a wider range of frequences closer to natural light. Anti-capitalists who complained about the white collar workplace condemned fluorescents for being so far from natural light.

The State Science Institute at Berkeley has some facts:

Myth: When my appliance is turned off, it’s off.

Fact: We’ve found that most devices continue to consume power when they’re switched off, sometimes as much power as when they’re on! A surprisingly large number of electrical products -- from air conditioners to VCRs -- cannot be switched completely off without unplugging the device. These products draw power 24 hours a day, often without the knowledge of the consumer. We call this power consumption "standby power."

Myth: Fluorescent lighting is unhealthy.

Fact: Fluorescent lighting has changed dramatically in the last few years. Today’s fluorescents have greatly improved color quality. And the annoying flicker and hum has been eliminated from fluorescents that use electronic ballasts. Of course, fluorescents are more efficient than standard incandescent lighting. Because they require less electricity, fluorescents generate less power plant pollution, emissions which have many known health effects. Flourescent lights also contain small amounts of mercury, and should be disposed of properly. However, even more mercury releases are avoided thanks to reduced use of the mercury-containing fossil fuels used to generate electricity. If it’s been awhile since you tried fluorescent lights, you might give them another chance.

On the other hand...

New Science Sheds Light on Immune Deficienciesby Ginger Julian

What do 20/20, Oprah Winfrey, the Wall Street Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Reader's Digest, and Prevention Magazine have in common? They are all reporting on the dramatic reduction of seasonal depression in people who have used full-spectmm light therapy

[...]

Sadly, it is also a fact that the majority of Americans spend their working time indoors, in isolation from the sun they are now warned away from, and under distorted spectrum cool-white fluorescent light. These lights are not only known to cause eye strain, fatigue, headaches, increased absenteeism, and decreased productivity, but they also emit a steady dose of radiation.

We have three different kinds of fluorescent lamps in the kitchen -- this is not our doing: we're renting -- and yet every incandescent fixture has the same base. I could replace any 100 watt or any 3-way with an appliance bulb. So, which fixtures will these fluorescents fit and which will someone have to replace in 2010?

[Brant Gaede]

Let's get back to the moral issues. If I want incandescent and hate flourescent I get to chose or I am fucked by the state.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Let's get back to the moral issues. If I want incandescent and hate flourescent I get to chose or I am fucked by the state.

--Brant

I think the difference (one anyway ) between you and me Brant is that if the "state" forces an issue on me that I agree with then I don't mind - it's when they do it and I think it's wrong that it bothers me. I have a feeling you think it's wrong to have anything forced upon you, whether you agree or not. Is that correct?

[Brant Gaede]

Let's get back to the moral issues. If I want incandescent and hate flourescent I get to chose or I am fucked by the state.

--Brant

I think the difference (one anyway ) between you and me Brant is that if the "state" forces an issue on me that I agree with then I don't mind - it's when they do it and I think it's wrong that it bothers me. I have a feeling you think it's wrong to have anything forced upon you, whether you agree or not. Is that correct?

Pretty much. If the state forces something on you you agree with you must recognize it will soon enough do something to you you don't agree with but it has previously been empowered by your sanction. Especially you have been dis-empowered because you neutered yourself in the first place.

Four years ago I was investigated by Adult Protective Services because my Mother's bank flagged me. The bank manager that did that subsequently disappeared--I don't know why--but it may have had something to do with the fact Mom is a "Premier" customer of the bank with multiple accounts and a substantial trust fund managed by the bank. Some people think a few thousand dollars is a lot of money. So, this state employee suddenly appears at our house just as I was going to take Mom to her doctor and I literally ran her off the property--I was yelling at her--after giving her the name and phone number of our lawyer and letting her know about something called Power of Attorney. A few days later this woman called me up and meakly informed me that she had found nothing wrong and was closing her investigation. When you consider that she had been mucking around in my Mother's bank accounts to see what she could see I had felt more than a little violated. That my Mother had other accounts in other banks was not information I shared with that probably nice lady I still think is a Bitch! I've spent three decades putting people in their place who somehow think they have authority over me by virtue of who they are, including my Father's surgeon and one of his nurses, people who dress up in white coats, government workers and and sundry other types. These things don't happen very often, but I don't take shit from anybody.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Interesting. I've never heard of such an agency - Adult Protective Services. So your mother's name is on some list that is monitored by the bank for suspicious activity because you have POA or what?

[Brant Gaede]

Interesting. I've never heard of such an agency - Adult Protective Services. So your mother's name is on some list that is monitored by the bank for suspicious activity because you have POA or what?

No, the bank is doing no monitoring. I merely cashed a check for $3000 because the next day my Mother was going to have an operation for a broken hip that might have killed her and I wanted the money on hand just in case. If I had merely made a deposit in my own bank account the check may not have cleared before she died (she's still with us) possibly leading to complications I didn't even want to think about at the time. The bank manager I dealt with at her branch must have flagged me. I've since moved more cash out of her account for various reasons with no problems. Maybe one reason for that is I since took the legal documents to the bank to show I have POA in all respects over her person. If I go to the bank now it's just the same as if I were her as far as the bank is concerned. Since I am the only heir to her estate and she can't possibly out live her money, the only way I can financially abuse her is NOT to spend money on her. People do that all the time. That's what happened to Brooke Astor.

--Brant

Edited April 12, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

Let's go back to the differences between incandescent and fluorescent lights. The former produce a wider range of frequences closer to natural light. Anti-capitalists who complained about the white collar workplace condemned fluorescents for being so far from natural light.

It hasn't been my experience that incandescent lighting produces a wider range of frequencies closer to natural light. In fact, I primarily paint using a variety of fluorescent tubes ranging in color-temperatures from 5000K to 5600K to achieve a natural white balance, and I've been using the same setup for decades.

If I use normal daylight transparency or negative film to shoot a photo of a work of art lit with my array of fluorescent tubes, the photo's colors will very closely match those of a photo of the same art shot in actual neutral daylight. I have not yet found an incandescent bulb which delivers the same results. In order to neutralize the strong yellow-orange of incandescent bulbs, blue filters or tungsten film must be used. In my experience, fluorescent lighting has always been closer than incandescent lighting to daylight.

J

Edited April 12, 2008 by Jonathan

[Judith]

If I use normal daylight transparency or negative film to shoot a photo of a work of art lit with my array of fluorescent tubes, the photo's colors will very closely match those of a photo of the same art shot in actual neutral daylight. I have not yet found an incandescent bulb which delivers the same results. In order to neutralize the strong yellow-orange of incandescent bulbs, blue filters or tungsten film must be used. In my experience, fluorescent lighting has always been closer than incandescent lighting to daylight.

Does the camera have a setting for the kind of light you are using? You say you're working with film. My Canon digital does have a setting for different lights, but I don't know if the film cameras have a similar setting.

Judith

[Jonathan]

If I use normal daylight transparency or negative film to shoot a photo of a work of art lit with my array of fluorescent tubes, the photo's colors will very closely match those of a photo of the same art shot in actual neutral daylight. I have not yet found an incandescent bulb which delivers the same results. In order to neutralize the strong yellow-orange of incandescent bulbs, blue filters or tungsten film must be used. In my experience, fluorescent lighting has always been closer than incandescent lighting to daylight.

Does the camera have a setting for the kind of light you are using? You say you're working with film. My Canon digital does have a setting for different lights, but I don't know if the film cameras have a similar setting.

Judith

No, film cameras don't have settings which adjust the hue of the image being captured. With film, you get what you get. In order to compensate for differently colored lighting conditions, you'd have to physically place a colored gel over the light source or somewhere between the film and the objects being photographed.

Depending on how much manual control your digital camera allows, you could test for yourself whether certain lighting setups are "natural white" or contaminated with a color tint. Just use the same manual camera settings and no flash to shoot the same object under different lighting conditions. Shooting outdoors at noon under a slightly overcast sky (which is ideal for such tests because the light is diffused) will generally give you white lighting. Shooting indoors under cheap fluorescent tubes will give you a slightly greenish-yellow tinted image. Shooting under higher quality 5000K tubes will give you neutral results much like your outdoor shot. Incandescent bulbs will give you a very amber tone.

J