Interview: What does the future hold for energy and lighting?

Dec 28, 2012 by Lisa Zyga feature

(Phys.org)—As 2012 comes to a close, scientists and engineers are looking forward to molding the future, starting with the work they do in their own labs. Phys.org has interviewed a few of today's leading researchers in the areas of energy and lighting, and asked them what they're most excited about in their fields in the years to come.

Dr. David Faiman, Director of Israel's National Center and Chairman of the Department of Solar Energy & Environmental Physics at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, specializes in the large-scale provision of electric power from solar energy.

Professor Nadarajah Narendran, Director of Research at the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, specializes in optics, optoelectronics, and lighting. His main area of research is solid-state lighting.

Phys.org: To reflect on the past, in your opinion, what has been the most exciting part of your field over the past 10-15 years or so – especially if this is something that most people would not have predicted to be exciting 10-15 years ago?

Narendran: Semiconductor light sources displacing traditional incandescent and gas discharge light sources in lighting applications.

Faiman: First, that concentrator photovoltaics is capable of being cost-competitive with fossil fuel, in sunny parts of the world. Second, that solar and wind power could be as "cheap" as hospitals, schools and roads, if they were all paid for with our taxes.

Phys.org: What do you predict will be one or some of the most exciting discoveries or advances in your field in the next 10-15 years?

Narendran: Solid-state light sources catering to the dynamic lighting needs of people with very little energy use.

Faiman: I don't make predictions. But the most important area for research is electrical storage – in order to enable the intermittent output from solar and wind generators to be readily available for the needs of the electricity grid.

Phys.org: Where do you see personal electronics going in the next 10-20 years? What kinds of devices might we have, and how will we interact with them?

Narendran: Personal electronics (like smart phones) interacting and controlling appliances within and remote from the space one occupies.

Phys.org: Which alternative energy generation technology (such as solar, concentrated solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) do you think will grow the most in the next 10 or 20 years? Why?

Faiman: I don't make predictions. Generally, they all need to grow. In fact, their respective growth rates will depend upon the whim of politicians, followed by VCs.

Phys.org: Do you think one of these alternative technologies will eventually become dominant to the same extent that oil, coal, and gas are now? Why or why not?

Faiman: Probably, ONLY if the oil, coal, gas industry lets it happen, or if some powerful and independent government (e.g., that of China) makes it happen.

Phys.org: Do you think we will ever become independent of oil, coal, and/or gas? Why or why not?

Faiman: Technically we could. But whether we will depends on a host of political considerations.

Phys.org: Twenty years from now, will most of our cars still be fueled by gasoline? If you think "yes," what about in 50 years? What will be the most difficult part in making this transition?

Faiman: I prefer to focus on what could happen: (1) Electric cars are an exciting potential for the near term, which, as has been amply demonstrated, is a practical possibility; (2) For the longer term, we need to develop liquid hydrogen as an alternative for hydrocarbon fuels. To this end, there are two fundamental scientific problems that must be solved: a physics problem (how to prevent the tiny hydrogen molecules from percolating out through the walls of their containment tank), and a chemistry problem (how to reduce the extreme flammability of this element).

Phys.org: If you don't mind really speculating, what do you think the world will look like 100 years from now, or more? Your thoughts may be influenced by your field of expertise, or may be more generally influenced by your life overall.

Narendran: Lighting playing a much greater role in our daily life, completely changing the way we implement lighting within our built environments and how we our spaces with LEDs and OLEDs, and people realizing their value.

Faiman: One hundred years ago, there were two World Wars ahead of us. If we can prevent one more during the next 100 years, Dayenu!

From my field of expertise: it would be nice if our great grandchildren would find it hard to believe that electricity was once generated by burning stuff that they dug out of the ground.

From another part of my life: It would also be nice if the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored to where Berlioz, Bizet and Saint Saens placed them, viz, on a par with "Beethoven, Leonardo and Raphael" (Bizet), and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)] successfully buried them during the 20th century.

Explore further: First of four Fukushima reactors cleared of nuclear fuel

3.5 /5 (20 votes)

Related Stories

How affordable is alternative energy?

Aug 01, 2012

Alternative energy sources that are cost-competitive with fossil fuels may be closer than most people realize. Recent renewable energy research has shown that solar, hydropower, wind and other alternative sources are closing ...

Solar goes Hyper in the U.S.

Feb 21, 2011

As the U.S. government continues to heap billions in subsidies to the world's wealthiest coal and oil companies, the solar industry has been struggling to make it in the United States. This is sad for many reasons, not the ...

Recommended for you

The state of shale

Dec 19, 2014

University of Pittsburgh researchers have shared their findings from three studies related to shale gas in a recent special issue of the journal Energy Technology, edited by Götz Veser, the Nickolas A. DeCecco Professor of Che ...

Website shines light on renewable energy resources

Dec 18, 2014

A team from the University of Arizona and eight southwestern electric utility companies have built a pioneering web portal that provides insight into renewable energy sources and how they contribute to the ...

Better software cuts computer energy use

Dec 18, 2014

An EU research project is developing tools to help software engineers create energy-efficient code, which could reduce electricity consumption at data centres by up to 50% and improve battery life in smart ...

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

indio007
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2012
I still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level.

Especially if someone is using LEDs.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2012
Wow, that Faiman guy seems like a real freakshow.

could be as "cheap" as hospitals, schools and roads


I don't know about where he lives, but here in the US it would be hard to find a poorer example of something to aspire to. Hospitals, schools and the Highway Department are three of the most poorly administered agencies of our society here in the US.

Then his 100 year section is a really strange response, especially the following part:

the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored?

and

and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)]

since "Giacomo Meyerbeer" was the son of a "jew banker" born with the name Jacob Liebmann Beer, and a wealthy socialite too.

I think this guy has some serious emotional issues, and might benefit from some counseling.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2012
I think Wagner said that given the (),... but what does this out of context non-sense to do with the interview? Why would Lisa Zyga even include it in the text? If it was meant as an allegory of some sort,... a little help.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2012
Phys.org: Do you think one of these alternative energy technologies will eventually become dominant to the same extent that oil, coal, and gas are now? Why or why not?


Faiman: Probably, ONLY if the oil, coal, gas industry lets it happen, or if some powerful and independent government (e.g., China) makes it happen.


What could he mean here by "independent government"? Why give the example of China, when the USA spends about the same amount on alternatives,.. and China uses the 2nd most oil in the world AND is a developing country.

Also, the oil industry does not dictate what energy is used,.. the market does, via competition and price,.. so what he is predicting is that alternatives can never compete and it must be forced upon people ala communism.

This is wrong. Eventually oil will become more expensive; peak oil. Impatience with democracy and capitalism leads to fascism and socialism.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2012
For the longer term, we need to develop liquid hydrogen as an alternative for hydrocarbon fuels. To this end, there are two fundamental scientific problems that must be solved: a physics problem (how to prevent the tiny hydrogen molecules from percolating out through the walls of their containment tank), and a chemistry problem (how to reduce the extreme flammability of this element).


Methane doesn't require high tech storage materials and is about the same energy density, with a ratio of just 1 carbon atom per 4 hydrogen atoms, or 1/4, compared to other hydrocarbon fuels which are 1/2 or 1/1.

Methane is currently about 10 times cheaper than gasoline on a "per unit energy" basis, and bacteria can produce it in large amounts, or you can use solar to mass produce synthetic methane in a similar fashion to diesels.

While this is not ideal, it would lower our net carbon output by a large amount compared to burning gasoline at our current rate, simply because of the lower ratio.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2012
...It would also be nice if the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored to where Berlioz, Bizet and Saint Saens placed them, viz, on a par with "Beethoven, Leonardo and Raphael" (Bizet), and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)] successfully buried them during the 20th century.


Maybe he meant this as an allegory in that 'we have a prejudice towards anything other than fossil fuels', even though they are just as good. If so,.. it doesn't make any sense. People use oil based on economic reasons and availability, not emotional predilection. If alternatives could compete with oil and make economic sense, who would care where the energy came from?
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2012
Noumenon:

The oil companies pay half the tax rate of other corporations. This means the "Market" is actually NOT favoring oil, but that the government keeps the price of oil artificially low by giving the oil companies a large tax break, due to lobbyists buying votes from our corrupt legislature.

this is why he said what he said, because the U.S. government is owned by oil and coal companies, and they DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE cheaper (longer term) energy options, because the COMPANIES would make less money in the long term, even though everyone else would benefit much more.

Oil and coal companies benefit by maintaining status quo, and artificially driving up costs of ALL energy, so that they can keep everyone in perpetual servitude to them.

Individuals would benefit most (long term) by using as much off-grid renewable power as possible, preferably made in their own back yard or roof-top.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2012

this is why he said what he said, because the U.S. government is owned by oil and coal companies, and they DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE cheaper (longer term) energy options, because the COMPANIES would make less money in the long term, even though everyone else would benefit much more.


Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense to me, for no other reason than that those who own stock in oil companies would just as well invest in some other energy source given equal potential of return, because the resulting profit is the same colour, green. Further, oil companies are energy companies and would just as soon invest in alternatives if that market had potential,... in fact they do invest in alternatives.

Alternatives have to compete with oil. It's not that they "don't want us to have cheaper energy options", it's that investors go where the potential is,... and there is no alternatives right now that can replace oil on its scale of use. Consumers & investors control the market.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2012
And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government. They do so because economies float on a bed of oil, and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used.
TheKnowItAll
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2012
I still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level.

Especially if someone is using LEDs.

Solar panels don't give out a regulated voltage wich LEDs need since they have a very small operating range (e.i 3-5 volts). Usually a class D transformer is used because it uses a high frequency meaning that a smaller coil can be used so less energy is wasted converting/regulating it.
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2012
From another part of my life: It would also be nice if the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored to where Berlioz, Bizet and Saint Saens placed them, viz, on a par with "Beethoven, Leonardo and Raphael" (Bizet), and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)] successfully buried them during the 20th century.


And if he had not added this non sequitur, Dayenu!
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2012
they DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE cheaper (longer term) energy options, because the COMPANIES would make less money in the long term, even though everyone else would benefit much more. Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense to me
What's nonsensical about this theory? For example our country or Poland in particular are fighting against green energy alternatives obstinately, because they're coal and energy producers - largest in the Europe. These countries are strongest deniers of anthropocentric global warming. On the other hand, the Kyoto protocol was signed in Japan, just because the Japan is forced to import most of coal. Canada supported Kyoto protocol just until they found their own oil in Alberta, and so on. The national tendencies for or against fossil energy are quite apparent: if some country generates money from fossil fuel export, no force will convince it into alternatives. Israel has no fossil fuels, so it supports solar energy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2012
And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government

Are you aware that ALL power sources have received MASSIVE subsidies during their startup phase? Coal, oil and nuclear? And that these old ones STILL get massive subsidies in terms of tax breaks today? And that these subsidies are an entire order of magnitude higher than what alternative energy sources have gotten when compared on a per kW generating capacity basis?

Alternative power is a better bang for the buck any day - and it lets us live in a less polluted environment (which I find nothing to sneeze at - literally).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2012
for no other reason than that those who own stock in oil companies would just as well invest in some other energy source given equal potential of return

The point is that other energy sources DONT give an equal return on investment - but not because they are more expensive per kWh produced (they aren't) but because they are so cheap to manufacture that there is no way to monopolize the market (or at the very least divvy it up amongst a few players that can artificially set prices).

You get a lot of players in a sector that is open to anyone with just a little spare cash (individuals, small communities, ... ) - and that drives prices down. (Capitalism the way it's supposed to work, you know?)

Big oil/coal/nuclear doesn't invest there because they'd lose out any way it goes. If alternatives fail they lose the investment. If alternatives succeed they'll make less money in both sectors. So the only strategy left to them is to torpedoe alternatives whereever they can.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2012
I still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level.

Especially if someone is using LEDs.

Because (and this may be a novel thought): when the sun shines people don't need LEDs?

Solar panels don't give out a regulated voltage wich LEDs need

Since (by my above demonstrated hyper-logic) you need a buffer system in any case (the grid or an array of batteries) the output voltage of solar panels is pretty much inconsequential.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2012
indio - "still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level."

Many off grid systems run straight dc - and then install all dc appliances. Heating and cooling is of course a big issue - which is why designing from scratch makes the most sense - you can incorporate as much passive heating and cooling as possible. Retrofitting a home with solar of course requires an inverter - because the home is already set up on AC, and if you are going to feed back to the grid - that requires AC.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2012
Noumen: "and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used." You keep trying to perpetuate this lie. Do some reading will you. There is plenty of energy in the world - solar, wind, bio fuels, geothermal, otec, nuclear. Any one of these sources could power the world - and we can transition to a mixed basket over the coming decades. Stop perpetuating lies.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2012
Noumen - if you are interested in thinking about the issue of scalability - you could do worse than to watch this video. https://www.youtu...VlZ9v_0o

I don't have the engineering knowledge to evaluate this kind of proposal myself - but I present it as one possibility that we should probably be looking at as a species.

Here is the solve for x web site - http://www.wesolveforx.com/
ShotmanMaslo
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2012
The situation in subsidies is finally changing.

http://www.scient...petitive
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2012
Noumen: "and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used." You keep trying to perpetuate this lie. Do some reading will you. There is plenty of energy in the world - solar, wind, bio fuels, geothermal, otec, nuclear. Any one of these sources could power the world - and we can transition to a mixed basket over the coming decades. Stop perpetuating lies.


Please reread my comment carefully before responding. I never said there is no other energy in the world. I happen to think that alternatives are great.

I simply reject the idiotic conspiracy theories that evil BigCarbon is making us use oil. It is used because our entire infrastructure is based on it right now,.. and there is no immediate practical replacement for it. Evil oil capitalists didn't "do this to us",.. we did it to our selves, in accord with natural instincts, by seeking the cheapest means of energy.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2012
,.. this trend WILL continue,.. and is why alternatives must compete with oil and coal.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2012
And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government. They do so because economies float on a bed of oil..


Are you aware that ALL power sources have received MASSIVE subsidies during their startup phase? Coal, oil and nuclear? And that these old ones STILL get massive subsidies in terms of tax breaks today? And that these subsidies are an entire order of magnitude higher than what alternative energy sources have gotten when compared on a per kW generating capacity basis?


Why do you think this is? I already answered this question in the portion of my post you didn't quote. The 'old ones' still get [tax deductions] because that is the current infrastructure in place,... while alternatives are still tentatively under development. Recall Solyndra?

The economy REQUIRES oil now, while it can live without alternatives (presently), ...that's why.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2012
Alternative power is a better bang for the buck any day - and it lets us live in a less polluted environment (which I find nothing to sneeze at - literally).

If alternatives fail they lose the investment. If alternatives succeed they'll make less money in both sectors. So the only strategy left to them is to torpedoe alternatives whereever they can.


Not true in the long run. They will go where the demand is. As oil becomes more scarce it will become more costly, and demand will shift to alternatives. The big ENERGY companies will be waiting.

"The U.S. oil and natural gas industry invested over $121 billion between 2000 and 2007 [double that to date] in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies. This investment represents 65% of the estimated total of $188 billion spent by U.S. based companies and the Federal government on emerging energy technologies."

alfie_null
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2012
Alternatives have to compete with oil. It's not that they "don't want us to have cheaper energy options", it's that investors go where the potential is,... and there is no alternatives right now that can replace oil on its scale of use. Consumers & investors control the market.

Omitting any consideration of the predilection for short term ROI is perhaps disingenuous. Investors (in stock) are not a patient lot.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2012
Not true in the long run. They will go where the demand is. As oil becomes more scarce it will become more costly, and demand will shift to alternatives. The big ENERGY companies will be waiting.

The assumption here being that these large corporations see investment in alternative energy as the best way to generate profit. Or that, as large companies, they don't have the means to control the market.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2012
Noumenon: "Please reread my comment carefully before responding. I never said there is no other energy in the world. I happen to think that alternatives are great."

I read your comment very carefully - here is the specific quote I was referring to - "and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used." This is a lie that you keep trying to push. There is a practical replacement for the volume of oil/gas used - you are wrong - knock it off. It will take us a while to scale up - just as it took a while to scale up to our current oil and gas infrastructure. The biggest problem I see with your posts is your blind belief in some mystical free market forces - and you refuse to respond to this issue. There is no free market - all the markets are distorted by government involvement - the problem I have with this interview is how ignorant this oil exec appears regarding the viability of renewables - and you perpetuate the myths.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (16) Dec 30, 2012
No you didn't read my posts carefully. Stop being dishonest. Here is the full quote,..

And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government. They do so because economies float on a bed of oil, and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used.


I made that statement in relation to why oil companies receive tax breaks now,... 'because that is our existing infrastructure',... 'while alternatives are still tentatively under development'.

I fully expect oil to be replaced with some other energy in the future, as an inevitability. In fact that is why I mentioned peak oil, as driving the price of oil up and giving better potential return on investment for alternatives.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 30, 2012
There is no free market - all the markets are distorted by government involvement


That is true to some degree, but oil is traded in an open Global market, and peak-oil is a physical inevitability, and so there is no stopping it from becoming more and more expensive, because of the global market for it.

Many socialists and far left, 'social progressives', don't want the economic reality of 'peak oil' to enter into the discussions wrt AGW, because the problem will fix itself, and they would rather have social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and control over human behavior wrt energy use.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (16) Dec 30, 2012
Not true in the long run. They will go where the demand is. As oil becomes more scarce it will become more costly, and demand will shift to alternatives. The big ENERGY companies will be waiting.

The assumption here being that these large corporations see investment in alternative energy as the best way to generate profit. Or that, as large companies, they don't have the means to control the market.


Eventually, yes, that is correct, and not an assumption but a fact as energy will always be needed and will always have value irrespective of its form. That oil will become more expensive to extract, is an uncontrollable physical inevitability.

No one has the omniscient and magical forethought, right this minute, to know what will replace the 80,000,000,000 barrels of oil used per day, in the future,.. thus investments at the present time are tentative and cautious.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
The economy REQUIRES oil now, while it can live without alternatives (presently), ...that's why.

However life turns out to be more than economy. Global warming and the resultant problems are teaching us (the hard way) that economy doesn't mean anything if there's no place to live (or if any benefits of it are instantly eaten up by costs for damage control)

Yes: alternatives must compete with the old sources. But the measure of what 'competitive' means is not "X makes more profit" but "X lets humanity survive". Being cheaper is becoming less and less relevant.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2012
There is a practical replacement for the volume of oil/gas used [...] It will take us a while to scale up - dir


If you have to qualify that statement with 'It will take us a while', then de facto there is no alternative ready NOW, to replace the 80,000,000,000 barrels of oil used every day, ...thus support for the existing infrastructure is still a requirement.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 30, 2012
The economy REQUIRES oil now, while it can live without alternatives (presently), ...that's why.

However life turns out to be more than economy. Global warming and the resultant problems are teaching us (the hard way) that economy doesn't mean anything if there's no place to live (or if any benefits of it are instantly eaten up by costs for damage control)

Yes: alternatives must compete with the old sources. But the measure of what 'competitive' means is not "X makes more profit" but "X lets humanity survive". Being cheaper is becoming less and less relevant.


That is the natural mechanism that is most in-line with human nature. 'Profit' means any increase in ones condition of life. Individualism and freedom are the most efficient and powerful means available to humanity. Socialism and social engineering (planned society), works counter to that. It won't work on a large scale. It has caused more deaths and starvation than anything known in human history.
...
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2012
It should be clear, even given a cursory glance at history, that no government is omniscient with such foreknowledge that a planned out economy or infrastructure can be relied upon. Existing government FAIL to even accomplish basic things, like balancing a budget, but you expect it to choose what energy sources will be used in the future?

The change in energy form must happen gradually over time, with the natural forces of freedom and capitalism to be the arbiter of that choice, ...because such a natural process is disinterested and reacts to actual effects upon life, not just speculation as to the severity of those effects.

Do you see humanity reacting with anywhere near the same level of hysteria, to match the AGW propaganda? No. To do so, in effect means the adoption of socialism and global control over human behavior, as well as global redistribution of wealth, as admitted. This from a global authority that can't even prevent starvation and genocide in modern times.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2012
Noumen : If you have to qualify that statement with 'It will take us a while', then de facto there is no alternative ready NOW, to replace the 80,000,000,000 barrels of oil used every day, ...thus support for the existing infrastructure is still a requirement.

Your original statement did not state NOW - it simply said there is no practical replacement for oil. There is a practical replacement for oil. It will take a while to scale up - but many countries are on track to replace significant portions of their energy use with renewables in the next 10 years. Look at the chart at the end of this article to show how far we have come - http://www.guardi...-targets

Of course support for the current infrastructure is a given - what is at question is the speed of transition.

Just a technicality - I believe your statement of daily oil consumption is off by a factor of 1,000 - it should be 80 million barrels.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2012
-My original statement implied "NOW" because the discussion was about why tax breaks are given to the oil industry.

-Yes, I mean million,... don't know why i was thinking billion, thank you.

-It is not even necessary to get into the different forms of government and differences of economies of those countries, etc,... the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2012
Noumen: "The change in energy form must happen gradually over time, with the natural forces of freedom and capitalism to be the arbiter of that choice"

You have already acknowledged that all markets are distorted by the involvement of governments. You might be interested in this article - showing how state run Chinese oil is the beneficiary of the U.S. funded war in Iraq http://oilprice.c...raq.html How ironic. So what happens to your idealistic little free markets that don't exist. Well in reality we have a complex world - and countries you would call socialist like Germany are blazing the path - that your precious free market U.S. will have to buy their technology from if you are not smart enough to understand how the real world works.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2012
-My original statement implied "NOW" because the discussion was about why tax breaks are given to the oil industry.

Your original statement was false - there was nothing implied - learn to say what you mean.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2012
Noumen: the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.

No for the last 7 years it has not - this is a very significant piece of information for energy watchers.

http://www.google...;dur=185
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2012
Noumen: the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.

No for the last 7 years it has not - this is a very significant piece of information for energy watchers.

http://www.google...;dur=185


That graph shows oil Production, not Consumption, which supports my contention above.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (16) Dec 30, 2012
-My original statement implied "NOW" because the discussion was about why tax breaks are given to the oil industry.

Your original statement was false - there was nothing implied - learn to say what you mean.


I see you're degenerating into dishonesty.

That I was speaking about present conditions wrt tax breaks for oil the industry and thus obviously referring to the present time, ...is not in anyway contingent upon you agreeing with the original statement.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2012
You have already acknowledged that all markets are distorted by the involvement of governments. [..] So what happens to your idealistic little free markets that don't exist. Well in reality we have a complex world - and countries you would call socialist like Germany are blazing the path - that your precious free market U.S. will have to buy their technology from if you are not smart enough to understand how the real world works.


The oil market depends fundamentally upon supply and demand,.. and also speculators of future prices, who take into account world politics, as would any investor. How does this lead you to state the absurdity "free markets that don't exist".

Perhaps you missed where I stated the following,...

It is not even necessary to get into the different forms of government and differences of economies of those countries, etc,... the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.


Socialism can't maintain economies in a global market.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2012
,. which means even China must involve itself in capitalism in the global market.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2012
Noumen: That I was speaking about present conditions wrt tax breaks for oil the industry and thus obviously referring to the present time,

Here is your initial statement. - and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used. That statement is false - there is a practical replacement for oil - which is why - as I demonstrated - many countries are ramping up their production of renewables - and world energy consumption can increase - while oil production remains flat. But enough bickering over one statement - we can disagree - who cares. What bothers me is that every time there is an article on energy - there is a group on this board that has to start ranting about socialism. I stand by my previous statement - as you also reconginzed - there are no free markets - we have mixed economies - some tilted more to a centralized system - others more towards markets - but there are no free markets - only mixed economies.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.