For all the doom and gloom sayers (oil/power related)

[flat-6]

Well thanks for the effort on the post, at least it gets people thinking.

The thing about all these technologies, and I am sure most people on 'doom' sites like www.theoildrum.com or www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net would no doubt that with the current technology we have available to us we could probably shift our energy use away from fossil on a wide scale to a combination of new technologies. After all, there is more than enough power from the sun that falls on a small part of the world's deserts that we could in theory harness for power.

The problem comes of course in a transition away from today's cheap oil-based status quo. We simply do not have enough time while oil is cheap and freely available to shift to a post-fossil economy. All these technologies will use fossil fuels in their creation, and lots of them. There are HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of cars and trucks on the world's roads which under the theory of a 'Hydrogen Economy' would have to be scrapped, together with the vast infrastructure that supports them.

Can you really see we can make these changes, while producing the required close to 100 million barrels of oil a day that will be needed in the next 10 years, without interrupting the growth of the world economy? If not that means recession, or even worse. Combine that with the fact that our whole capitalist economy is based on never-ending growth which cannot possibly continue, its hard to be positive about the outlook.

 

[SiriusB]

For the time being, nuclear is definitely the best option.

The risk of contamination or disaster is negligible, a new nuclear power station provides thousands of jobs. The waste, while dangerous, is easily managed. They produce no harmful emissions and, going from the nuclear power stations I have visited, they take very good care of the surrounding areas. Take Wylfa on Anglesey as an example. The surround area is beautiful and is a haven for all sorts of wildlife.

The biggest down side to nuclear power is the cost. However I think the benefits far outweigh it.

 

[Angilion]

I think i've covered the most likely ones. If anyone knows of any others. Let me know And I can add stuff.

Now as other people have said. At the moment it is mear economic reason why these aren't being mass produced. We shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket, which Is why I said we don't need 7000 wind turbines of the shore. If we used a variety of these, including nuclear it should easily provide most of our national grid requirement. And provide cheap energy we produce and control ourselfs.
The good thing iwth the nano metal engines. Is it can use a variety of metals, metals are plentifully. The system can also recycle nearly 100% of the fuel. So wants it's mined and refined. You only have to provide more when supply increases.

How will the government tax it?

It's a serious question, because it's not going to happen unless it's a source of revenue for the government.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Solar panels are not very efficient and i'm not sure they will be for a long time yet - i like that quote - lol - covering 0.5% of the worlds deserts indeed! that would cost trillions of pounds!
[..]

For the sake of accuracy: They're not talking about using solar panels. They're talking about using Stirling engines. They're much easier and less resource-intensive (and therefore much cheaper) to make than solar panels.

 

[r44b]

All this talk about wind and solar power is daft, there are much easier ways of finding a continual supply of power than will be more than enough for our needs.

For example I dont understand why no one has thought of building a huge vacuum cleaner in space and just sucking the energy out of the sun. Surely that would be far more viable than covering half the earth in solar pannels. I didnt get paid anything to think that up either. I should be a scientist.

 

[PureAppleJuice]

All this talk about wind and solar power is daft, there are much easier ways of finding a continual supply of power than will be more than enough for our needs.

For example I dont understand why no one has thought of building a huge vacuum cleaner in space and just sucking the energy out of the sun. Surely that would be far more viable than covering half the earth in solar pannels. I didnt get paid anything to think that up either. I should be a scientist.

Put this man in charge immediately

 

[Glaucus]

How will the government tax it?

Just like anything else.

All this talk about wind and solar power is daft, there are much easier ways of finding a continual supply of power than will be more than enough for our needs.

For example I dont understand why no one has thought of building a huge vacuum cleaner in space and just sucking the energy out of the sun. Surely that would be far more viable than covering half the earth in solar pannels. I didnt get paid anything to think that up either. I should be a scientist.

The cost of lifting the equipment to space would be huge, then you have the problem of transporting that power back back to earth. Thats probably the biggest challenege. you can't just build a cable to space.

Can you really see we can make these changes, while producing the required close to 100 million barrels of oil a day that will be needed in the next 10 years, without interrupting the growth of the world economy? If not that means recession, or even worse. Combine that with the fact that our whole capitalist economy is based on never-ending growth which cannot possibly continue, its hard to be positive about the outlook.

Yes, we don't need to change over night and there's still plenty of oil in the ground to drill for.

The problem comes of course in a transition away from today's cheap oil-based status quo. We simply do not have enough time while oil is cheap and freely available to shift to a post-fossil economy. All these technologies will use fossil fuels in their creation, and lots of them. There are HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of cars and trucks on the world's roads which under the theory of a 'Hydrogen Economy' would have to be scrapped, together with the vast infrastructure that supports them.
.

Most petrol cars can run hydrogen with little modification, so they woul;dn't have to be scrapped. Other than being pressurized the infrastructure is very similar to petrol.

 

[Morthoseth]

Is there anything that can resist Thermite?

Chuck Norris