Energy Ideas

Post Reply New Topic

... and again destroy it...

Yep. Why not? To all intents and purposes, there's an infinite supply of them already, for each of us. We'll make some more when we run out of those.

One theory on the end of the universe is all remaining mass will convert to energy in the
last moments. Which means one way or another between the next second and a few billion years its all could be destroyed anyway. So by all means we might as well start the process of taking planets apart now.

Many. But each one is a real challenge.

People who don't care about waste are misguided but so are greenpeace, etc. We need to slow down the current rate of decline for the time being but only for the time being. Some of the concerns of some of the environmental groups are actually causing contradictions rather than doing something about it. The ‘guzzlers’ are living at the expense of future generations. We are all guilty of waste, I’m a hypocrite, but I do want to do something about it.

I feel it is like you are labeled 'odd' if you think like this. The people on one side think you are insensitive and the other think you are a do gooder.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 08 Apr 2007, 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's all a question of priorities.

I quite like the human race (esp. Aspies!). I like ALL the rest of the lifeforms on the planet. I'm generous enough to include trees and fungi in that, and of course, bacteria - the biggest inhabitant of the planet, by far. I'll even include rocks in that and any other cleverer silicon lifeforms we produce.

I don't want us to limp on for a few generations, then kill off most people and sink back to some "living of the land" paradise(!). That's just madness.

I don't really support wanton waste, but I object fiercely when space programs are called a waste.

According to some calculations, we're already embarrassingly far into the "window of opportunity" for getting off the planet, etc. We need to stop taking half measures and go for it. We might not have all that much time left.

Think long term. Always.

The future is in fusion (and I'm working on it).

Yeah maybe in the next 50 years but in a million years anti-matter is the future

Why so pessimistic?

In any case, I certainly don't intend to hang about for a million years for such-like. Even on my own, I'm sure I will be able to sort out many more feasible energy sources within a few centuries.

Hydropower is limited to local water sources that are already at full utilization in most places.

Solar and Wind take up too much area and have many other problems that prevent them from being practical. Wind generators require maintenance, solar cells are high-tech goods that require toxic chemicals and more resources to produce.

Hydrocarbons pollute, cause cancer, asthma, kill people in power plant explosions, by-products cannot easily be contained, etc. Not good over long term.

Nuclear Fission produces radioactive by-products, but these have been stored on-site for decades without problems. The wastes can be concentrated in a certain area.

Nuclear Fusion power plants are not developed yet, The US started research in the early 90s. Once they realized it might actually work, they shut it down. Now a few European and Asian countries are beginning to start research again. 15 years of potential research time lost.





If I remember correctly from my class on energy:

Renewable resources will not be able to keep up with consumption no matter how much research is thrown into them. For them to have worked, they would have needed to develop at the same time as coal and gas....100-200 years ago. It's too late now....

Natural gas will reach it's peak in less than a decade

"Clean" oil/petrolium will run out by 2075

Shale oil may be enough to get the world to the end of the century
In the US petrolium peaked in the 70s-80s, then we had to ship in from the rest of the world
World petrolium peaked somewhere around 2001

"clean" coal will run out by 2225-2250
coal with sulfur content will not last much longer

Nuclear fission will last at least a few more centuries after coal.

Nuclear fusion is considered the "holy grail" of energy production. It may be another 20-30 years before reactors break even. A decade or two after that and they will be efficient enough to compete with other resources. Two power plants would be enough to power the entire United State. Several could power Europe.

Antimatter does not make sense as a power source. It needs to be created first. You can't get out more energy than you put in. ...Or harvested from another part of the galaxy. Not practical. However as spaceship fuel, it is the best fuel known. A potential of 50% effeciency



Resource consumption doubles every 25 years, has been predictable for over 200 years.

A graph of the consumption looks like an exponentially increasing scale.
Resource production looks like a bell curve.

When around one-fourth of a resource is used, it can no longer meet demand. At one-fourth, it stops growing exponentially with the demand. At the half-point peak supply is a flat line......demand is still growing exponentially. See the problem? At one-fourth consumption of a resource, there is already a supply problem.