I was reading Micheal Moore's "Dude, where's my country?" and he had a chapter dealing with a future in which all the oil was used up and there was no alternative energy source, leaving people to live without technolgy because no one had developed a real alternative energy source when they could have, and there was now no power to use to create a new one.
Whatever you think of Moore, or whatever stupid, hateful, bigoted jokes you want to make about his weight rather than dealing with what he says, the point is that someday the world is going to run out of petroleum.
Then what?
Assuming there's no magic breakthru in the long promised field of fusion power, which has been about 20 years away for about 35 years now and is still 20 yeaes away, what other real, usable energy sources are there today that we could use to replace oil when it runs out?
I've heard of a lot, like MHD, and the possibility of generating electricity by using giant turbines built in the ocean to catch the power of the gulf stream. Instead of posting links to the ones I've heard about now, I wanted people here to post links to things they've heard of and think mnight work as a real, useful, wide scale energy source we could get going now if we had to.
So let's see some links....
Umm..it's called a free market. Look at all of the possibilities that were discussed when oil was going through the roof. At some point, the market will find an alternative. My god, people were talking about switchgrass...
Currently, then we're probably fucked, and some think we already are.
In the longer term, probably some variant of nuclear power supplemented by renewable energy sources.
These links might interest you, they're what Moore was most likely influenced by:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Although I am not a fan of Moore, I think he plays a bit too fast and loose with the facts sometimes, those are genuine links by the way that support his argument.
Quote from: James J SkachUmm..it's called a free market. Look at all of the possibilities that were discussed when oil was going through the roof. At some point, the market will find an alternative. My god, people were talking about switchgrass...
Ummmm....the so called 'free market' isn't all that free after a while. The main problem with the free market is that those who are blessed with early success in it tend to use the wealth they gain to influence the people who write the rules, and eventually they manage to create monopolies, laws and tax codes that favor a select few while handicapping everyone else.
Now a long time ago we had great leaders like Teddy Roosevelt who genuinely put the interests of the public ahead of the desires of the wealthy and broke up monopolies, but we haven't had a leader of that calibur in decades.
Quote from: BalbinusCurrently, then we're probably fucked, and some think we already are.
In the longer term, probably some variant of nuclear power supplemented by renewable energy sources.
These links might interest you, they're what Moore was most likely influenced by:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Although I am not a fan of Moore, I think he plays a bit too fast and loose with the facts sometimes, those are genuine links by the way that support his argument.
MM pays more respect to the facts than Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity or most other right wingers.
Quote from: Dominus NoxMM pays more respect to the facts than Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity or most other right wingers.
Indeed he does, I didn't say I thought them better. I think he merits criticism because I think some of his arguments are worth consideration, and I think he lets those arguments down by inaccuracies and bias. Ann Coulter et al as best I can tell haven't yet met a fact, I regard them with contempt.
A lack of support for Michael Moore does not imply support for Coulter et al, merely a lack of support for Michael Moore.
There are a lot of options for energy other than oil. As long as oil stays relatively cheap there wont be much interest in investing in alternatives.
http://www.energy-daily.com/
Quote from: RockViperThere are a lot of options for energy other than oil. As long as oil stays relatively cheap there wont be much interest in investing in alternatives.
http://www.energy-daily.com/
And the point is made better than me...
And btw, Nox, perhaps for another thread, but...name me the only existing monopoly in the US...go on...do it.
Quote from: James J SkachAnd the point is made better than me...
And btw, Nox, perhaps for another thread, but...name me the only existing monopoly in the US...go on...do it.
Hell, there are monopolies all over the US. I mean, my local cable company is a local monopoly, my local utilities are all monopolies, the mail service is basically a monopoly, microborg basically has a monoploy on most computer markets, etc.
Quote from: Dominus NoxHell, there are monopolies all over the US. I mean, my local cable company is a local monopoly, my local utilities are all monopolies, the mail service is basically a monopoly, microborg basically has a monoploy on most computer markets, etc.
Wrong on all counts but one. The only Monopoly in the United States is the US Postal Service. This is because it is the only organization blessed with a law that says you can't compete (it's illegal to compete on first class mail, by law).
Your local cable company is a leased service. Your local government made a deal with them - after getting competing bids. And that's not counting OTA and Dishes, no? Your utilities, if they are anything like Illinois, are changing - introducing competition. And don't forget, they did the same thing the cable companies did - bid for the rights.
Monopolies are very difficult to establish and maintain. Microsoft was considered a monpoly in 1996. It's ten years later, are they still a monopoly? If so, then how do you explain Linux, Mac, etc. You can't have a monopoly if you have competitors. you can have a dominant market share, but that's not the same thing.
Even delivery service is not a monopoly, just first class mail.
In the long term then fusion will be the energy source of choice, nothing magical about it. Now that the relevant countries have stopped arguing about where to site the ITER (http://www.iter.org/) and are going to get on and build the fucking thing the timescale for fusion becoming a commercially viable energy source should start to come down rather than remaining t a static 20 years forever.
Shorter term? Clean coal technologies are rearing their heads, renewables will continue to make headway (solar cells are making significant leaps in efficiency for instance) and fission will continue to grow with new plants being built/planned all over the world.
Quote from: Geoff HallIn the long term then fusion will be the energy source of choice, nothing magical about it. Now that the relevant countries have stopped arguing about where to site the ITER (http://www.iter.org/) and are going to get on and build the fucking thing the timescale for fusion becoming a commercially viable energy source should start to come down rather than remaining t a static 20 years forever.
Shorter term? Clean coal technologies are rearing their heads, renewables will continue to make headway (solar cells are making significant leaps in efficiency for instance) and fission will continue to grow with new plants being built/planned all over the world.
I wish I could share your optimism, but fusion powe has been "about 20 years away" for nearly 40 yeats already, and is still "about 20 years away" so I'm not optimistic.
Quote from: Geoff HallShorter term? Clean coal technologies are rearing their heads
Coal may also become useful as an alternative stock-source for fuel. There's been a lot of talk lately about reviving coal-based synthetic fuel production. It is viable if not as economical (for now) as petroleum. Germany in WWII had a viable synthetic-fuel industry due to their limited access to oilfields. There's estimates that rendering gas from the coal fields of Appalachia could provide centuries worth of go-juice.
Quote from: SamarkandThere's estimates that rendering gas from the coal fields of Appalachia could provide centuries worth of go-juice.
Ah... but let me ask you this: Are these centuries of go juice being based off of historical fuel consumption rates? One thing many estimates of fuel use fail to take into account is the exponential growth of fuel consumption. So, if every thirteen or so years fuel consumption doubles (look at that... it does!), and we have used over the entire history of petroleum use exactly half the petro available... how much time do we have left?
The Correct answer is 13 years. IF we've used half of the fuel available and if fuel use continues to double every 13 years. To expand this, if the synthetic fuel from coal doubles our supply of fuel... how much time does that give us? only another 13 years on top of that. Whee!!!
Quote from: Dominus NoxI wish I could share your optimism, but fusion powe has been "about 20 years away" for nearly 40 yeats already, and is still "about 20 years away" so I'm not optimistic.
Fusion tech has been chugging along and steadily improving for years, JET in Culham (near Oxford) being at the forefront of the research. The ITER will be the first fusion reactor to be self-sustaining and provide the basis for the first commercial reactors to be designed and constructed. I'm not saying it will be
quick (I did specify long term) but I am saying that the timescale
will begin to come down in the near future rather than remaining flat as it has done for so long. Mind you, we might well get another 10+ years of people saying 'it's 20 years away' before it begins to come down but come down it will.