[ExI] EP and Peak oil.
John K Clark
jonkc at att.net
Mon Mar 31 20:37:22 UTC 2008
"hkhenson" <hkhenson at rogers.com>
> http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm
> Even if you don't buy into peak oil and the consequences, it's an
> interesting compilation. I disagree on only one point, this quote:
> "No combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to
> generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated
> by fossil fuels."
> -- Jay Hanson
> And most of you know why.
Not me, I agree with the quote. Whatever is going to replace oil it will
need to be HUGE, absolutely ENORMOUS! Wind farms and tidal energy
just don't make the grade. Maybe solar energy could someday make a
dent in the problem, but the technology just isn't there yet. Right now
it would take a solar panel the size New Jersey to replace the energy
dispensed by just 100 gas stations. There are about 20,000 gas stations
in the USA alone. And yes, I've heard of solar power satellites, but are
you so confident that the idea will be economically and ecologically
feasible that you would be willing to invest your entire life savings into
the idea and be prepared to live on the streets if it failed? I'm not.
And I'm all for making things more efficient, but that's not going to solve
the problem either, efficiency just makes energy cheaper, thus people will
use more of it.
You can fantasize about nuclear fusion (hot or cold) or vacuum zero point
energy all you want but the cold hard reality is that right now only 5
technologies have the potential to replace oil. All of them would give Green
Party tree huggers a tizzy fit (but then everything gives them a tizzy fit);
and none of them are exactly cheap, except perhaps the last if we did it
just right. They are:
1) Coal
2) Tar Sands
3) Oil Shale
4) Methane clathrate, (the least developed technology)
5) Nuclear Fission
John K Clark
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list