[ExI] EP and Peak oil.
John K Clark
jonkc at att.net
Thu Apr 3 15:32:24 UTC 2008
"Keith Henson" <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> Wrote:
> According to New Scientist, 25 years till peak coal.
Maybe, maybe not; although I admit New Scientist is not the only one
to make this claim. Similar arguments are made in the book "The Coal
Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the
Probable Exhaustion of our Coal-mines" written by the English economist
and logician William Stanley Jevons. The interesting thing is that this
book was written in 1865.
>> 2) Tar Sands
>Being exploited now. They would benefit hugely from power sats
> to supply upgrade hydrogen.
I don't know what that means, but I do know that Canada's reserves
of Tar Sands approximately equal to the world's total reserves of
conventional crude oil, and Venezuela may have more reserves than
> Environmental problems you would not believe.
Bigger environmental problems than Power Satellites? I'll tell you
one thing, even if they turns out to be totally benign environmentalists
will fight you every inch of the way.
> Biggest problem is the tails are larger than the hole they came out of.
Mountains are easier to make than power satellites.
>> Methane Clathrate
> Nobody has an idea of how to capture it.
Nobody has even tried because until just a very few years ago nobody
knew it existed.
>> 5) Nuclear Fission
> Every version I know about can be tapped for neutrons.
Yes, that is indeed a serious problem, possibly a lethal problem. If
environmentalists don't get out of the way on what to do with this stuff
they could kill us all.
> There is no reason to think it won't work, the physics is more than
> 200 years old.
Well 103 years old, you need the Photoelectric effect; but nobody is
saying power satellites are physically imposable, the question is
are they economically rational? I have my doubts.
Ok maybe 200 after all, I wonder if it would be better to use a
parabolic reflector and a heat engine?
John K Clark
More information about the extropy-chat