[ExI] Energy hints

Ben Zaiboc bbenzai at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 2 20:03:34 UTC 2010


> > 
> > On 1 March 2010 17:48, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > ... another approach has come along 
> > > that will make energy in the "half the cost of
> coal" range 
> > and takes a 
> > > lot less front end investment. ?Spike knows what
> I am talking about.
> > 
> > Why, give us at least a few hints... :-)
> > 
> > --
> > Stefano Vaj
> 
> 
> I can't.  I already signed non-disclosure agreements,
> and I always take
> those things damn seriously.
> 
> spike
> 

The rest of us can speculate, though!

Barring new physics (and a serious failure of my imagination), there are only two, maybe three possible sources of abundant energy:  The sun, the atomic nucleus, and the heat inside our planet.  I count things like zero-point energy as new physics, because as far as I know it's about as realistic as perpetual motion machines.

So I'd guess either ground-based (or not far above it) solar energy or nuclear, either fusion or even some variety of fission.  Geothermal is probably not going to wash, 'alternative' energy (wind, wave, tidal, etc.) can't deliver enough energy to be a serious contender. Methane is doubtful, even though there's loads of it around, it's very difficult to collect, and is still a fossil fuel, so wouldn't be politically popular (not going to say anything about abiogenic methane).

My money would be on some process which makes ground-based solar energy much cheaper than at present, or one of the fringe fusion projects like the polywell or the focus fusion thing.  I don't see anything else worthy of serious attention by our two intrepid pioneers.

Ben Zaiboc


      



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list