From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 19:41:11 MDT
--- Emlyn O'regan <oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au>
wrote:
> Some very pessimistic forecasting of the near future
> wrt energy:
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/40473
The problem with things like this is, they assume data
that's mostly been false, but is hard to disprove.
For instance, stating that economically viable natural
gas deposits are mostly exhausted: such a claim has
been made before, yet new discoveries opened up - and
a slight increase in profit (higher price from
scarcity, lower cost from new tech, take your pick)
made more discoveries viable. But how does someone
not in the oil industry (and thus suspect to having
made-up data themselves) disprove this?
Or more simply: bluntly stating that wind and solar
can not, under any conditions, "replace even a portion
of hydrocarbon energy" - despite the fact that they
quite evidently have provided power that, had these
technologies never been invented, would come from
other sources, presumably including hydrocarbon
energy.
I don't know how many times I've seen this argument
before. I don't know how many times I'll see it
again.
Still, there are some truths here, especially the bit
about transmission capability not being built. Which
just argues more for home-ready sources of power, like
solar cells, that can be installed where the power
will be used. (This can be in development, tax
credits, or other things that lessen the cost to the
end user.) One of my 2050ish pipe dreams is for
helium-3 fusion, made possible in part by lunar
mining, to become economical for home use: a
completely automated fusion reactor capable of
powering a standard home, no larger or costlier than a
standard refrigerator, with enough fuel to last
several years between servicing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 19:50:38 MDT