Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The upcoming energy crisis. (Read 30601 times)
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
I'd say nuclear, but I see you don't see it as a solution.
I think our best bet is using solar/wind/hydro/geo-thermal energy where you can get it efficiently enough, but if we want to maintain our present energy consumption (which will probably double in years to come) we have to come up with something better. Nuclear fusion sounds promising. If we can get it to work properly, that is give more energy then it drains, then we'll have enough fuel on earth itself to last for a couple thousand years. This should be enough to find us a nice source of anti-matter
As for what devices I can and cannot do without. I'd say the most important things are transportation, heavy industrial equipment, computers, lights and refridgerators.
You explained the need for transportation in THE FUTURE thread. Without Indistrial equipment we'll pretty much stagnate, it'll be hard to build anything without it. Our society has become very dependant on computers, and we will be even more dependant around the time oil runs out. Lights may be something many people think they would do without, but imagine how your life would look if any light-source you'd have after sunset was a candle or a torch. That would take us back a hundred years or so. Refridgerators maybe aren't so important, but they help everone store food for a much longer time. May come in handy if there'll be supply shortages due to transportation problems.
It should be quite easy to save on transportation and lights. If you put everything on trains, instead of trucks, you can use any source of energy that can be turned to electricity. The costs may rise, like time of transportation, but hey, it's better then nothing.
Energy that goes on lights can be saved by bulding more efficient light-bulbs and ordering a black-out at certain hours.
Computers may cause some problems. As they get more powerful they also eat more energy. Currently I'm observing how my home PC is slowly catching up my electric oven when it comes to power usage. Maybe changing thr processor technology will help a bit. Biological processors for instance shouldn't eat that much electricty, and might settle for a banana .
|
|
« Last Edit: March 08, 2006, 01:53:12 pm by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
|
|
GeomanNL
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 167
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
You can't produce 4 billion (!) tonnes of oil annually through alternative sources. Take Brazil for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Effect_on_oil_consumption Production in a year: ethanol: 14 million m³ Land use: 45,000 km² It takes a large area to produce about 10 million tonnes of fuel.
You require about 16 million square km, in order to satisfy current world demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Geography
Earth has about 150 million square km of land, most of which is useless for growing crops (antarcitc, deserts, siberia, northern canada).
Thus, oil from crops will have to compete with food for people, and with an ever increasing population, that is simply not an option, especialy on the long term.
Well, that's my view on it, anyway.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
We all know that oil wont last us forever. Nuclear power wont either. We'll even run out of coal in a couple of hundred years unless something changes. Zero Point Energy!
So, what alternative power source do you think will be oils replacement, and how do you see it affecting society at large? Fossil Fuels, Methane Ice, Nuclear Fission, Wind, and Bio-fuels. In other words, I don't see a big replacement, I see a few of them. I see energy staying expensive even after the infrastructure is built to harness these things, emissions dropping for a little while before increased demand for energy brings them up again (china and india,) and farm fields of grains and sugar below, and giant pinwheels spinning above them. I also see myself becoming emperor of the world, but I don't think that this is relevant.
Thus, oil from crops will have to compete with food for people, and with an ever increasing population, that is simply not an option, especialy on the long term. Then perhaps the problem is not as much supply as demand. If our population continues to increase, regardless of our power sources, we will not be able to produce enough food for ourselves eventually, especially if there is any kind of hiccup in production brought about by relatively mild natural disaster(s).
|
|
« Last Edit: March 08, 2006, 09:14:38 pm by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
There's 2 major powersources I think. The Sun (nuclear) produces wind and water power here on earth... except tidal which is taking energy from the moon. Then there's geothermal (earth magma). Pick anyone of those and you're set for quite a while.
Nuclear is sort of like "all the eggs in one basket"... atleast you're not dropping eggs all over the place like with fossil fuel.
Helium-3 is interesting, apparently it would be so valuable that it's actually worth going to the moon and extract it from the moon dust. Something for GWB to think about... or maybe he have.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
That is just barbaric. Think of all the people who'd starve to death if you didn't use them for soylent green.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
No, they are needed for methane production.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
I would say nuclear fusion is the best bet. It’s safe and easy to do. The hard part is getting more energy out of fusion then you put into it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
guesst
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 692
Ancient Shofixti Warrior
|
Aren't you supposed to be studying?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
|
|
|
|
|