A
Andy Hunt
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
would be zero credibility with people who are 100% wrong in their previous
predictions over the last 100 years, but there are always a few gullible
ones out there.
Do you just not like electricity, or what? It is understandable that in UK,
where gasoline/petrol prices are already 4x higher than US due to heavier UK
petrol taxes, it might be scary when a petroleum transport strike drives the
price still higher. Yes, that may make walking and taking the (electric)
train seem more desireable to more people on average, but I wouldn't equate
it with the end of civilization, would you?
Bob Peterson said:This nonsense about running out of oil has been around for a century now,
with its proponents making the same dire predictions. You would think there
would be zero credibility with people who are 100% wrong in their previous
predictions over the last 100 years, but there are always a few gullible
ones out there.
We have to be realistic that there IS a limit to fossil fuels. We now have a
pretty complete knowledge of fossil fuel reserves, and they will start to
run out in the lifetime of many people alive today. The people making these
statements are not panicky environmentalists. They are hard-nosed
geologists, energy economists, government researchers, corporate planners,
investment analysts etc. But that doesn't mean oil and other fossil fuels
will suddenly dry up and civilization collapses.
We will gradually, over a period of decades, progressively run out of the
stuff that's easy to get hold of. As we come to rely on sources that are
progressively more difficult to access (under deep ocean, pressure is poor,
in solid form i.e. tar sands, contaminated etc.) the price will steadily
rise in comparison to other commodities. Then both alternative energy
sources and conservation become more attractive.
I have always felt that life without fossil fuels could have a higher
quality than life with them. We just wouldn't be able to roar all over the
place in our Lincoln Navigators and Hummer H2s. How sad. But the point is to
make the transition, and time is necessary, which fortunately we have,
providing we don't waste it.
All of this is predicated in the absence of major technical breakthroughs
i.e. fusion. But such breakthroughs do happen, and are to expected. Since we
don't know what or when, they are hard to factor in. Personally, I expect to
see major developments in energy-storage capacity, which would greatly
improve the economics of both portable and intermittent electric power.
It is customary to include the question in your reply, so readers can see
the relevance of your answer. You might also consider posting your answer
only to the newsgroup in which the question was asked, or even, just
e-mailing your reply to the author of the question, rather than posting it
to the group.
For more on biomass fuels, see:
TB Johansson et al 1993 _Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and
Electricity_.
Isn't there some kind of a usenet law about making reasonable
statements when others are aiming for the flaming glory?
Sad to hear the bad news. Reliability of the electric power grid under
extreme weather conditions is indeed a problem that needs fixing
(http://www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/).
Traditionally, people have relied on their neighbors for help in a snow
crisis
(http://videoindex.pbs.org/program/chapter.jsp?item_id=7787&chap_id=8).
-dl
back-boiler.
Indoor wood smoke from cooking and heating is a major environmental health
threat around the world, killing millions annually. And there is a good
reason why wood fires are prohibited in your neighborhood (ask yourself
"what if everybody would burn wood"?) You can cook and heat with wood, you
can cook and heat with gas, and you can cook and heat with electricity.
It's just that when *everybody* does it, electricity has the least cost for
human health and the environment.
Why use NG for electric gen when you can use carbon-free UO2 instead? Of
course, it is much better to use NG for electric gen than simply flaring it
off of petroleum fields because the oil is worth more than the gas. But,
why not take the (electric) train if it's too far to walk?
Try multiplying your example by 10 billion (I mean US billion, or 10^9) and
imagine what the world would be like if everybody followed your example.
<smile>
I see NTLI is in the UK, but are you sure you're not Canadian?
Such niceness is supposed to be our national disease.
[...]
Isn't there some kind of a usenet law about making reasonable
statements when others are aiming for the flaming glory?
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone here, it was not my intention,
I must confess.
An old teacher of
mine used to divide his time between Toronto and his stone cottage in Wales.
I've had it said to me that Canada has all the good points of the USA
without any of the bad ones. I'm sure that can't be entirely true, but it
certainly sounds like a civilised place to me!!!
Don Libby said:Indoor wood smoke from cooking and heating is a major environmental health
threat around the world, killing millions annually. And there is a good
reason why wood fires are prohibited in your neighborhood (ask yourself
"what if everybody would burn wood"?)
Curiously, it is only the developing countries building new nuclear power
plants these days. The rest should follow their example.
Meteorite Debris said:Actually the Hubbert school has had a number of correct predictions.
Starting from Hubbert's 1956 prediction of the US lower 48 oil
production peak in 1970 to the peak in North Sea oil production 1999.
This gives the Hubbert model something more than "zero credibility".
With that sort of record the analysis is worth taking notice of.
I might be interested in exactly what he did for the planet Earth and
it's other non-human inhabitants, besides burning hydrocarbons that
is. But then again, I might not.
Be specific, these are science newsgroups.