figure they'll be gone within fifty years, at least in America. so much for energy security.
Yes, yes, let's go jump on the OTHER sinking boat!
Uranium is gone in seventy years, based on current usage. End of nuclear weapons, changed into fuel?
My big hope is for practical fuel production from algae farms. This would greatly expand the areas for energy production into areas that are too cloudy or ones that lack reliable wind energy, like MS.
Another source for energy in our state is the Mississippi River. There are some current projects that are using turbines driven by the current of the river that are similar to tests being run in the Gulf Stream. Someday, NO could get all of it's energy needs from the river.
Add projects like these to already practical sources like concentrating solar plants, wind farms, and nuclear and we can begin to shift a lot of our vehicles to electric plug-ins. We should be able to replace nuclear with fusion power before we run out of uranium.
This future is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream. It can be done now.
big mirrors in SPAAACE!
low-tech, cheap, creating biomass and all sorts of wonderful things.
I think geothermal is massively underutilized. the Yellowstone caldera is a shallow source of heat the size of several states, the pacific northwest is ripe, and shallow (ten feet) ground-source heat is also cheap, economical and low-tech.
Living on water for most of this decade, the tremendous power of wave action is always apparent. It is good to see that some projects are being built, but if the economics are there then you would think that large-scale deployment would be multi-beneficial (power, wave-reduction onto eroding coastlines, and potentially increasing sea-life ecologies).
-chris
The biggest problem we face is not the scope of the project or the technological difficulties. The biggest holdup can be found in vested interests. Right now, it costs hundreds of millions or billions to build a power plant or nuclear facility. Mining coal or drilling for oil takes a lot of capital investment. That's just how the big boys like it. They want to cling to the status quo as long as possible. They will fight anything that lowers the entry bar to competition.
That's the same problem we face with health care reform - the vested interests (insurance companies, drug companies) will fight us every step of the way.
There is more to it than simple corruption or ill-will by Powers (not that these are non-issues, just imo not primary or sole-issues).
No-one intentionally works against their economic interests (if i innovate in a way that puts you out of work and helps everyone else, you still have hungry kids/employees and a reason to resist me). So given that organizations observe Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica it is not logical to expect them to be good at nor motivated to change courses.
The bigger problem imho is that known methods are safe and emergent ideas are intrinsically risky. It is exponentially more difficult to forecast the outcome of a direction when you have no historical data to base your predictions on, and inversely "safe" (at least in terms of retaining your job/office) in being able to reference extensive experiential data. Lots and lots of great-sounding ideas have turned out to be, er, "problematic in execution" so those responsible for large-scale decisions are understandably reluctant to put their governmental of corporate necks on the line.
It often takes a savvy individual in a leadership position who is willing to risk looking like a fool to push paradigms over the edge. Whether it is a political leader or an entrepreneur, someone has to give it the final push. I think we are at that edge politically, economically and technically for some of these solutions, and I hope the new Pres. can provide some of that push (that in turn makes it easier for the Venture Capitalists to feel they are being wise by betting their money on the wild-eyed entreprenuers...).
Much of what you say is true. My point is that the powers that be, the oil companies in this case, are too invested in old technology to want to see any change. They have 100's of billions of dollars in refineries, oil exploration, current wells, and future leases at stake. They can't let go of this investment without a fight.
they will only let go of it if they can come to understand that Everything Will Be All Right from their perspective (which may or may not be true, depending on a lot of things). We still need energy companies capable of handling things on a massive scale (even if that is only manufacturing, service and installation of home generation - which it isn't) and oil is not becoming valueless any time soon, so if BP for example really can become Beyond Petroleum then they'll be fine.
But not for all of them. Fortunes will be lost, jobs destroyed, industries brought to their knees before it is all over. And we will have to come to terms with the fact that the majority of those negatively affected will be regular folks (grandmothers invested in Shell, oil-rig workers, ...) and without some care and luck every one of us in a global economic meltdown and resulting warfare and poverty (course, those are extreme cases I'm 99% sure we'll avoid).
Regardless, it needs to happen. To get it done we just need to be very pragmatic and very little idealistic.
-best
