Buisnessweek: Peak oil to Dark Age

[chequita guevara]

Wave power!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Nuclear power isn't a feasible option in much of the world.

It could change. The world as it is today was not anticipated by many 20 years ago.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18233/

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Tidal could more than meet our demand alone.

No.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Tidal could more than meet our demand alone.

Yes, and communism is a sound economic theory that takes baser human instincts into account.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Or it's not worth it to try to transport energy from some solar plant in the desert to Washington DC

Supercooled superconducting cables?

Actually, I bet they're unfeasibly expensive, or something.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Supercooled superconducting cables?

Think about that for a while until you realize why it might be even less efficient.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's no need for nuclear when there are perfectly green technologies that can meet demand, like wind, solar, and tidal. Nukes produce a poison we have no way to safely dispose of.

The "dangers" of nuclear are mostly luddite scaremongering. The newer reactor designs are made so that the reactors can't suffer meltdown. Nuclear waste can be recycled back into nuclear fuel.

[Kuciwalker]

The "dangers" of nuclear are mostly luddite scaremongering.

... which is countered by the fact that nuclear is very heavily subsidized and therefore appears much cheaper than it actually is.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Think about that for a while until you realize why it might be even less efficient.

It's not a given that cooling will cost more than the savings.

[Kuciwalker]

You think the power loss over 1 mile of wire is greater than the cost of powerful cooling equipment along that entire mile?

[DanS]

While not directly linked, I think we can take care of a good deal of our energy needs by solar. I used to be very skeptical about non-subsidized solar, but we're going to be hitting some cost sweet spots for thin film solar in the next several years.

Here is a fascinating presentation by Mark Pinto of Applied Materials about how they see this playing out. They hope to put solar power on the LCD panel cost trajectory. It was compelling for me.

http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/070404-ee380-300.asx

See, especially, starting at ~ 35:00.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You think the power loss over 1 mile of wire is greater than the cost of powerful cooling equipment along that entire mile?

Depends. It's probably impractical for Nevada to Washington transmission, but for high-density areas, it might be worth it.

[Kuciwalker]

1. That doesn't actually make sense. Think about it a bit more.

2. It would only be necessary to conduct electricity to distant parts of the country in the first place.

[Dis]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


It could change. The world as it is today was not anticipated by many 20 years ago.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18233/

not if we restrict nuclear technology going to other nations.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The "dangers" of nuclear are mostly luddite scaremongering.

... which is countered by the fact that nuclear is very heavily subsidized and therefore appears much cheaper than it actually is.

no one is saying it isn't expensive. I know the navy spends alot to build nuclear powered ships like carriers.

But when we run low on oil, it won't seem so expensive.

The economy will take a major hit when we start running low on oil without a doubt.