Quote:
Originally Posted by chucklesR
I congratulate all the contributors to this thread for keeping the entire conversation both civil and enlightening.
What is clear to me is there is a lack of agreement at our level of understanding; that lack of agreement is based on 'facts' being variable dependent on the bias of the writer (not poster, writer of the linked article, graph et. al).
In a perfect world we'd have an answer. I for one would like to believe we could put a man on the moon again, i.e., our scientist and R&D could come up with a viable replacement for oil. Quickly, oh, so quickly.
It's not going to happen. This is not the 1960's and the solution is, frankly more difficult than rocket science.
What we need is compromise, pump the oil we can, as best we can - and find an alternative source of energy that works. Batteries isn't it - something must make the power to charge the battery. Solar isn't it, we can't rely on sunny days or cover miles of land. Ditto the wind. Ethanol, science and economics say it's not ready, or at least I for one do not want to make the trade off of me driving a mile while a family in Asia goes hungry because I bought his biomass. It might be the answer, but it's not ready.
CD asked a lot of valid questions, I'd like to add one to the mix -
Who is best to research and develop the next energy source, market driven capitalist or government? Biases aside, really? who?
As a contractor to government projects, if government is in charge of it we are in deep deep juju.
I'm hoping on Fusion and hydrogen fuel cells, at best guess it's 30 years out and I won't live to see it. I hope I'm wrong on that one.
|
For all of the fun I enjoy making at the expense of the government that I love, they can be the answer. Do you understand what fusion, for example, is? TO think we could do that in the private sector is scary. It requires some serious money and oversight. Dangerous stuff.
Hydrogen, maybe not as much. Private sector, possibly and probably.
Our government is capable of some pretty amazing things when our future depends on it. One great example of that is the atomic bomb.
I personally believe this is the next, serious problem facing our country. I am not completley doom and gloom on it, but my research and review of facts tends to make me extremely concerned.
For the record, I don't think stopping all domestic drilling or foreign imports in search of the next great solar panel is the answer. Nor do I think drilling and foreign import is the answer. The reality is a combination of the two. But the easiest way for this problem to get worse is for more cheap oil. No matter the cost of the oil, the realities and dynamics that surround its supply and demand have not changed. In fact, it could be argued that by decreasing the cost (or increasing the supply), you exhagerate an already serious issue and make it harder to fix in the future. As such, I am an advocate for making the effort to get off now before it gets worse. Any effort you make now will not pay off for many, many years.
- CD