Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[rtxoff]

I think you lost my point: there is already an over abundance of CO2 in the air, polar caps are already in runaway melting, switching to carbon free energy sources is great and all but it won't stop global warming. So again "preventing release" does nothing for the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 already emitted. If you want a goal appropriate for switching energy how about the fact that there is not enough oil, fuel and natural gas to supply our "growing" economy past the 21 century. All the good stuff has already been mined and depleted, the tar sands and fracking simply can't supply our every growing energy needs.

Well i have no problem with that, but i really abhor the idea of releasing some chemical stuff into the oceans to fight global warming. We have done already enough damage. Pouring chemicals into the oceans could have enourmous impact on the life in it. We can not forsee what's going to happen by doing that. It's a terrible idea. The solution must be to get rid of the CO2 not to fight it's symptoms.

[ZetaX]

I would defend my position becouse I am right.[...] But in this case.. I can not lose.

So you are "right" because you think so, despite you lacking any serious arguments (I only hear "tourism ex machina" all the time [for more on that: see below]) or others disputing it. That is not the right way to do a discussion. Even less, you claim others have no clue about this or that (e.g. economy of tourism), yet you did not back your arguments with data or something else. You don't get to be right just because you think so.

But if the launch cost is reduced 1/10 only (skylon would reduce even more), then your hotel construction cost is reduced by a factor of 1/50, plus that is more cheap to carry people, then your ticket prize would be close to 300000$. Then you have a market!

Why should a reduction to (I will assume you meant "to", not "by", as otherwise it would be at 90% the original price) 1/10 in launch cost suddenly cause a 1/50 in construction cost¿ Sounds pretty random without any argument backing it, a 1/10 would be the obvious guess. Thus in the end your ticket goes down to 1/10, thus it is now at 10 Million dollars; great...

I already explain this, in 10 years with all the advances in graphene, is almost certain that we end with a composite graphene based PV that it would weight almost nothing, thin as paper which can be delivery as rolls.

The energy is not beaming itself down magically. Microwave transmission is utterly untested and as far as I know very sketchy on the required distance to GEO (anything else would cause lots of other problems). You also need to show why this is better than simply building PV down here. Note that any launch will create more CO2, too. Thus you will need to show that it is economically feasable to launch and transmit, with an overall monetary efficency over normal ground based PV (which I would estimate to have 25%-50% of a space based one's light income).

[Vanamonde]

Leave the personal attacks out of the discussions, folks, or we will be forced to shut down the thread and start handing out infractions.

[RuBisCO]

Well fine then I did not think it was a personal attack, only that gpisic appeal to the unknown fallacy is dangerously wrong, that says nothing of gpisic.

As for iron fertilizing, what we theorize it will do is produce massive algae blooms, that will soak up a little of all the CO2 we have released, and drop it to the bottom of the ocean and hopefully stay there for centuries, and that it is improbable that it will cause serious unknown side-effects. So yes it could "get rid of the CO2" add in halting the production of more CO2 and the global warming problem will be fixed, but halting the production of CO2 is not going to fix the problem alone anymore then stop shooting a person will fix the bullet wounds already inflicted. Switching to new energy sources will not stop global warming it just will stop doing any more damage that is not already done or already set in motion. There are plenty of good reasons to switch to cleaner alternative energy, but stopping global warming is not one of them, "reducing" global warming would be a reason though, of course that reduction won't be felt for some time, meanwhile say goodbye to the coast line.

[AngelLestat]

Leave the personal attacks out of the discussions, folks, or we will be forced to shut down the thread and start handing out infractions.

If somebody said something inappropriate, make a personal infraction.

Why close a whole tread just becose somebody is bad or is searching problems.

So you are "right" because you think so, despite you lacking any serious arguments (I only hear "tourism ex machina" all the time [for more on that: see below]) or others disputing it. That is not the right way to do a discussion. Even less, you claim others have no clue about this or that (e.g. economy of tourism), yet you did not back your arguments with data or something else. You don't get to be right just because you think so.

I give you many arguments, but I dont know what are you expecting from me. If oranges price low, people buy more oranges, if oranges cost increase, demand decrease. Is so basic that you would not find a serious source explaining that. You would find books of economics 101 which explain between many things "cost-demand", but you would not read the exact word "oranges".

When I said that I am right, is not an argument and I never present it as such. I just wanted you to know how sure of this I am, so in the case you wanna reply me, first question, think and read what I am saying, then reply.

Why should a reduction to (I will assume you meant "to", not "by", as otherwise it would be at 90% the original price) 1/10 in launch cost suddenly cause a 1/50 in construction cost¿ Sounds pretty random without any argument backing it, a 1/10 would be the obvious guess. Thus in the end your ticket goes down to 1/10, thus it is now at 10 Million dollars; great...

Becouse if you have 1/10 in launch cost, then all scale down.

1-All insurance costs reduce (becouse if something happen, you lose less money becouse the launch is cheaper)

2-All test cost are also reduce (for the same thing)

3-Astronauts can help in the assembly making the development cost lower with more freedom in the design (becouse is cheaper to sent astronauts)

4-You can carry supply more often, so you dont need a perfect design to reduce assistance from earth (so the development cost low)

5-You initial investment is highly reduce, so you need spent less in credits, or you can use your money save to make more money.

6-You can repay your investment in less time with lower ticket value which generally increase demand making your business more profit so your repay time decrease even more.

7-Etc etc etc.

You want another example? I can imagine hundreds of different examples which would generate more demand if launch cost decrease.

The energy is not beaming itself down magically. Microwave transmission is utterly untested and as far as I know very sketchy on the required distance to GEO (anything else would cause lots of other problems). You also need to show why this is better than simply building PV down here. Note that any launch will create more CO2, too. Thus you will need to show that it is economically feasable to launch and transmit, with an overall monetary efficency over normal ground based PV (which I would estimate to have 25%-50% of a space based one's light income).

no, you got right, is not a magical beaming, is know science.

There are already many advances in maser difraction and aiming techniques.

The design and development can start in 8 years using new approach with metamaterials and nanotechnology.

Edited June 26, 2014 by AngelLestat

[ZetaX]

If somebody said something inappropriate, make a personal infraction.

Why close a whole tread just becose somebody is bad or is searching problems.

Indeed, that is a pretty annoying behaviour of moderators ins everal fora.

I give you many arguments, but I dont know what are you expecting from me. If oranges price low, people buy more oranges, if oranges cost increase, demand decrease. Is so basic that you would not find a serious source explaining that. You would find books of economics 101 which explain between many things "cost-demand", but you would not read the exact word "oranges".

So economy is "basic"¿ Your iterated claims of complete ignorance on how complicated things actually are does not answer my request on facts and detailed arguments.

Becouse if you have 1/10 in launch cost, then all scale down.

1-All insurance costs reduce (becouse if something happen, you lose less money becouse the launch is cheaper)

2-All test cost are also reduce (for the same thing)

3-Astronauts can help in the assembly making the development cost lower with more freedom in the design (becouse is cheaper to sent astronauts)

4-You can carry supply more often, so you dont need a perfect design to reduce assistance from earth (so the development cost low)

5-You initial investment is highly reduce, so you need spent less in credits, or you can use your money save to make more money.

6-You can repay your investment in less time with lower ticket value which generally increase demand making your business more profit so your repay time decrease even more.

7-Etc etc etc..

Yeah, all costs scale down. To 1/10th. Thus the total cost scales down to 1/10th. Where is your point¿ Do you seriously believe that total_cost = launch_cost · insurance_cost · test_cost · ... · investment_cost¿!

Hint: you need to take the sum, not the product. Where it then amounts to very simple math.

no, you got right, is not a magical beaming, is know science.

There are already many advances in maser difraction and aiming techniques.

The design and development can start in 8 years using new approach with metamaterials and nanotechnology.

Name a source where energy transfer using maser over distances in the range of many kilometers (up to 36000km) is discussed. Stop claiming that "this is science", because what you do really is not. You get defocusing, tons of energy loss, aiming problems, and lots of others. You can not just hand-wave those away with "science will solve that".

PS: it is "because", not "becouse", you seem to have gotten that spelling wrong consistenly.

[AngelLestat]

So economy is "basic"¿ Your iterated claims of complete ignorance on how complicated things actually are does not answer my request on facts and detailed arguments.

I dint said that economics is easy, I just said that the part of cost/demand is basic

Yeah, all costs scale down. To 1/10th. Thus the total cost scales down to 1/10th. Where is your point¿ Do you seriously believe that total_cost = launch_cost · insurance_cost · test_cost · ... · investment_cost¿!

Ehh? no, read again.

If your launch cost reduce 1/10, then your total building cost is reduced by 1/30 to 1/50, then the ticket cost would be close to 1/100 or 1/200.

I dont have fix numbers, but those are my estimations, I already list some causes.

http://www.spaceflorida.gov/docs/misc/srvs-10-year-forecast-of-market-demand-report.pdf

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/implications_of_reduced_launch_cost_for_commercial_space_law.shtml

one of thoudsands business which may arise:

http://www.spaceflorida.gov/docs/misc/srvs-10-year-forecast-of-market-demand-report.pdf

And remember that your stand is: "launch cost reduction does not increase space demand"

Name a source where energy transfer using maser over distances in the range of many kilometers (up to 36000km) is discussed. Stop claiming that "this is science", because what you do really is not. You get defocusing, tons of energy loss, aiming problems, and lots of others. You can not just hand-wave those away with "science will solve that".

just name one issue (choose one, becouse I dont pretent to make a whole thesis from this), and tomorrow I would search the solution for you.

PS: it is "because", not "becouse", you seem to have gotten that spelling wrong consistenly.

I already told you, my english is bad. I will try to remember that.

Edited June 26, 2014 by AngelLestat

[kmMango]

Fusion, come and deliver us from evil.

As for fission, I'm pretty sure there's a sticker on the Fukushima reactor that says "Warranty void if exposed to magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami."

[shynung]

Becouse if you have 1/10 in launch cost, then all scale down.

I disagree, because:

1-All insurance costs reduce (becouse if something happen, you lose less money becouse the launch is cheaper)

Not necessarily. The price of the launch vehicle is independent from the price of the payload(the satellite). Insurance costs may go down, but not as much as you think.

2-All test cost are also reduce (for the same thing)

Launch vehicle testing costs are independent from the actual cost-per-launch. Generally, more testing means better vehicle reliability, but will raise the total vehicle cost, so absurdly low launch costs are usually a yellow flag for the launch client.

3-Astronauts can help in the assembly making the development cost lower with more freedom in the design (becouse is cheaper to sent astronauts)

Manned rockets require the highest standards of safety, therefore high testing costs, and high total vehicle costs. Astronauts also have problems with being launched from a safety-unproven, cheapskate rocket. They're not Jebediah Kerman.

4-You can carry supply more often, so you dont need a perfect design to reduce assistance from earth (so the development cost low)

This concept has been studied (and discussed in KSP forums) once. The fact that the study does not produce a practical launcher implies problems with the concept as it is.

You want another example? I can imagine hundreds of different examples which would generate more demand if launch cost decrease.

Do us a favor, and conduct a cost-benefit comparison analysis of using a fleet of Falcon 9 Reusable rockets vs. Skylon SSTO spaceplanes vs. Aquarius Launch Vehicle rockets.

Edited June 26, 2014 by shynung

[Nibb31]

I dint said that economics is easy, I just said that the part of cost/demand is basic

Basic theory is basic.

In reality the mechanisms are much more complex.

Also, you are confusing price and cost. If someone reduces the cost of launching stuff by 10%, it doesn't mean that they will reduce the price by 10%. Pricing is an art, and if you go an look at just about any industry (aerospace, automobile, cell phones, game consoles, razor blades, insurance...) you'll see that the retail price is decorrelated from the actual production cost of the product. Sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, sometimes there are huge margins, sometimes there are subisidies. It all depends on your plans for maximizing profit over a given period in a particular market.

And you don't generate new markets by simply slashing prices. If what you said was true, then car manufacturers would simply have to lower the prices of cars by 10% and they would automatically gain a 10% market share. They would just have to hire 10% more people and produce 10% more cars. If it was really that simple, then there would be no crisis in the car industry and the economy would flourish. Well, it doesn't work that way, does it?

Ehh? no, read again.

If your launch cost reduce 1/10, then your total building cost is reduced by 1/30 to 1/50, then the ticket cost would be close to 1/100 or 1/200.

I dont have fix numbers, but those are my estimations, I already list some causes.

Huh?

The large part of the "launch cost" is hardware, pad handling, integration, and operating the launch. Then there is all the support personnel (HR, cleaners, caterers, facility management, finance, administration, sales...). All of those tasks are performed by different people, often highly qualified. Manpower is the real cost. Hardware is only a small portion of the "launch cost", so you will never get a 50% of launch cost reduction by just using a new launch technology.

But let's be optimistic and imagine that you do reduce the price of a launch by 50%. If the launch cost is 20% of the cost of operating a spacecraft and reduce the launch cost by 50%, then you only get a 10% overall reduction.

Let's go crazy and imagine that you actually manage to bring the entire operational cost down by 50%. You can sell launch slots for $50 million instead of $100 million. What are the "huge business opportunities" that suddenly appear here?

It's still too expensive for space tourism. Asteroid mining is still not viable. Orbital solar plants are still going to be more expensive than ground-based solar. You might get a slight increase in institutional launches (government, science...) because these people need to fly and have tight budgets, but that's it.

just name one issue (choose one, becouse I dont pretent to make a whole thesis from this), and tomorrow I would search the solution for you.

There are plenty of issues with all of this. If it was as easy and simple as you say, why is it that the thousands of brilliant people that work in the space industry haven't found a way to make money in space other than selling launches to the government or launching communication satellites? Are you implying that you are smarter than them?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Nibb31

[ZetaX]

I dint said that economics is easy, I just said that the part of cost/demand is basic

And that part is not easy, either. You oversimplied it a lot.

Ehh? no, read again.

If your launch cost reduce 1/10, then your total building cost is reduced by 1/30 to 1/50, then the ticket cost would be close to 1/100 or 1/200.

I know that you wrote that. You just did not explain those numbers at all. I can also make up numbers, but I won't. You did not even respond to what I wrote, you just iterated what you wrote earlier! I also do not see where your links back your numbers... as said twice already, a 1/10th in launch cost will probably cause a 1/10th in total costs or less, not more; everything else needs detailed elaboration (and this has nothing to do with increasing demand; you demand can be 1000fold and this would still apply).

just name one issue (choose one, becouse I dont pretent to make a whole thesis from this), and tomorrow I would search the solution for you.

a) It is your duty to show it is possible in the first place, not mine to disprove you. Do good science please.

I will self-quote my last post: "You get defocusing, tons of energy loss, aiming problems, and lots of others.". I and others also mentioned it simply being not worth the cost in comparision to ground (e.g. desert) based PV. I would like to see all those solved. But well, go for the aspect of (energetic/monetary) efficiency if you must focus to one.

Edited June 26, 2014 by ZetaX

[Seret]

Wait how is switching to another energy source going to stop global warming? How is it going to suck up all the CO2 that there, at best we would simply stop adding more but the ice caps are in runway meltdown mode already, sea level will rise by at least a meter by the end of the century no matter what we do! Switching to a non-fossil fuel energy source will simply free us from peak-fossil fuels, that is the the ever increasing price and falling energy return of these fuels as we mine all the good stuff up and keep resorting to harder to mine, dirtier crap.

Anyways we need to consider ways of "geoforming": controling earth's climate, not simply our energy sources. We need ways of sucking up CO2, controling sunlight levels, turning the sahara green, farming the ocean, etc, etc.

You're right of course, but there are practical problems. Ideally we'd be taking a two-pronged approach:

1. Stop emitting carbon
   
2. Remove the excess carbon already in the cycle
   

The problem is that we simply lack the competencies for the second part. That's slowly changing, ten or twenty years ago if you mentioned geoengineering people would think you were a crank, now it's at least being discussed. The problem is that it requires massive international cooperation, it's incredibly risky, and confidence is low. We unfortunately lack a scale version of the Earth to do testing, so you'd have to be damn sure of your models before you try it, because the problem with testing your assumptions live is that you need to do it at full scale to get any effects. Getting it wrong could be immensely destructive and we've already proved we don't understand the feedback systems in the biosphere well, so we need to approach it cautiously. It's not something we're going to be doing on a globally significant scale in ten years, or twenty, or probably even fifty.

You only need to look at weather forecasting and the arguments over the IPCCs models to see how immature our understanding of the full range of processes (including complex feedback) in the biosphere. Our models are limited in power, although improving rapidly. However, the Butterfly Effect does restrict the distance we can model into the future, and that limits the confidence we can have in the idea of global-scale geoengineering.

TL;DR: We can reduce emissions, we can't clean up the carbon. So we're doing what we can.

Yes but does the CO2 stay seqestered on the sea floor and for how long?

A long time. The deep sea and seabed are the biggest sponge we have for carbon. One possible problem with ocean sequestration is that it looks likely that we'll start dredging up the methane hydrates at some point.

IMO it's likely that we'll dig up and emit all the carbon we can get our hands on. As long as it's profitable to burn hydrocarbons people will do it. We need to develop alternatives that are financially attractive to prevent them from doing this. We need to prepare for the effects of emissions if they don't, and in the long run we need to find ways to remove and sequester the carbon they do emit. It's not going to be easy, and it's probably going to take centuries, but we really don't have a choice.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Seret

[peadar1987]

One problem I can think of with artificially creating large algal blooms is eutrophication. I'm sure people have considered it when they've been discussing the plan, but it still makes me a bit uneasy.

[xcorps]

Wait how is switching to another energy source going to stop global warming? How is it going to suck up all the CO2 that there, at best we would simply stop adding more but the ice caps are in runway meltdown mode already, sea level will rise by at least a meter by the end of the century no matter what we do!

That's a real headscratcher. you said the ice caps are runway melting. But they aren't. Artic sea ice is melting at a more rapid rate than than it did from 1980 to 2010, but Antarctic ice is growing at double the rate of decline in the Artic. The decline in Artic sea ice is the highest on satellite record and the growth in Antarctic sea ice is...the highest on record.

As for sea level, not even the hysterics at the IPCC claim a meter by the end of the century, they claim 18-59cm. Last I checked 59cm was less than one meter. EDIT:I checked again and nobody has changed the metric system yet.

I don't see any reason to panic, and I don't see a reason to post inflammatory rhetoric about climate change. It's already difficult enough to get straight facts, and statements like "the ice caps are melting at a runaway mode already" are really not helpful.

[peadar1987]

That's a real headscratcher. you said the ice caps are runway melting. But they aren't. Artic sea ice is melting at a more rapid rate than than it did from 1980 to 2010, but Antarctic ice is growing at double the rate of decline in the Artic. The decline in Artic sea ice is the highest on satellite record and the growth in Antarctic sea ice is...the highest on record.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png

This is true, but it neglects the fact that Antarctic land ice is melting at a large and accelerating rate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-basic.htm

As for sea level, not even the hysterics at the IPCC claim a meter by the end of the century, they claim 18-59cm. Last I checked 59cm was less than one meter. EDIT:I checked again and nobody has changed the metric system yet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

I don't see any reason to panic, and I don't see a reason to post inflammatory rhetoric about climate change. It's already difficult enough to get straight facts, and statements like "the ice caps are melting at a runaway mode already" are really not helpful.

The first part is true, but rising sea levels aren't the major implication of climate change. We don't need to panic, but it is a good idea to start calmly and methodically looking at ways we can mitigate climate change.

[xcorps]

This is true, but it neglects the fact that Antarctic land ice is melting at a large and accelerating rate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-basic.htm

This is what I mean about finding good information. We do not know if those sea ice vs land ice ratios are normal and cyclical, or anomalous.

The first part is true, but rising sea levels aren't the major implication of climate change. We don't need to panic, but it is a good idea to start calmly and methodically looking at ways we can mitigate climate change.

I agree.

First, we need better information on climate change. The information presented in the last 20 years has been tampered with too much. We don't have a large enough sample, and we don't have ANY undoctored samples.

Everyone has taken sides, and everyone manipulates the data, the data gathering methods and the conclusions. Maybe then we can quit blaming manmade global warming for a lake having too much water and then 10 years later blaming AGW for the same lake not having enough water.

Then we have to determine if climate change is in fact as the fearmongers say.

Then we have to determine if we actually cause the climate change and if so, then we worry about making changes to our contributions.

Then we worry about how to reverse it.

[Seret]

We don't need to panic, but it is a good idea to start calmly and methodically looking at ways we can mitigate climate change.

This. Even if you ignore climate change completely it's clear that our energy systems are unsustainable long-term. Energy demand continues to rise, and fuel reserves are finite. Our current system clearly only works as a temporary stepping stone on the way to something more rational. It's not a question of if we have to change our energy systems, just when. Why not start now and make a gradual transition instead of having a mad panic later?

[xcorps]

You might find this interesting reading

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

[peadar1987]

This is what I mean about finding good information. We do not know if those sea ice vs land ice ratios are normal and cyclical, or anomalous.

I agree.

First, we need better information on climate change. The information presented in the last 20 years has been tampered with too much. We don't have a large enough sample, and we don't have ANY undoctored samples.

Everyone has taken sides, and everyone manipulates the data, the data gathering methods and the conclusions. Maybe then we can quit blaming manmade global warming for a lake having too much water and then 10 years later blaming AGW for the same lake not having enough water.

Then we have to determine if climate change is in fact as the fearmongers say.

Then we have to determine if we actually cause the climate change and if so, then we worry about making changes to our contributions.

Then we worry about how to reverse it.

Now this I don't really agree with.

The potential implications of climate change are so severe that we need to have a solid plan in place to mitigate them, even if they don't turn out to be as bad as feared.

Essentially we have two possibilities and two courses of action. Either AGW is happening, or it is not, and either we do something about it, or we don't.

If global warming isn't happening and we do nothing, we've dodged a bullet.

If global warming isn't happening and we do something, we've wasted some money.

If global warming is happening and we do something, we spend some money, but we stop something really bad from happening.

If global warming is happening and we do nothing. DOOOOM! (Okay, maybe not, but things are going to get awfully bad for a lot of people, and it will cost us huge amounts in economic damage as well)

This cartoon comes to mind:

As for the data, the "skeptics" have gotten very good at muddying the waters, and spreading falsehoods about the reliability of data. "Climategate" for example. It was an absolute non-issue, an email referring to a "trick" to make statistical analysis easier, and yet they still think of it as a "smoking gun" proving it's all a conspiracy. Taking fringe views or upper confidence bounds and presenting them as the mainstream, or most likely scenario, then using them as a stick with which to beat mainstream climate science later on is another commonly-used tactic.

[Seret]

You might find this interesting reading

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Was that directed at me? The fact remains that we're burning it faster than it's being created. Estimates of reserves always climb, if only because we develop new methods to locate and extract them. That doesn't change the fact that they're finite. Finite resource, rising open-ended demand; it's a no-brainer.

[peadar1987]

You might find this interesting reading

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

I'm sorry, but I don't trust that website one solitary inch. Seriously, look at the front page: http://www.rense.com/. So much concentrated crazy in the one place! (It also includes among its sister sites such gems as "real Jew news", which calls for "A Christian America, not a Jewish America", and features some lovely historical revisionism about the holocaust.)

[xcorps]

There is no doubt that there has been false and erroneous data used and reported to the public. There is no doubt that accurate and precise data has been used and reported to the public. We have a dividing line in the middle, with skeptics on one side and warmists on the other. We should ignore both and proceed with rational thought. Unfortunately, the world media makes it's living selling fear.

http://eastmidlandsgreenparty.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/climate-change-better-world-for-nothing-cartoon.jpg?w=300&h=236

Epic.

I'm sorry, but I don't trust that website one solitary inch. Seriously, look at the front page: http://www.rense.com/. So much concentrated crazy in the one place! (It also includes among its sister sites such gems as "real Jew news", which calls for "A Christian America, not a Jewish America", and features some lovely historical revisionism about the holocaust.)

I understand that, but I can't find the Shell-Devon Energy report for the fields under Ship Shoal 333A and Ship Shoal 333C that indicate million barrell seepage into a non-producing field to post, so I put that up instead. That article is factually correct. It's regrettable that the source isn't any better than what it is.

The fact remains that we're burning it faster than it's being created.

That is true, but the peak oil theory needs revision.

Edited June 26, 2014 by xcorps

[Seret]

That is true, but the peak oil theory needs revision.

No, the theory is based on solid historical data. Some parts of the world (such as the US) have already gone through peak oil. The situation on the world scale is likely to have something of a longer tail due to things like tertiary recovery, but you can't fight the economics and the physical realities. The easy stuff gets dug up first, then it gets hard and expensive.

[xcorps]

No, the theory is based on solid historical data. Some parts of the world (such as the US) have already gone through peak oil. The situation on the world scale is likely to have something of a longer tail due to things like tertiary recovery, but you can't fight the economics and the physical realities. The easy stuff gets dug up first, then it gets hard and expensive.

What I should have said was new models for peak oil need to be created. Many of the models that are used to predict world peak oil don't include new deepwater discoveries and advanced extraction techniques on non producing wells. The current estimates for world peak in 2030 are not accurate.

EDIT:

Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert's methodology falls down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on production. His approach does not work in all cases-including on the United States itself-and cannot reliably model a global production outlook. Put more simply, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As it is, production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the United States was 66 percent higher than Hubbert projected"

Cambridge Energy Research Associates

Edited June 26, 2014 by xcorps

[SelectHalfling0]

I believe that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are missing from this list.

Cheap? ehhh....

Dangerous? New nano-technologies are allowing for safer mass storage of Hydrogen

Environmentally Friendly? The only waste of Hydrogen fuel cells is water. WATER!