4 ms·

Because we're also a community of scientists. Entrepreneurship and trade can do a lot, but it cannot violate the laws of physics. Peak oil (and gas, and coal)

by api 15y ago

Because we're also a community of scientists. Entrepreneurship and trade can do a lot, but it cannot violate the laws of physics. Peak oil (and gas, and coal) is physics. The laws of physics are absolute. The lost energy from declining fossil fuel EROEI must be either replaced or the demand must be destroyed. Replacing all that energy seems very unlikely... I read about this problem a lot. Demand destruction can occur through efficiency improvements or through simply not buying, not driving, not using. If that's not enough, demand destruction can occur through war, famine, and death. The point is that this will happen if we can't make up the gap, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. Nature doesn't care.

randallsquared 15y ago
Replacing all that energy seems very unlikely... It only seems politically unlikely. Even at the highest estimates of 6 billion USD per 1GW plant, building 500 of them would provide 4Twh per year [1], almost as much as the 4.4Twh that the US now generates, and for about the cost of the Iraq and Afganistan wars. We already know the US could have spent this much money: it did. The US could have spent that money on nuclear, or it could have spent it on lofting solar power satellites, or even massive solar installations, and any of those would have essentially erased our dependence on oil, at least. But even though it wasn't spent on that, all is not lost! Current coal reserves are good, energy-wise (not necessarily environmentally) for at least a hundred years, which gives plenty of time to grow a space-based energy policy, or to make a policy about nuclear power that makes sense, or whatever. Maybe Lomborg makes these points in the article; it seemed as though he was only saying things I agreed with, so I didn't finish. [1] this assumes that each one is operational for 11 months of the year, and that they do something useful like providing energy for methane for gasoline replacement during trough times of day
- wisty 15y ago
  Yes, but electricity != petroleum. You need to replace all the cars (difficult) and trucks (very very difficult). Maybe build more rail infrastructure, too.

by api 15y ago

randallsquared 15y ago

Replacing all that energy seems very unlikely... It only seems politically unlikely. Even at the highest estimates of 6 billion USD per 1GW plant, building 500 of them would provide 4Twh per year [1], almost as much as the 4.4Twh that the US now generates, and for about the cost of the Iraq and Afganistan wars. We already know the US could have spent this much money: it did. The US could have spent that money on nuclear, or it could have spent it on lofting solar power satellites, or even massive solar installations, and any of those would have essentially erased our dependence on oil, at least. But even though it wasn't spent on that, all is not lost! Current coal reserves are good, energy-wise (not necessarily environmentally) for at least a hundred years, which gives plenty of time to grow a space-based energy policy, or to make a policy about nuclear power that makes sense, or whatever. Maybe Lomborg makes these points in the article; it seemed as though he was only saying things I agreed with, so I didn't finish. [1] this assumes that each one is operational for 11 months of the year, and that they do something useful like providing energy for methane for gasoline replacement during trough times of day

wisty 15y ago
Yes, but electricity != petroleum. You need to replace all the cars (difficult) and trucks (very very difficult). Maybe build more rail infrastructure, too.