The Impending Energy Crisis - Page 2

Snook · 10-07-2006, 07:24 PM

(I'm terribly sorry if this has been discussed to death already, I can't find the "search forum" function, if anyone could kindly point it out to me.)

This was inspired by a debate I had with some coworkers today.

What is your take on the topic of energy, namely in how quickly we as a society are using up our resources (oil, wood, coal, etc.) to provide ourselves with electricity to power our industries & lives? If you think we have more than enough natural resources to sustain us, why do you believe this? If you think we're going through our fuel supplies too quickly, again, explain your logic. What is the most likely substitute for our source of power IF our current fuel sources were to go bankrupt?

Personally, I subscribe to Jared Diamonds theory, explained in "Collapse", that our resources are much like an enormous bank account which we've inherited. It seems colossal to us, and so we run through it with glee, only to notice after going through over half of it that "oops", what we have is a very low interest account, which has been accumulating wealth for a very long time (many natural resources take eons to form) and we're burning through the account reserves faster than it's replenishing itself. It's difficult to stop ourselves from doing this by the point we realise our error, however, so we just continue spending like crazy. Eventually, I predict we're going to be forced to move to "alternative fuels" within the next 3 or 4 decades, at the earliest, and by the end of my lifetime at the latest.

What do I propose to do, then? Well, after some research and deliberation, and also common sense, we can't put all our energy-dependent eggs in one fuel-providing basket. To extend the bank metaphor, we need to disversify and invest our fuel needs into many different areas: hydro power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, solar power, etc, in the areas where they can best be put to use. If we have to, I'd even advocate nuclear power, but only if we can find an economic yet ecologically safe way to dispose of the waste. The problem is, which government is going to want to re-structure its energy grid based on a vague prediction of when the crisis will come to a head? It'd cost billions, if not trillions of dollars. And that is the problem. In our modern capitalistic society, no one wishes to invest in such a risky, high-cost endeavor which the hazy promise of returns in the distant future. Investors want profit now, and thus, I don't think that any change will happen with regards to our fuel sources until the **** hits the fan, so to speak.

10-07-2006, 07:24 PM	#1
Snook Goomba Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 7	The Impending Energy Crisis (I'm terribly sorry if this has been discussed to death already, I can't find the "search forum" function, if anyone could kindly point it out to me.) This was inspired by a debate I had with some coworkers today. What is your take on the topic of energy, namely in how quickly we as a society are using up our resources (oil, wood, coal, etc.) to provide ourselves with electricity to power our industries & lives? If you think we have more than enough natural resources to sustain us, why do you believe this? If you think we're going through our fuel supplies too quickly, again, explain your logic. What is the most likely substitute for our source of power IF our current fuel sources were to go bankrupt? Personally, I subscribe to Jared Diamonds theory, explained in "Collapse", that our resources are much like an enormous bank account which we've inherited. It seems colossal to us, and so we run through it with glee, only to notice after going through over half of it that "oops", what we have is a very low interest account, which has been accumulating wealth for a very long time (many natural resources take eons to form) and we're burning through the account reserves faster than it's replenishing itself. It's difficult to stop ourselves from doing this by the point we realise our error, however, so we just continue spending like crazy. Eventually, I predict we're going to be forced to move to "alternative fuels" within the next 3 or 4 decades, at the earliest, and by the end of my lifetime at the latest. What do I propose to do, then? Well, after some research and deliberation, and also common sense, we can't put all our energy-dependent eggs in one fuel-providing basket. To extend the bank metaphor, we need to disversify and invest our fuel needs into many different areas: hydro power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, solar power, etc, in the areas where they can best be put to use. If we have to, I'd even advocate nuclear power, but only if we can find an economic yet ecologically safe way to dispose of the waste. The problem is, which government is going to want to re-structure its energy grid based on a vague prediction of when the crisis will come to a head? It'd cost billions, if not trillions of dollars. And that is the problem. In our modern capitalistic society, no one wishes to invest in such a risky, high-cost endeavor which the hazy promise of returns in the distant future. Investors want profit now, and thus, I don't think that any change will happen with regards to our fuel sources until the **** hits the fan, so to speak.