Honest question...

[Okla-homey]

I understand that wind constitutes around 1% of total US domestic electrical power production and solar is closer to .001%.

That said, is it reasonable to expect we'll be off the fossil pipe this century?

[SunnySooner]

I don't know. I would think at this point nuclear energy would be the cleanest, safest, most efficient way to mass produce electricity but it has a huge PR problem. I just can't believe that in the year 2010 we still send people into holes in the ground to dig out chunks of coal for us to burn. With all the advances we've had in all the other fields, it just seems crazy to me that that still happens everyday. And that people die almost every year in that pursuit.

[yermom]

probably less people die for coal than oil...

i'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion

i think it's only like 5 years out

[Frozen Sooner]

I understand that wind constitutes around 1% of total US domestic electrical power production and solar is closer to .001%.

That said, is it reasonable to expect we'll be off the fossil pipe this century?

From 1910 to 2000, the United States went from a rural non-electrified country to an urban electrified country. At the beginning of the 20th century, most people hadn't seen an automobile at all.

Predicting advances in technology over a 90 year span conservatively-particularly over the past few hundred years-is a sucker's game. Technological advance over that kind of period is usually positively curved.

[Leroy Lizard]

probably less people die for coal than oil...

i'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion

i think it's only like 5 years out

I doubt they're that close with fusion. I visited the Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore back around 1990 and they said they were about 40 years away.

[My Opinion Matters]

I long for the good ol' days of having my reading light provided by clean-burning, biodegradable whale oil. It also gives off a musky ambiance that cannot be duplicated.

[yermom]

I doubt they're that close with fusion. I visited the Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore back around 1990 and they said they were about 40 years away.

http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/mr_fusion.jpg

Doc Brown brought his back from 2015. hell, it might have been around before that :D

[XingTheRubicon]

The only way oil will be supplanted is through massive increases in price thru lack of discovery.

Only certain elements on earth contain usable energy. This will not change. Oil happens to be easy to obtain in large quantities (85 million bbls/day are extracted and used) Oil is cheap and easy to transport. Oil is cheap and easy to store. 16 oz of crude is cheaper than water (oil is 25 cents per 16 oz at today's prices)

There's no argument that there are other energy solutions to power a car or light a home. Currently, there's about 80 ways power an internal combustion engine. The only problem is the 2nd cheapest way (behind oil) is about 300% more costly and capable of handling a fraction of what oil now provides.

What we're trying to discover, in a strange way, is something hopefully just like oil. Mainly because its the cheapest, easiest, safest way to provide energy needs for 6 billion people. Everyone hates it, no seems to want to admit it...but completely replacing oil in the next 30 years is just as likely as replacing the air in the sky. It never gets old, though, watching a starry-eyed Obama voter on cable talking about "ridding our oil addiction." Yeah, that will happen at the same time Americans start hating money.

[yermom]

bottled water is fairly expensive at $.25 for 16 oz.

[OUMallen]

Two words, one image: NATURAL GAS.


http://nedgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/naturalgas.jpg

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Not Likely.

Don't think of the energy type, think of the delivery mechanism. That is the key. Everything we have in this country today, the delivery mechanism is either pipeline (for gasoline, natural gas and petrolem distilates) or power lines for electricity. I exclude rail for coal and those are typically dedicated lines to power stations.

Any type of alternate fuel would either have to use the current delivery scheme or develop a whole new one. Wind and solar would tap into the grid, but I believe they have technical as well as ROI issues that current modes do not.

You could say use Methanol like Brazil, but all pipelines and vehicles would have to be refit to account for the corrosiveness of methanol and the deteriation of the parts in the above. But what could we get methanol from? Not with food stuffs or without government subsidies. Used cellulose would have an advantage as to be a waste product and not a food stuff.

So what new method of delivery can you think of? It will be expenses and someone will have to take a leap of faith to do it...So we'll see.

It may be at the end of the century as petroleum may be ending that we see major advancement in other fuel sources.

[XingTheRubicon]

bottled water is fairly expensive at $.25 for 16 oz.

No, a 16 oz bottle of water is about 35 cents cost at 7-11. Retails for .69 to .99 cents depending on the brand.

[GottaHavePride]

If you buy water in the big gallon jugs it's more like 20 cents a gallon. If you're buying the little 16oz bottles you're a silly person.

[delhalew]

Not bloody likely. For energy, natural gas and nuclear could get us by until technology gives us another answer.
We can't forget nearly everything we touch throughout the course of a given day is a petro product.
I think we should be on our knees thanking God we have oil as an affordable energy source. Its just a shame we don't use more our own supply.
I support reducing imports of oil, but environmentalist who demonize oil need their *** kicked. Hipocritical ****sticks the lot of them! What do think your trendy little Iphone is made of moombeam? **********s!!

[Ike]

By the end of this century (as homey stated in the OP)? I would put that in the 'quite possibly' category. For a few reasons:

1) As the "developing world" develops, they are going to be demanding a lot more oil and other energy sources, putting upward pressure on fossil fuel prices.

2) There exists only a fixed amount of oil in the ground. The general theory of peak oil is absolutely correct. However, it's impossible to tell when you've hit the peak until you are well past it (so don't go believing any predictions about oil based on peak oil). But at some point in the future, *maybe* within the next century, supplies of oil are going to start dwindling. Putting further upward pressure on fossil fuel prices. It's going to get harder to find and more expensive to produce.

3) As these things happen, alternatives become cheaper by comparison. Nuke power will certainly look attractive if we can figure out a good plan for dealing with the waste (I say build a giant catapult and fling it at the sun :D ). Solar and wind power may develop some economies of scale if demand for them go high enough, and that could put downward pressure on the prices.

4) There is still the transportation problem. Transportation consumes a very significant fraction of our oil usage. Gasoline has the highest energy density by weight and by volume of any transportable fuel (unless we make personalized nuclear reactors, but I don't see that coming anytime soon). No battery has a chance of even getting close in terms of energy stored for such a low weight. Our country especially has gotten used to the gasoline powered car, and if it were to go away, whole cities would undergo massive changes. So we'd need some energy source that is similar, if not better than, a gasoline burning vehicle. That doesn't exist yet. But who knows what may exist in 50 years. Just think that 50 years ago, if you tried to pitch the idea of an internet, or an iPhone, to June Cleaver, she would have looked at you like you were bat**** crazy.



BTW, I have some ideas for futuristic transportation without batteries or on-board fuel that might be do-able...the most recent takes into account the recent advances in wireless power transmission. Basically turn roads into one long power transmitter, and cars into big recievers. Then you just wind up paying a fee or a tax or a whatever to whoever it might be based upon the number of miles driven. Possible: yes. Likely: Not so sure. Its not exactly the type of thing that can work if it starts off small, and would thus require a massive commitment by the public to go with this kind of thing.

[delhalew]

BTW, the problem with wind is reliabilty. During the peak summer usage period is when wind power falls short.

Hey Ike, you wanna draw up some plans for that catapult?

[Ike]

I'll also add, if we really wanted to speed things up on the alternative energy transportation front, Have the DoD announce an open-ended contest that awards a billion dollars to the first company to design and build a non-fossil fueled military cargo aircraft, perhaps also with a promise to purchase some number of them at some percentage above production cost.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Wind has to be regional only. Here in Nevada with so much open space and constant wind it's feasible, but only due to the fact that there are vast unlivable sections of the state (ok, most of the state) without trees or anything else. A still day here is about as likely as a full spring in Oklahoma without a tornado. Same thing goes for solar here since even in winter it's rare to have a cloudy day.

It would create enough for the population here, but I doubt there would be any to share on a nationwide grid.

That said, the government needs to send our unemployed, broke *** state some of that stimulus money to get it all built and running if it's ever gonna happen since Nevada power is content to continue charging roughly 400 bucks a month to power a small apartment with the AC set at 75 and the lights off.

[NormanPride]

I saw a recent article about a new type of nuke reactor that was tons cleaner and more stable. Used a different type of titanium thingamadoo to create tons less (literally) waste. I think the reactors in general lasted longer as well.

I like the idea of the wireless car. It would fit in with a citywide grid that could even control traffic. You could plug in your destination and the car would just take you there, adjusting for traffic as needed. But that would take a ton of power to run, and that currently comes from oil or coal. Hrm.

[Ike]

I like the idea of the wireless car. It would fit in with a citywide grid that could even control traffic. You could plug in your destination and the car would just take you there, adjusting for traffic as needed. But that would take a ton of power to run, and that currently comes from oil or coal. Hrm.


Well, my wireless car idea is pre-supposing energy generation from alternative sources (nuke, massive solar, something). I'll be the first to admit that as of now, it's totally a sci-fi, pie-in-the-sky type of idea.

[NormanPride]

No, it would be pretty simple to implement. Cities would have to run wire through main roads to power cars, and then a smaller battery could last the cars in residential areas. From what I understand you just have to be in the "path" of the magnetic field. If you made the circuit go on the outside of the road you could construct the system with minimal impact to current drivers. Or hell, just lay it on top of the concrete in a weatherproof housing.

[Ike]

No, it would be pretty simple to implement. Cities would have to run wire through main roads to power cars, and then a smaller battery could last the cars in residential areas. From what I understand you just have to be in the "path" of the magnetic field. If you made the circuit go on the outside of the road you could construct the system with minimal impact to current drivers. Or hell, just lay it on top of the concrete in a weatherproof housing.

The pie in the sky part though is energy loss. Induction is not a 100% efficient means of transferring power. So you have to generate more energy than is actually needed.


I'll also note that apparently I'm not the first to think of this. Apparently a research team in NZ created a similar thing in the lab in 2005....at least wikipedia says so.

[SoonerStormchaser]

probably less people die for coal than oil...

i'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion

i think it's only like 5 years out

Not if you ever cheated at SimCity and got it earlier...oh wait, I thought you were talking about...

[NormanPride]

The pie in the sky part though is energy loss. Induction is not a 100% efficient means of transferring power. So you have to generate more energy than is actually needed.


I'll also note that apparently I'm not the first to think of this. Apparently a research team in NZ created a similar thing in the lab in 2005....at least wikipedia says so.

Do you know how bad it is? It's frustrating that physics seems to get in the way of all these wonderfully elegant solutions...

[XingTheRubicon]

If you buy water in the big gallon jugs it's more like 20 cents a gallon. If you're buying the little 16oz bottles you're a silly person.

No it's not. 1 gallon of reverse osmosis purified water at the point of sale is more than a $1, and a 5 gallon container is even more per gallon. That's not 20 cents. When you do find your gallon jugs for 20 cents, go pour it in your fuel tank. Let me know how that works out for ya.

[OUMallen]

Not bloody likely. For energy, natural gas and nuclear could get us by until technology gives us another answer.

This one. Yes.

[XingTheRubicon]

Not bloody likely. For energy, natural gas and nuclear could get us by until technology gives us another answer.
We can't forget nearly everything we touch throughout the course of a given day is a petro product.
I think we should be on our knees thanking God we have oil as an affordable energy source. Its just a shame we don't use more our own supply.
I support reducing imports of oil, but environmentalist who demonize oil need their *** kicked. Hipocritical ****sticks the lot of them! What do think your trendy little Iphone is made of moombeam? **********s!!

well done

[OUMallen]

Guys, in-city people moving isn't our major problem is it? We're probably very highly energy efficient in NYC, Chicago, Boston. Not so much in OKC, DAL, LA. But the market will drive that: if gas gets too high, we'll develop more efficient people movers in our urban centers.

[ndpruitt03]

As bad as countries in Europe have tried there's just no way to get off fossil fuels. Spain is going broke trying to go off fossil fuels. And it just isn't feasible to try because oil and coal are just much cheaper and use less area than plants needed for say nuclear or wind power.

q5f7LEt-l2E

I probably am more obsessed with Stossel than anyone here but the guy in this ep just explains why going green is a crock. If you want to run out of money go green.

[Ike]

Do you know how bad it is? It's frustrating that physics seems to get in the way of all these wonderfully elegant solutions...

Really it depends on the setup of the system. Basically, the more impractical the setup, the less the energy loss. But concievably, you might be able to push something like 60-70% efficiency right now. Maybe even up to 90%. But it would have to be pretty carefully designed.

[NormanPride]

Even 60-70 isn't terrible... Better than some of the numbers I saw on nuke efficiency for the older plants...

[Ike]

Guys, in-city people moving isn't our major problem is it? We're probably very highly energy efficient in NYC, Chicago, Boston. Not so much in OKC, DAL, LA. But the market will drive that: if gas gets too high, we'll develop more efficient people movers in our urban centers.

The market will drive it too a point. Some things, like wirelessly powered cars I was discussing, might never happen if you just wait for market forces to take over. Why build the infrastructure needed if nobody has the car needed to run on it...and why buy the car if the infrastructure isn't there.

The reason for testing it in cities is to spur interest in doing it inter-state...the eventual goal being having trucking running on such a system.

And I'd say that even in the NYCs and LA, in-city transport is not all that energy efficient. It's certainly helped by trains and the fact that the cities are very dense...but traffic jams and such are horrible things for energy efficiency of gas-burning vehicles. Not so for electric.

For some of the alternative energy solutions that are possible out there, this kind of chicken-or-the-egg problem presents itself more often than one might think. Market forces are great. I love them. But they don't always arrive at the best solution to a given problem all by themselves. Sometimes a little push or pull can give better results.

[ndpruitt03]

You know what Electric cars are really using? It's coal. Last I looked that's one of the evil carbon based energies. So we can't use that either. Almost all the energy we use in America is based off of coal, oil, and natural gas. It'll take centuries to switch from that and if it were easy to switch to solar or wind or nuclear we would be doing it already.

Fact is
-solar power is too expensive and relies on storing solar power which we still aren't good at.
nuclear and wind power power takes up too much space and is more like energy sprawling instead of creating usable power
-things like ethanol and others based off of food, which last I looked is another form of carbon.

[OUMallen]

The market will drive it too a point. Some things, like wirelessly powered cars I was discussing, might never happen if you just wait for market forces to take over. Why build the infrastructure needed if nobody has the car needed to run on it...and why buy the car if the infrastructure isn't there.

The reason for testing it in cities is to spur interest in doing it inter-state...the eventual goal being having trucking running on such a system.

And I'd say that even in the NYCs and LA, in-city transport is not all that energy efficient. It's certainly helped by trains and the fact that the cities are very dense...but traffic jams and such are horrible things for energy efficiency of gas-burning vehicles. Not so for electric.

For some of the alternative energy solutions that are possible out there, this kind of chicken-or-the-egg problem presents itself more often than one might think. Market forces are great. I love them. But they don't always arrive at the best solution to a given problem all by themselves. Sometimes a little push or pull can give better results.

I just think highly efficient, electricity-based peoplemovers in urban centers are already a reality in some places where it is required by market forces. In our case right now, it's not money, but it's the practicality of a large number of people attempting to drive on the streets of Manhattan. But someday, it could feasibly be the sheer cost of burning gasoline.

I'm not promoting ONLY market forces. I'm just saying that our major problems to figure out with energy in the future are NOT how to move people around in an urban center. We've figured that out to a large degree and can use electricity for that instead of needing crude oil.

The real problem is commerce between cities.

[OUMallen]

You know what Electric cars are really using? It's coal. Last I looked that's one of the evil carbon based energies. So we can't use that either. Almost all the energy we use in America is based off of coal, oil, and natural gas. It'll take centuries to switch from that and if it were easy to switch to solar or wind or nuclear we would be doing it already.

Fact is
-solar power is too expensive and relies on storing solar power which we still aren't good at.
nuclear and wind power power takes up too much space and is more like energy sprawling instead of creating usable power
-things like ethanol and others based off of food, which last I looked is another form of carbon.

Yep, it comes from someplace, but people like ot ginore that. That is why I'm a huge proponent of natural gas power plants and abandoning coal.

I'm not exactly sure what coal can do that natural gas can't do with less detrimental impact on-site and on emission.

[ndpruitt03]

Yep, it comes from someplace, but people like ot ginore that. That is why I'm a huge proponent of natural gas power plants and abandoning coal.

I'm not exactly sure what coal can do that natural gas can't do with less detrimental impact on-site and on emission.

Natural gas is still a co2 emitter. It's cleaner than oil and coal and we may eventually switch to it. But there's still been a few explosions with it recently, one in Texas, one in Philly and I think there was one other in West Virginia in recent months, those aren't exactly safe. I would love to see us get off all fossil fuels, but the fact is that there isn't a viable alternative unless you are super rich or unless you want to take up a lot of space we could use for more important things like farms or homes.

[Ike]

You know what Electric cars are really using? It's coal. Last I looked that's one of the evil carbon based energies. So we can't use that either. Almost all the energy we use in America is based off of coal, oil, and natural gas. It'll take centuries to switch from that and if it were easy to switch to solar or wind or nuclear we would be doing it already.

Fact is
-solar power is too expensive and relies on storing solar power which we still aren't good at.
nuclear and wind power power takes up too much space and is more like energy sprawling instead of creating usable power
-things like ethanol and others based off of food, which last I looked is another form of carbon.

The difference on electric cars though is that they use a whole lot less energy than is produced by a gasoline engine. Thats why hybrids are so much more efficient than pure-gas cars. In the ideal efficiency case (which none of them are at the moment), the engine would just be there to charge the batteries. It would only run at it's peak-power speed, and only be used when charge was needed.

As for the other things...We are getting a lot better at storing solar power. (hydrogen from electrolysis coupled with hydrogen-fuel cells for example, although that involves an inherent energy loss too). But even if we don't do better at it, there are ways around it. A worldwide energy grid could transfer solar power from the parts of the world that are in sunlight to the parts that aren't. (again, you have to deal with energy loss...but it's not inconcievable). Or putting solar arrays in space and beaming the energy back with giant lasers (seriously). It's possible.

Yeah, those things are expensive right now. But they may not be in 50 years or so. And compared to oil in 50 years, they may look downright cheap.

[Ike]

I just think highly efficient, electricity-based peoplemovers in urban centers are already a reality in some places where it is required by market forces. In our case right now, it's not money, but it's the practicality of a large number of people attempting to drive on the streets of Manhattan. But someday, it could feasibly be the sheer cost of burning gasoline.

I'm not promoting ONLY market forces. I'm just saying that our major problems to figure out with energy in the future are NOT how to move people around in an urban center. We've figured that out to a large degree and can use electricity for that instead of needing crude oil.

The real problem is commerce between cities.

But believe it or not though, we've figured that out too, but never implemented it here. MagLev trains. I believe in Japan, they got one going in excess of 300mph.

Wireless power for vehicles could also power trucks along interstates.

[Okla-homey]

From 1910 to 2000, the United States went from a rural non-electrified country to an urban electrified country. At the beginning of the 20th century, most people hadn't seen an automobile at all.

Predicting advances in technology over a 90 year span conservatively-particularly over the past few hundred years-is a sucker's game. Technological advance over that kind of period is usually positively curved.

I hear ya. But that was filling a tech void. This getting off the fossil pipe dealio means replacing existing technology that is still relatively cheap and works well. Just seems to me that it won't be so positively curved. In fact, its pretty dang flat flat right now, as evidenced by my stats reflecting 1% of dmoestic electricity from wind and .001% from solar since the technology first became available what? 50 years ago?

[ndpruitt03]

The difference on electric cars though is that they use a whole lot less energy than is produced by a gasoline engine. Thats why hybrids are so much more efficient than pure-gas cars. In the ideal efficiency case (which none of them are at the moment), the engine would just be there to charge the batteries. It would only run at it's peak-power speed, and only be used when charge was needed.

As for the other things...We are getting a lot better at storing solar power. (hydrogen from electrolysis coupled with hydrogen-fuel cells for example, although that involves an inherent energy loss too). But even if we don't do better at it, there are ways around it. A worldwide energy grid could transfer solar power from the parts of the world that are in sunlight to the parts that aren't. (again, you have to deal with energy loss...but it's not inconcievable). Or putting solar arrays in space and beaming the energy back with giant lasers (seriously). It's possible.

Yeah, those things are expensive right now. But they may not be in 50 years or so. And compared to oil in 50 years, they may look downright cheap.

If we switched completely to coal/electric you know how much more we would have to go into coal mines then we do now just to keep up with the supply? Every year we hear about coal mine collapses in West Virginia, that would happen a lot more all over the country if we switch to coal energy. And we still have energy problems in the us with electric. California is an example also in most busy cities in the country. That would become a bigger problem in the US.

Solar power is done well in individual use but it still takes a ton more money for that individual. The only people that have solar power are those that can afford it. Almost everyone in America affords using Coal/Oil/Nat Gas. Although we don't really use Natural gas right now. Solar power isn't feasible for most people at this point and isn't even close.

I think the most viable in the future might be battery power but that's probably decades if not a century away at best because right now we can't get batteries to work that long for travel. But I think some day in the future that's feasible. Not in the near future. Now creating those batteries will probably come from factories that have to emit evil carbon in some way just to power their plants. So yeah moving that may not really be a great thing.

[OUMallen]

But believe it or not though, we've figured that out too, but never implemented it here. MagLev trains. I believe in Japan, they got one going in excess of 300mph.

Wireless power for vehicles could also power trucks along interstates.

Maglev trains can't replace semi-trucks.

[ndpruitt03]

Also people talking about how we went from such big technilogical advances from 1910-2000. True but what did we use for mass transit and trade before then. Ships based off wood. Against another carbon based fuel. And in the 1800s it was those same ships based off steam. Again emitting carbons. We've been using carbon based fuels for a few thousand years. And if you think cutting down trees like we were for thousands of years, then you aren't listening to the left leaning environmentalists that talk about how great trees are.

[Ike]

Maglev trains can't replace semi-trucks.

Not completely...but they can go a ways towards it.

[ndpruitt03]

BTW electric power cars have been the next big things since Cars were first introduced. I don't see that changing 100 years later. Electric power cars just take up too much energy from coal. We barely have enough coal to power some of our major cities.

[GottaHavePride]

Also people talking about how we went from such big technilogical advances from 1910-2000. True but what did we use for mass transit and trade before then. Ships based off wood. Against another carbon based fuel. And in the 1800s it was those same ships based off steam. Again emitting carbons. We've been using carbon based fuels for a few thousand years. And if you think cutting down trees like we were for thousands of years, then you aren't listening to the left leaning environmentalists that talk about how great trees are.


In those ships you're talking about wood wasn't the fuel, it was the building material. Wind and sails were the fuel. Sure, you had to chop down some trees to build them, but those grow back so long as you plant as many trees as you chop down.

[OUMallen]

Not completely...but they can go a ways towards it.

Somewhat. Not a lot. Are we going to build maglev tracks to every town the size of Ada that's not on a track already? Not to mention the vast expanse of mostly unpopulated areas we'd have to traverse.

[Frozen Sooner]

In those ships you're talking about wood wasn't the fuel, it was the building material. Wind and sails were the fuel. Sure, you had to chop down some trees to build them, but those grow back so long as you plant as many trees as you chop down.

Dude, it's ****ing hopeless. We're made out of carbon! We'll always have carbon-based power! OMG OMG OMG!

[NormanPride]

Yeah, not really getting the problem there.

[GottaHavePride]

Screw that. I'm made out of pizza.

[ndpruitt03]

In those ships you're talking about wood wasn't the fuel, it was the building material. Wind and sails were the fuel. Sure, you had to chop down some trees to build them, but those grow back so long as you plant as many trees as you chop down.

I explained that We deforested areas to transport. Listen to the environmentalists. That's not good last I looked. At least when we use trees now we plant new ones to replace them. They also went to steam power in the late 1700-early 1800s and then also trains were big in the 1800s in America. That was our mass transit in the north. The south had fewer trains which hurt them in the Civil War. But trains used fossil fuels last I looked.

[Ike]

If we switched completely to coal/electric you know how much more we would have to go into coal mines then we do now just to keep up with the supply? Every year we hear about coal mine collapses in West Virginia, that would happen a lot more all over the country if we switch to coal energy. And we still have energy problems in the us with electric. California is an example also in most busy cities in the country. That would become a bigger problem in the US.

Solar power is done well in individual use but it still takes a ton more money for that individual. The only people that have solar power are those that can afford it. Almost everyone in America affords using Coal/Oil/Nat Gas. Although we don't really use Natural gas right now. Solar power isn't feasible for most people at this point and isn't even close.

I think the most viable in the future might be battery power but that's probably decades if not a century away at best because right now we can't get batteries to work that long for travel. But I think some day in the future that's feasible. Not in the near future. Now creating those batteries will probably come from factories that have to emit evil carbon in some way just to power their plants. So yeah moving that may not really be a great thing.

You seem to be missing a point on electric cars (and other transportation)...Electric vehicles are well poised for whatever energy sources we go after in the future. Yeah, right now thats about 50% coal, but that could well change at some point in the future. Solar may be expensive right now, but that could also change in the future, and maybe quicker than we think. The popularity of gasoline powered transportation will only last as long as oil is cheap. While electric vehicles and solar power may only fill niche markets now, can you really reliably predict that by the end of the century, as more and more and more of the world is demanding more and more and more energy, that this will still be the case? Oil, coal, and other fossil fuels may become so expensive as to make their use on massive scales completely impractical. Electric vehicles allow the market to dictate which means of energy generation we move to in the future. Fossil fuels won't last forever. Something WILL take their place. The biggest question is when.

Automobiles were only for the well-off until Henry Ford came along.

[ndpruitt03]

You might be right but switching instantly from fossil fuels to something else won't work unless it is relatively cheap or viable. And right now the alternatives aren't cheap or viable.

[Ike]

Somewhat. Not a lot. Are we going to build maglev tracks to every town the size of Ada that's not on a track already? Not to mention the vast expanse of mostly unpopulated areas we'd have to traverse.

Who knows what happens then. If we've moved on to a system where oil is used much less frequently, having semis burn gas for the last 50-100 or so miles may not be much of an issue.

[Ike]

You might be right but switching instantly from fossil fuels to something else won't work unless it is relatively cheap or viable. And right now the alternatives aren't cheap or viable.


I don't think anyone here is talking about switching instantly.

[ndpruitt03]

Or even in a short term. Any switch to an alternative fuel will take decades if not centuries.

[GottaHavePride]

Oh, I don't know - cell phones took about two decades to become omnipresent. The switch from nothing to widespread prevalence of high-speed internet took about a decade and a half. Wireless internet took about a decade to get established.

If there's enough market demand for it, a switch on a consumer level could happen relatively fast. Getting industry to switch will wait until one company figures out how to do it effectively and then everyone else will be scrambling to keep up.

[OUMallen]

Or even in a short term. Any switch to an alternative fuel will take decades if not centuries.

It won't take centuries. We've barely been an industrial society for "centuries."

Decades, sure. But if we threw our might into nuclear and natural gas for electricity production, and natural gas for most vehicles, it wouldn't take even 100 years to have it mostly done. There are fleets of vehicles changing in OKC right now to CNG.

[OUMallen]

France is largley powered by nuclear, isn't it? And we've only had that technology in EXISTENCE for a handful of decades.

[Ike]

Or even in a short term. Any switch to an alternative fuel will take decades if not centuries.

Decades I'll agree on. Centuries...not so much. I think to say it would take centuries either drastically overestimates the supply of fossil fuels still in the ground, or drastically underestimates the rate of growth of worldwide energy demand or both.


Imagine the following: Say China one day suddenly becomes very concerned about global warming (whether it's real or not), and decides to implement a carbon tax (and go totally nuclear...they've got the space for it). Many other countries, like say all of Europe and some of the other major international trading countries, (but not the US) follow their lead and go to other forms of energy production. In addition to their own carbon taxes, they also implement tariffs on goods from countries without a carbon tax...This will effectively place a carbon tax on anything we make and export. Leaps and bounds may be made in the field of alternative energy production in countries other than the US. We'd probably continue to use our fossil fuels (depending on how high those tariffs are), as such a tax may price China and other countries out of buying as much....but over the years, a lot of that new tech would find it's way here, and a switch would take place in a matter of probably a couple of decades. This isn't that far-fetched a scenario.

[JohnnyMack]

Oh, I don't know - cell phones took about two decades to become omnipresent. The switch from nothing to widespread prevalence of high-speed internet took about a decade and a half. Wireless internet took about a decade to get established.

If there's enough market demand for it, a switch on a consumer level could happen relatively fast. Getting industry to switch will wait until one company figures out how to do it effectively and then everyone else will be scrambling to keep up.

Go try and find a pay phone in an airport. It's gotten comical. I can remember when I first started traveling for work in 1999, when you got off the plane you got in line at the pay phones to start making calls.

[Frozen Sooner]

Screw that. I'm made out of pizza.

WHICH IS MADE OUT OF CARBON ZOMG!

[ndpruitt03]

France is largley powered by nuclear, isn't it? And we've only had that technology in EXISTENCE for a handful of decades.

They produce a lot of nuclear power but they use more fossil fuels because they can't use nuclear power to travel for the most part. Using nuclear power takes up space also.

Maybe I was exadurating on centuries. We honestly don't know what will happen in centuries. But our uses for transport have been fossil fuel or carbon based for ever. I don't see that changing anytime relatively soon.

[My Opinion Matters]

You know what's not made of carbon? Whale oil.

[Frozen Sooner]

I guess what I'm having a hard time with here is that the argument goes:

Alternate energy sources are hard.
They'd take a major technological breakthrough.
So we shouldn't even try?

Or
Everything uses petrochemicals
So we shouldn't look for replacements?

Or
People who don't like that petrochemicals are used in everything use products that have petrochemicals in them (of course, since they're in everything, not using them might be tough)
Therefore, they shouldn't advocate using other things.

I guess I just don't see the point in "Hey, this is going to take a lot of effort, so let's not even try."

[ndpruitt03]

I think it's really stupid if we try and just forget the cheap things we have right now and make it hard if not impossible to get those. If an alternative comes up it'll work out naturally. If we force an alternative to come out of nowhere we end up with expensive energy that most people won't even get.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Nuclear power, nuclear power, nuclear power! That's the ONLY source of power we have that's very reliable and cheap. Wind and solar power is a joke that's nothing more than a "feel good" thing.


Fact is
nuclear and wind power power takes up too much space and is more like energy sprawling instead of creating usable power

Nuclear plants do not take up that much space. Your large coal fire plants take up as much space and do not produce as much power.

[ndpruitt03]

Why does the government continually not really fund nuclear power plants. For the first time in 30 years the government funded nuclear reactors in Georgia. That would be the first new nuclear power plant in 30+ years in the US. Also what happens if a disaster like the oil spill happens with nuclear power? Is that really any safer if there's a nuclear meltdown of some sort? Yes I know that's a rare accident but so is the oil spill.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Why does the government continually not really fund nuclear power plants. For the first time in 30 years the government funded nuclear reactors in Georgia. That would be the first new nuclear power plant in 30+ years in the US.

Red tape and the legal battles to get one are through the roof. Oklahoma was going to get a nuclear reactor near Tulsa called Black Fox but the people took it too court so many times and threw so many barriers in there it wasn't worth the cost.


Also what happens if a disaster like the oil spill happens with nuclear power? Is that really any safer if there's a nuclear meltdown of some sort? Yes I know that's a rare accident but so is the oil spill.

The thing is the odds of there being a disaster are so slim we'll never see one in our lifetime or our children's or grandchildren's lifetime. We've never seen a disaster from nuclear power in the United States yet we've had a massive oil spill in the Gulf and Alaska. There are so many checks, backups, and backups to the backups that a meltdown is nearly impossible.

Now you'll bring up Three Mile Island which wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Not building nuclear power pants because of Three Mile Island is like not swimming in your pool because an ant pissed in it.

As for Chernobyl, we're talking about a run down plant in Eastern Europe with little to no regulations versus a well kept American plant. There's a big difference as Chernobyl in the United States would not have been running.

Nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and cleaner than everything except hydro power which cannot meet our needs.

[ndpruitt03]

The thing is the odds of there being a disaster are so slim we'll never see one in our lifetime or our children's or grandchildren's lifetime. We've never seen a disaster from nuclear power in the United States yet we've had a massive oil spill in the Gulf and Alaska.

The one in Alaska was basically a drunk wasn't it? That could easily happen with anything.

[yermom]

Red tape and the legal battles to get one are through the roof. Oklahoma was going to get a nuclear reactor near Tulsa called Black Fox but the people took it too court so many times and threw so many barriers in there it wasn't worth the cost.



The thing is the odds of there being a disaster are so slim we'll never see one in our lifetime or our children's or grandchildren's lifetime. We've never seen a disaster from nuclear power in the United States yet we've had a massive oil spill in the Gulf and Alaska. There are so many checks, backups, and backups to the backups that a meltdown is nearly impossible.

Now you'll bring up Three Mile Island which wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Not building nuclear power pants because of Three Mile Island is like not swimming in your pool because an ant pissed in it.

As for Chernobyl, we're talking about a run down plant in Eastern Europe with little to no regulations versus a well kept American plant. There's a big difference as Chernobyl in the United States would not have been running.

Nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and cleaner than everything except hydro power which cannot meet our needs.

Karen Silkwood and Three Mile Island didn't do the industry any favors

[Okla-homey]

Karen Silkwood and Three Mile Island didn't do the industry any favors

No one was hurt at TMI. Not one single person.

[yermom]

and?

it still showed how human error can **** it all up. they were just lucky.

public perception was tainted is what i was getting at

i'm sure Mr. Burns hasn't helped matters either

[NormanPride]

http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/mr-burns-picture.jpg

Excellent.

[Okla-homey]

and?

it still showed how human error can **** it all up. they were just lucky.

public perception was tainted is what i was getting at

i'm sure Mr. Burns hasn't helped matters either

Our government should provide leadership in dispelling the fear and superstition held and propogated by those who oppose safe, clean nuclear power for domestic electrical production. But they don't. So we keep raping mountains, killing miners and burning coal. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

[JohnnyMack]

Our government should provide leadership in dispelling the fear and superstition held and propogated by those who oppose safe, clean nuclear power for domestic electrical production. But they don't. So we keep raping mountains, killing miners and burning coal. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Exactly. Their pockets are stuffed with the dollars of big oil so good luck getting people like Jim Inhofe to ever promote nuclear power over dead dinosaurs.

[yermom]

that sounds like a pretty big government

[texaspokieokie]

i don't think the nuke @ glen rose has been in operation for 30 yrs.

coal is not as bad as it's made out to be.

[MR2-Sooner86]

coal is not as bad as it's made out to be.

This.

We have the scrubber technology to make the exhaust clean and nothing more than water vapor. The only problem is that it's very expensive.

As for our coal reserves we have enough to last over a hundred years, at least.

[soonerscuba]

Jim Inhofe to ever promote nuclear power over dead dinosaurs.I'm always amazed by people who don't believe in fossils being so adament in their defense of fossil fuels.

[Okla-homey]

This.

We have the scrubber technology to make the exhaust clean and nothing more than water vapor. The only problem is that it's very expensive.



C'mon man. That coal shizzle has to go somewhere. I mean, if you scrub it out of the exhaust making said exhaust minty fresh, what happens to the tons of ash, toxins, assorted carcinogens and other stinky particulate matter you scrubbed out?

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm always amazed by people who don't believe in fossils being so adament in their defense of fossil fuels.

I doubt that Inhofe thinks the oil came from fossils.

[MR2-Sooner86]

C'mon man. That coal shizzle has to go somewhere. I mean, if you scrub it out of the exhaust making said exhaust minty fresh, what happens to the tons of ash, toxins, assorted carcinogens and other stinky particulate matter you scrubbed out?

Well the ash is used as an inexpensive additive to cement to make it stronger. So power companies make money from selling their ash.

As for the other stuff like acids and such they neutralize it whether it's still in the exhaust or after they take it out.

[Howzit]

I've been meaning to read
$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better (http://www.amazon.com/20-Per-Gallon-Inevitable-Gasoline/dp/0446549541) but have not yet. Seems to be an interesting perspective in that $20 a gallon gas would eventually have a lot of upside.

Also, that's what is going to get us off the petroleum tit, oil getting so expensive that it is ultimately mandated we find an alternative.

[Howzit]

Disclaimer ^^^^

Not saying I agree there is upside to $20 a gallon gas.

[Leroy Lizard]

I've been meaning to read
$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better (http://www.amazon.com/20-Per-Gallon-Inevitable-Gasoline/dp/0446549541) but have not yet. Seems to be an interesting perspective in that $20 a gallon gas would eventually have a lot of upside.

Also, that's what is going to get us off the petroleum tit, oil getting so expensive that it is ultimately mandated we find an alternative.

By not being able to eat, obesity would drop in occurrence. There is that.

And incidences of corporate crime would drop, since there would be fewer corporations.

Yeah, there is always a silver lining.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I've been meaning to read
$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better (http://www.amazon.com/20-Per-Gallon-Inevitable-Gasoline/dp/0446549541) but have not yet. Seems to be an interesting perspective in that $20 a gallon gas would eventually have a lot of upside.

Also, that's what is going to get us off the petroleum tit, oil getting so expensive that it is ultimately mandated we find an alternative.

What I don't like about some of these guys is they think, "OH! With high gas prices people will sell those gas guzzlers and will buy a Prius!"

What most fail to recognize is what products are made from oil which, with rise of prices, will rise as well. Not to mention food transportation will cause food prices to go up. There are so many factors most fail to see.

Anyway, here is a small list of things made from Petroleum.

Solvents

Diesel fuel

Motor Oil

Bearing Grease

Ink

Floor Wax

Ballpoint Pens

Football Cleats

Upholstery

Sweaters

Boats

Insecticides

Bicycle Tires

Sports Car Bodies

Nail Polish

Fishing lures

Dresses

Tires

Golf Bags

Perfumes

Cassettes

Dishwasher parts

Tool Boxes

Shoe Polish

Motorcycle Helmet

Caulking

Petroleum Jelly

Transparent Tape

CD Player

Faucet Washers

Antiseptics

Clothesline

Curtains

Food Preservatives

Basketballs

Soap

Vitamin Capsules

Antihistamines

Purses

Shoes

Dashboards

Cortisone

Deodorant

Footballs

Putty

Dyes

Panty Hose

Refrigerant

Percolators

Life Jackets

Rubbing Alcohol

Linings

Skis

TV Cabinets

Shag Rugs

Electrician's Tape

Tool Racks

Car Battery Cases

Epoxy

Paint

Mops

Slacks

Insect Repellent

Oil Filters

Umbrellas

Yarn

Fertilizers

Hair Coloring

Roofing

Toilet Seats

Fishing Rods

Lipstick

Denture Adhesive

Linoleum

Ice Cube Trays

Synthetic Rubber

Speakers

Plastic Wood

Electric Blankets

Glycerin

Tennis Rackets

Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots

Dice

Nylon Rope

Candles

Trash Bags

House Paint

Water Pipes

Hand Lotion

Roller Skates

Surf Boards

Shampoo

Wheels

Paint Rollers

Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings

Luggage

Aspirin

Safety Glasses

Antifreeze

Football Helmets

Awnings

Eyeglasses

Clothes

Toothbrushes

Ice Chests

Footballs

Combs

CD's & DVD's

Paint Brushes

Detergents

Vaporizers

Balloons

Sun Glasses

Tents

Heart Valves

Crayons

Parachutes

Telephones

Enamel

Pillows

Dishes

Cameras

Anesthetics

Artificial Turf

Artificial limbs

Bandages

Dentures

Model Cars

Folding Doors

Hair Curlers

Cold cream

Movie film

Soft Contact lenses

Drinking Cups

Fan Belts

Car Enamel

Shaving Cream

Ammonia

Refrigerators

Golf Balls

Toothpaste

Gasoline

[Ike]

I like how cassettes are in that list....

[Ike]

Oh, and the eventuality of $20/gallon gas is certain. It's just a question of when, and whether it is tax imposed before it is market imposed.

[texaspokieokie]

yep & all that stuff is delivered by something that burns diesel.