 | DrumBeat: September 10, 2008 | The Oil Drum | Hurricane Ike and Oil Refineries/Infrastructure Thread #2 (9/10 16:30 EDT) |  |
| Post peak vehicles: 10,000 km on batteries | The Oil Drum: Europe | Lehman: more socialising the losses of the rich | |
346 comments on Energy Vision 2050 - part I
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
346 comments on Energy Vision 2050 - part I
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Small scale hydro seems to be a greatly under-estimated resource - the power of the Mississippi river, to name just one example, is worth harnessing as well.
On your original point - not only are geothermal and hydro greatly under-estimated, but solar, wind and biogas are as well (with ocean power - particularly tidal and ocean current also likely to make a significant impact by 2050).
This article doesn't seem to have considered the potential of renewables thoroughly at all and largely ignores the cost and safety aspects that make large scale nuclear power a non-starter for solving our energy needs.
How anyone who is peak oil aware can baulk at the very theoretical safety concerns of nuclear escapes me.
Power down will kill billions, as proposals to use all renewables for the whole world are based on technologies which we do not have deployed at the needed scale, and rely on considerable breakthroughs.
Any contribution form renewables will be welcome, and it has good potential to provide peak solar power in hot climates, wind power where there is a good wind resource, and so on.
The difficulty arises when for ideological reasons it is generalised into an assumption that we can do lots of things that we have not presently got the engineering for.
There are plenty of wind turbines built where it is not windy, solar cells where it is not sunny, and so on.
That is all great fun if it is taxpayers money which is being spent.
However in the serious situation that we are now in, we need ot get on and build what we have the engineering for.
If that changes with future progress, well and good.
The main effect to date of the theorising about what might happen in future and largely imaginary difficulties with nuclear has been to provide support for the lethal coal industry, and increase greenhouse gas emissions.
I'm all for renewables being deployed as fast as is practical, and also for nuclear power.