From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:52:44 MST
Bob Arctor wrote:
>
> > of off planet power generation. If the choice is offered as
> > either more power plants on Earth (of whatever type) vs. more
>
> when war on earth will end there will be no problem with
> generating power, curently it is mainly politicial issue,
> read works of Tesla.
>
> i think it is a matter of 20-40 years (fossil fuels will end)
You must be a new subscriber, because you've obviously missed my
previous comments about this myth. The 'oil will run out in 20-40 years'
myth is based on a lack of understanding about what this number
represents. When this number is reported, it is based on the estimates
of oil reserves that are *known* and *recoverable* at the current market
price. As the price drops, the amount of available oil drops. As the
price rises, the amount 'available' also rises. Because, outside of
artificial fluctuations induced by cartel enforced political agendas,
market dynamics generally work more often than not, there is ALWAYS
somewhere around a 20-40 year supply of oil available. There was 40
years of oil available in 1970, and there is 40 years available today,
despite the fact that the estimate of 1970 meant we should only have ten
years of oil left.
As prices rise, and as currently exploited reserves run out, other
reserves are opened to pumping which are competetive in the market, and
companies explore for more reserves and make estimates about what the
cost per barrel such new reserves would be to recover. As technology
advances, the cost of recovering deeper, more remote reserves drops, so
more reserves become market competetive as older reserves are used up.
Furthermore, there does seem to be a degree of replenishment of oil in
older fields. It is theorized that oil is mostly produced by
extremophilic bacteria deep in the ground reacting with geothermal
originated energy. There is a small but significant market for reopening
long abandoned wells to cheaply recover oil at lower production rates
which has refilled the salt domes and sand strata where oil collects as
it percolates up.
>
> then ofcourse must be a strong political movement against
> raising of nuclear power plants, because it will probably end
> in similiar political lobby, but far more desructive.
How? Please explain how the nuclear industry is more dangerous to human
life and health than the petrochemicals industry.
>
> anyway, good idea for powering sattelites, beaming energy to
> earth is too dangerous (some SF author already discussed this,
> he been afraid of beam errors)
No, it isn't. It does have the potential to be used as a weapon given
the proper alterations, but outside of that, it is not dangerous. Used
normally, beam intensity allows for normal plant forms to grow under and
around such antennae.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:38 MST