e = mc²/√1–v²/c² [and it also shows how velocity can't exceed c]
Anyway...
Hydrogen powered cars are supposed to be around by 2020 or so, and coincidently, major shipping operations can be reverted back to mostly by train (coal or electric powered). All the power plants in my immediate area are powered by uranium or coal.
And if you want to get rid of that nuclear waste: retract the START treaties and begin recycling Uranium into Plutonium...and Plutonium into Uranium (until you run out of stuff <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
There's also some machine I read about in Discover magazine that can turn chicken byproducts (feathers, body parts) into different kinds of oils which were usable (that was like 4 years ago, though).
Poorer economies will probably suffer, but most of the US and Europe can probably afford to switch over to solar power and wind power (throw some photovoltaic panels on your roof now <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) for the majority of their energy needs.
Right, one last stab on my part at dispelling some of the myths that continue to pervade this discussion.
1) Hydrogen - Hydrogen fuel cells are just that fuel cells. To talk of them as an alternate fuel source is like talking of switching from gas to batteries. Well in theory that would work but you still need to create the batteries and put energy in them, which costs energy. Hydrogen is a method of storage as the necessary form of hydrogen h2 does not occur naturally in any form of extractable deposit. There for while by 2020, or what ever year you choose hydrogen powered vehicles will be available, they will not be a solution for the energy crisis as it will still take natural gas to produce the hydrogen. This can also be applied to the case for antimatter reactors, which A don’t yet exist, and B also require more energy to produce:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With current technology, it is considered possible to attain antimatter for $25 billion per gram (roughly 1,000 times more costly than current space shuttle propellants) by optimizing the collision and collection parameters, given current electricity generation costs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter' target='_blank'>Antimatter- Wikipedia</a>
2) Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, etc - Based on current technology with photoelectric cells, wind turbines, etc we simply could not build enough to come even close to energy usage by today’s standards. Further hydroelectric energy has already been tapped to its potential often with disastrous consequences to the environment around it. Damming is exceedingly destructive to the environment. These energy sources are also highly unreliable and at the mercy of the forces. Cloud cover could cause major blackouts; atmospheric changes could cause the natural atmospheric forces in a wind farm region to disappear rendering the farm useless. There is also the problem of space; to produce large quantities of power you need fields and fields of these generators.
3) Reversion to previous methods - As I have previously stated our national rail network is in shambles. As many of you may remember Amtrak went bankrupt a few years ago and the government chose not to bail them out. Though Amtrak still runs it is being quietly disassembled. Also trains are run primarily on oil. Alternate engine types would need to be developed.
4) Alternate fuel types - There is currently no alternate fuel that requires less starter fuel to create than provides. Alternate fuels are a net loss.
5) Change - The time table for oil is very short. Massive losses in supply can be expected within just a few years. What this means is that the fuel required to make a change to an alternate source either A will not be there, or B will be so expensive that the sacrifices required for the public will become exponentially greater. The longer we put this off the more it is going to hurt.
6) Americas independence - America is very dependant on foreign imports and exports to maintain our economy. A loss of any major market will cause a sever depression at home. This is the very foundation of a liberal economy. If the world suffers so shall we, perhaps not a badly but it will be unlike anything we have ever witnessed. The depression that this can be likened to is that of the 1930's except in this case it will be far harder to get out of as there is no known alternate energy source on earth to restart the world economy.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 16 2005, 10:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 16 2005, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 16 2005, 09:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 16 2005, 09:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The very fact that when antimatter and matter touch they both "disappear" completely, leaving behind a lot of energy, violates one of the laws of thermodynamics anyways, so I'm sure there's some leeway there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesn't violate a law of thermodynamics. E=mc^2. The matter is converted into energy, which can be converted back into matter. The laws of conservation of matter and energy holds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> e=mc^2 violates the law of thermodynamics that says "matter cannot be created or destroyed". There really are no unbreakable laws in physics. F=ma? Yeah right. g=G(m1)(m2)/r^2? Not always.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain inertia, anyone here, take a crack at it. (note: don't describe it, explain it) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "The tendency to resist motion." "It can't be explained because inertia IS mass, and vice versa." "Momentum divided by velocity."
Some of the answers my physics teacher gave me when I asked her. Yeah, she didn't know how to explain it either. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 17 2005, 02:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 17 2005, 02:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 16 2005, 10:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 16 2005, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 16 2005, 09:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 16 2005, 09:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The very fact that when antimatter and matter touch they both "disappear" completely, leaving behind a lot of energy, violates one of the laws of thermodynamics anyways, so I'm sure there's some leeway there. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesn't violate a law of thermodynamics. E=mc^2. The matter is converted into energy, which can be converted back into matter. The laws of conservation of matter and energy holds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> e=mc^2 violates the law of thermodynamics that says "matter cannot be created or destroyed". There really are no unbreakable laws in physics. F=ma? Yeah right. g=G(m1)(m2)/r^2? Not always.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain inertia, anyone here, take a crack at it. (note: don't describe it, explain it) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "The tendency to resist motion." "It can't be explained because inertia IS mass, and vice versa." "Momentum divided by velocity."
Some of the answers my physics teacher gave me when I asked her. Yeah, she didn't know how to explain it either. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> e = mc²/√1–v²/c² doesn't violate thermodynamics. The equation is just as reversible, and if you could manage to gather enough energy together (and know how to transform it) you could create matter from it. The revised (since nuclear physics) explaination is something like "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form of energy to the other." (with 'being matter' as a form of energy).
All your other equations there are newtonian based equations; which don't factor in relativity, but do work on relatively slow velocities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) Hydrogen - Hydrogen fuel cells are just that fuel cells. To talk of them as an alternate fuel source is like talking of switching from gas to batteries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except coal reserves are not in short supply (I think they're expected to be around for 200 more years at current usage levels...but I'm not sure where I got that number <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). You can create mainstream electrical power with nuclear and coal power, and then use that to create hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.
This would also apply to any use of railways, which would inevitably be a pain in the ****, since the rail system in the US sucks. Just outfit electric railways.
There are also houses with can transform enough sunlight into energy to power the home and have enough left to be stored in batteries (it was linked to in one of the numerous oil-related threads here). Although it would be extremely expensive to outfit every home with such panels (and they probably wouldn't power apartments full)...along with the fact that some places would need more mainstream electrical power because they're less sunny.
[I'd recommend a bunch more solar power plants out in the Arizona/New Mexico desert lands.]
The chances of the American government actually recognizing any of these requirements is basically zero though, so US (and probably the rest of the world) = bye bye after oil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The revised (since nuclear physics) explaination is something like "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form of energy to the other." (with 'being matter' as a form of energy).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice you say "revised". Which means that the laws might have to be "revised" again to include anti-matter / matter interactions. That's all I was arguing, that you can't immediately discount anything in science anymore because it goes against a given law or theory.
Just tap into the magnetic field and geothermal energy generated by the Earths' core. Problem solved. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Next thing you know, there won't be oil at gas stations. Everyone will be panicing that it's running out and prices will sky rocket. Politicians will clash, new areas for drilling sought for and... Oh wait, this SAME EXACT THING happened back in the sixties/seventies thanks to Nixon and his evaluation of the amount of known oil at the time.
In all truthfullness, YES, we will have to find alternate sources. But this panic right now is pointless for you and me, the average joe. It's the large buisnesses and politicians that need to worry now since this affects them the worse right now. The only thing you need to really do is just conserve gas however possible not because it is visibley running out, but because it's expensive. Like someone said earlier (Sorry, it's nearly four in the morning, near when I get ready for sleep) that the oil companys have been researching and thinking about this LONG before we have. I'm certain they already have viable plans for when it does affect us.
I know the director at one of the larger nuclear plants in Northern America (he is an elder at my church) - and I asked him about the looming engergy crisis and how we can deal with it. He told me that he thought the laws were too stringent on the storage of all the "waste". For example, did you know that they can't re-use any part of the rods - even though the outside "rod" is just fine - and can be refilled with radioactive pellets. But because of all the laws they can't re-use them, which causes there to be an issue of too much waste (the rods are huge, while the relative "waste" in them is rather small).
Another example he gave me is of a town in Alaska (I believe) where they basically have a self sustaining nuclear power plant. It is just outside a small town - and burried underground with only 1 maintenance hatch. It spends most of its time completely unmanned - churning out energy at a very affordable rate. Every so often (every year or two) people check on the thing, and then seal it up again and let it go about its business.
Compair that to his plant, which is manned all the time, and you have tons of safety gear for the "just in case" - when really the thing could run itself. If someone sneezes there, we get a report about it...
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Apr 18 2005, 10:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Apr 18 2005, 10:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you sure, however, that the power plant you are talking about is a <u>fission</u> plant? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not sure... I never said either way...
in any case, The guy I know works at the Monticello plant - and he isn't a director (my bad) but he is the interface guy between the plant and the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) - so he is the guy that deals with all the politics and makes sure everything is up to code...
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 18 2005, 11:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 18 2005, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Apr 18 2005, 10:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Apr 18 2005, 10:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you sure, however, that the power plant you are talking about is a <u>fission</u> plant? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not sure... I never said either way...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All that exists are fission plants. There is no such thing as a fusion plant (yet). I am assuming lolfighter was employing sarcasm...?
<!--QuoteBegin-Mad ivans+Apr 18 2005, 12:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mad ivans @ Apr 18 2005, 12:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Who pays you to say these things <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Who are you talking to?
Sounds like the only ways out are discovering fusion or making solar power much more efficient. I think in one of those Asimov novels the sun was surrounded by solar panels that beamed the energy back to Earth with microwaves. Maybe something like that would be possible? I don't know enough about this kind of stuff to tell.
Well, 4 at least could be solved by putting the satellites into orbit, though said orbit would probably be a lot more unstable by the presence of solar flares, variations in solar wind, etc.
+1 to clean air <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
e = mc²/√1–v²/c² [and it also shows how velocity can't exceed c]
Anyway...
Hydrogen powered cars are supposed to be around by 2020 or so, and coincidently, major shipping operations can be reverted back to mostly by train (coal or electric powered). All the power plants in my immediate area are powered by uranium or coal.
And if you want to get rid of that nuclear waste: retract the START treaties and begin recycling Uranium into Plutonium...and Plutonium into Uranium (until you run out of stuff <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
There's also some machine I read about in Discover magazine that can turn chicken byproducts (feathers, body parts) into different kinds of oils which were usable (that was like 4 years ago, though).
Poorer economies will probably suffer, but most of the US and Europe can probably afford to switch over to solar power and wind power (throw some photovoltaic panels on your roof now <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) for the majority of their energy needs.
1) Hydrogen - Hydrogen fuel cells are just that fuel cells. To talk of them as an alternate fuel source is like talking of switching from gas to batteries. Well in theory that would work but you still need to create the batteries and put energy in them, which costs energy. Hydrogen is a method of storage as the necessary form of hydrogen h2 does not occur naturally in any form of extractable deposit. There for while by 2020, or what ever year you choose hydrogen powered vehicles will be available, they will not be a solution for the energy crisis as it will still take natural gas to produce the hydrogen. This can also be applied to the case for antimatter reactors, which A don’t yet exist, and B also require more energy to produce:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With current technology, it is considered possible to attain antimatter for $25 billion per gram (roughly 1,000 times more costly than current space shuttle propellants) by optimizing the collision and collection parameters, given current electricity generation costs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter' target='_blank'>Antimatter- Wikipedia</a>
2) Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, etc - Based on current technology with photoelectric cells, wind turbines, etc we simply could not build enough to come even close to energy usage by today’s standards. Further hydroelectric energy has already been tapped to its potential often with disastrous consequences to the environment around it. Damming is exceedingly destructive to the environment. These energy sources are also highly unreliable and at the mercy of the forces. Cloud cover could cause major blackouts; atmospheric changes could cause the natural atmospheric forces in a wind farm region to disappear rendering the farm useless. There is also the problem of space; to produce large quantities of power you need fields and fields of these generators.
3) Reversion to previous methods - As I have previously stated our national rail network is in shambles. As many of you may remember Amtrak went bankrupt a few years ago and the government chose not to bail them out. Though Amtrak still runs it is being quietly disassembled. Also trains are run primarily on oil. Alternate engine types would need to be developed.
4) Alternate fuel types - There is currently no alternate fuel that requires less starter fuel to create than provides. Alternate fuels are a net loss.
5) Change - The time table for oil is very short. Massive losses in supply can be expected within just a few years. What this means is that the fuel required to make a change to an alternate source either A will not be there, or B will be so expensive that the sacrifices required for the public will become exponentially greater. The longer we put this off the more it is going to hurt.
6) Americas independence - America is very dependant on foreign imports and exports to maintain our economy. A loss of any major market will cause a sever depression at home. This is the very foundation of a liberal economy. If the world suffers so shall we, perhaps not a badly but it will be unlike anything we have ever witnessed. The depression that this can be likened to is that of the 1930's except in this case it will be far harder to get out of as there is no known alternate energy source on earth to restart the world economy.
That doesn't violate a law of thermodynamics. E=mc^2. The matter is converted into energy, which can be converted back into matter. The laws of conservation of matter and energy holds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
e=mc^2 violates the law of thermodynamics that says "matter cannot be created or destroyed". There really are no unbreakable laws in physics. F=ma? Yeah right. g=G(m1)(m2)/r^2? Not always.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain inertia, anyone here, take a crack at it. (note: don't describe it, explain it) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The tendency to resist motion." "It can't be explained because inertia IS mass, and vice versa." "Momentum divided by velocity."
Some of the answers my physics teacher gave me when I asked her. Yeah, she didn't know how to explain it either. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
/me becomes interested in physics.
That doesn't violate a law of thermodynamics. E=mc^2. The matter is converted into energy, which can be converted back into matter. The laws of conservation of matter and energy holds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
e=mc^2 violates the law of thermodynamics that says "matter cannot be created or destroyed". There really are no unbreakable laws in physics. F=ma? Yeah right. g=G(m1)(m2)/r^2? Not always.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain inertia, anyone here, take a crack at it. (note: don't describe it, explain it) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The tendency to resist motion." "It can't be explained because inertia IS mass, and vice versa." "Momentum divided by velocity."
Some of the answers my physics teacher gave me when I asked her. Yeah, she didn't know how to explain it either. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
e = mc²/√1–v²/c² doesn't violate thermodynamics. The equation is just as reversible, and if you could manage to gather enough energy together (and know how to transform it) you could create matter from it. The revised (since nuclear physics) explaination is something like "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form of energy to the other." (with 'being matter' as a form of energy).
All your other equations there are newtonian based equations; which don't factor in relativity, but do work on relatively slow velocities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) Hydrogen - Hydrogen fuel cells are just that fuel cells. To talk of them as an alternate fuel source is like talking of switching from gas to batteries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except coal reserves are not in short supply (I think they're expected to be around for 200 more years at current usage levels...but I'm not sure where I got that number <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). You can create mainstream electrical power with nuclear and coal power, and then use that to create hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.
This would also apply to any use of railways, which would inevitably be a pain in the ****, since the rail system in the US sucks. Just outfit electric railways.
There are also houses with can transform enough sunlight into energy to power the home and have enough left to be stored in batteries (it was linked to in one of the numerous oil-related threads here). Although it would be extremely expensive to outfit every home with such panels (and they probably wouldn't power apartments full)...along with the fact that some places would need more mainstream electrical power because they're less sunny.
[I'd recommend a bunch more solar power plants out in the Arizona/New Mexico desert lands.]
The chances of the American government actually recognizing any of these requirements is basically zero though, so US (and probably the rest of the world) = bye bye after oil.
Notice you say "revised". Which means that the laws might have to be "revised" again to include anti-matter / matter interactions. That's all I was arguing, that you can't immediately discount anything in science anymore because it goes against a given law or theory.
In all truthfullness, YES, we will have to find alternate sources. But this panic right now is pointless for you and me, the average joe. It's the large buisnesses and politicians that need to worry now since this affects them the worse right now. The only thing you need to really do is just conserve gas however possible not because it is visibley running out, but because it's expensive. Like someone said earlier (Sorry, it's nearly four in the morning, near when I get ready for sleep) that the oil companys have been researching and thinking about this LONG before we have. I'm certain they already have viable plans for when it does affect us.
Another example he gave me is of a town in Alaska (I believe) where they basically have a self sustaining nuclear power plant. It is just outside a small town - and burried underground with only 1 maintenance hatch. It spends most of its time completely unmanned - churning out energy at a very affordable rate. Every so often (every year or two) people check on the thing, and then seal it up again and let it go about its business.
Compair that to his plant, which is manned all the time, and you have tons of safety gear for the "just in case" - when really the thing could run itself. If someone sneezes there, we get a report about it...
I am not sure... I never said either way...
in any case, The guy I know works at the Monticello plant - and he isn't a director (my bad) but he is the interface guy between the plant and the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) - so he is the guy that deals with all the politics and makes sure everything is up to code...
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactors#Types_of_reactors' target='_blank'>Types of reactors</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier' target='_blank'>An intresting idea</a>
I am not sure... I never said either way...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that exists are fission plants. There is no such thing as a fusion plant (yet). I am assuming lolfighter was employing sarcasm...?
Who are you talking to?
1) it takes large(medium?) amounts harmful chemicals to produce solar cells which are costly aswell.
2) the sheer size they would have to be.
3) small bits of dust and such would scratch and ruin the surfaces of the cells (making them less effective or even not effective at all)
4) the sun's gravity would probably pull said solar panels into the sun (maybe not sure about this point)