NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to my lack of education on the matter of the transition to alternative energy sources, I figured I'd ask my own resident panel of experts on everything in the world: NSG! What do you all think our societies should do to transfer away from oil as our primary source of energy?

pump funding into the development of renewable's - educate the population on the matter by getting them involved etc - put higher tax on fossil fuels in particular from industry to pay for it all - maybe stop closing nuclear plants

all in all once business realizes that green is profitable the market should adjust itself

Make alternative energy cheap for the public, that in combination with people wanting to satisfy their need to do something right is enough. Its happening in Europe.

More Nuclear Power Plants, not less. The accidents of the past should not terrify us int he future so much, especially with all the advances in technology we make. Or there is also windmills, damns, and many other ways to produce electricity.
For transportation... GM needs to get its ass working harder on Hydrogen based fuel cells; and at least to my knowledge, many major fuel companies are preparing to make corn based ethenol available for purchase, at least in my area there is a chain of conviniance stores named Sheetz that is already announced its intentions to sell ethenol based fuels as early as July.

More Nuclear Power Plants, not less. The accidents of the past should not terrify us int he future so much, especially with all the advances in technology we make. Or there is also windmills, damns, and many other ways to produce electricity.
For transportation... GM needs to get its ass working harder on Hydrogen based fuel cells; and at least to my knowledge, many major fuel companies are preparing to make corn based ethenol available for purchase, at least in my area there is a chain of conviniance stores named Sheetz that is already announced its intentions to sell ethenol based fuels as early as July.

Sheetz is way awesome...

Details from Wikipedia.

1. Government funding and legal changes to provide incentives for the development of wind power and tidal power where possible. These will lighten the load produced by residential demand, but not suffice for supplying industrial demand. Fund solar where solar is usable (i.e., not everywhere is suitable).

2. Government funding and legal changes to provide incentives for the mass building of nuclear reactors using the design of the Integral Fast Reactor. This will supply industrial demand, and work in areas not supplied by major wind, solar or tidal sources.

Advantages of the IFR design:

* Enhanced passive safety because of the high thermal conductivity of the fuel. Able to withstand both a loss of flow without SCRAM and loss of heat sink without SCRAM.
* Ease of fuel fabrication. Because the sodium fills the space between the fuel and cladding, the fuel need not be precisely fabricated. The fuel is simply cast. Because casting is simple, the fuel can be fabricated remotely, reducing the hazards of its radioactivity.
* On-site reprocessing by pyroprocessing and electrorefining is simplified because there is no need to stringently reduce the radioactivity of the fuel. Actinides including transuranics can be incorporated into the fuel.
* Proliferation hazards are reduced by the high radioactivity of the fuel. Because the fuel contains significant levels of transuranics with high spontaneous fission rates, it is not possible to produce nuclear weapons using IFR fuel without extremely difficult centrifugal separation. This is even more difficult than uranium enrichment due to the smaller atomic mass difference between Pu-239 and Pu-240 as compared to U-235 vs U-238, and is rendered even more difficult by the high levels of activity of the fuel.
* The two forms of waste produced, a noble metal form and a ceramic form, contain no plutonium or other actinides. The radioactivity of the waste decays to levels similar to the original ore in about 300 years. Both forms are suitable for geological disposal.
* The onsite reprocessing of fuel means that the quantity of nuclear waste leaving the plant is tiny relative to other nuclear facilities. This makes storage simpler and reduces the security risk associated with nuclear waste transportation.

Now, that takes care of major electrical demand. Yet, it doesn't take care of mobile power - which is where cars and trucks come in.

I would force cars to be changed to hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells. Hydrogen can be cracked from water, using power produced by the nuclear powerplants. This means, of course, that we need almost as many nuclear powerplants as we would need for base power production for residential and industrial use. But, it's workable and possible.

There would also have to be major refits to homes that use natural gas or fuel oil for heating.

I would also make a crash program to more effectively develop this form of nuclear fusion:

http://wsx.lanl.gov/Publications/IAEA06_synopsis-Wurden.pdf

Because according to British Petroleum, in its annual report 2006, estimated at 2005 end, there were 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 155 years reserve to production ratio and it is difficult to predict the oil peak in any given region due to the lack of transparency in accounting of global oil reserves, making it a less reliable source of power.

For you eco-freaks, I shouldn't have to explain again how to use the emissions. If you've never read a post in which I did, give the word.

Going green is not profitable and likely never will be. If it were then it would be competetive and would have been so for a long while now. Finding a use for waste generated by industrial activities can be profitable. Being clean can be profitable. Being green is putting up a bunch of windmills and sprawling wave collectors that interfere with local environments. Being clean is using plutonium from breeder reactors and using emissions from coal to grow food.

Sheetz is way awesome...

I do so love Sheetz, especially when I need to grab a quick bite to eat. [/endorsment]

Anyway...I was going to add another valid point but I forgot it :rolleyes:

Maybe we can get lucky enough to actually duplicate cold fusion... then things would be so much simpler.

Due to my lack of education on the matter of the transition to alternative energy sources, I figured I'd ask my own resident panel of experts on everything in the world: NSG! What do you all think our societies should do to transfer away from oil as our primary source of energy?
Nuclear power using integral fast (which Remote Observer has already mentioned, more info here (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html)) reactors to cope with electricity demand, while wind, wave, solar and tidal sources are utilised in location where they are best suited.

Cars would have to come second place to public transport in the eyes of policy planners, but I think research into producing biodiesel and ethanol from algae GM is absolutely essential.

Industry would be persuaded to change using tax incentives for green investments on their property and a carbon trading programme.

First you need to create a market in renewable energy sources which is more profitable than the oil/gas/coal market. So raise taxes on fossil fuels and lower them on green energy.

The government should subsidize cars that run on renewable energy sources in order to raise the demand, which'll lower the prises and car manufacturers will produce more environmental friendly cars cuz they'll be profitable. Put tariffs on roads for cars that don't run on renewable energy.

Raise the taxes on energy so a product that's not energy efficient will cost much more than a product that is.

All busses should be run on environmental friendly fuel.

Make it cheaper to travel by train.

Raise taxes on light bulbs that are not energy efficient and lower taxes on those who are.

Make it more expensive to travel by airplane.

Just a few examples of what can be done.

First you need to create a market in renewable energy sources which is more profitable than the oil/gas/coal market. So raise taxes on fossil fuels and lower them on green energy.

The government should subsidize cars that run on renewable energy sources in order to raise the demand, which'll lower the prises and car manufacturers will produce more environmental friendly cars cuz they'll be profitable. Put tariffs on roads for cars that don't run on renewable energy.

Raise the taxes on energy so a product that's not energy efficient will cost much more than a product that is.

All busses should be run on environmental friendly fuel.

Make it cheaper to travel by train.

Raise taxes on light bulbs that are not energy efficient and lower taxes on those who are.

Make it more expensive to travel by airplane.

Just a few examples of what can be done.
No. No! NO! NO! And a FUCK NO! for good measure. Have you ever considered that what you're proposing would just make things more expensive for people? Green power just isn't competetive, if you strip away all subsidies and taxes it's still not competetive. It's wrong to punish people for not living your ideal life. That'd be like telling people to "be Catholic or else."

Nobody rides the train anymore. Amtrak has never turned a profit. Ever. Trains also restrict where you can go.

And just because a lightbulb is energy efficient doesn't mean that it's not a toxic hazard. See the thread on fluorescent bulbs for what I mean.

There are alternative engine designs for aircraft like that proposed for Project Pluto and the cleaner nuclear lightbulb. Making air travel more expensive will just force people to drive to their destinations and limit over-seas travel and business travel while allowing the super rich to continue to criss-cross the country the way they do now. The biggest polluters are the richest people, the people that won't be affected by your proposed restrictions.

Everything you proposed would do very little to help the environment and go a long way in laying the foundation for some Orwellian dystopia.

Tossing cars out of cities and focing everyone to walk around within restrict how far people can go. Making trains the only way to travel between cities restricts where people can go. Blacklisting things is pretty restricitive no matter the basis.

This is the real world we're living in. 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 there is no clear, neat little solution--only trade-offs.

And it is the free market that has the best track record of, on a large scale, choosing the best trade-off to meet large-scale social ends.

It seems like it shouldn't work, but it does, and here's why:

The number of variables involved is so large, and their relationships so complex, that no monolithic entity--be it a single individual or a central committee--could ever hope to reliably make effective decisions concerning economic direction for a modern society. Any such attempt is doomed to collapse.

But markets, by enabling billions of people, each with their own selfish interests and understanding of the information that affects them, to come together, create a distributed decision-making system that is able to take everything into account.

Here's my suggestion to everyone: Read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. Whether or not you ever find yourself in agreement with any of Dr. Sowell's op-ed pieces, you should read this. In it, Dr. Sowell aims not to convince you of a particular "vision", as he calls it, but to analyze the ideological bases of the two main competing visions in modern society. It really helps you see where your opponents--regardless of where you particularly stand--are coming from.

No. No! NO! NO! And a FUCK NO! for good measure. Have you ever considered that what you're proposing would just make things more expensive for people? Green power just isn't competetive, if you strip away all subsidies and taxes it's still not competetive. It's wrong to punish people for not living your ideal life. That'd be like telling people to "be Catholic or else."

It may make things more expensive for people in the short run but in the long run it'll make things much much much much more cheaper. Green power is the future. It'll become far more competitive then fossil fuels in the future and if we subsidize it and make fossil fuels more expensive, it'll become much more competitive faster.
And I don't want to punish anyone. I want to make it easier and cheaper for people to use green energy sources. You accuse me for wanting to punish people but do you accuse people that drive cars bigger than houses and leave all their electric devices on for ruining the planet? You probably don't.

"Everything you proposed would do very little to help the environment and go a long way in laying the foundation for some Orwellian dystopia."

Oh please, what do you propose? Sitting by, whining and hoping that everything will sort itself out just so we won't have to change our lifestyles?

I believe that much of our existing infrastructure can be easily adapted to run on coal rather than oil, so I don't foresee too many difficulties in that arena. We have sufficient reserves of the mineral to last us for quite a while; if scientific innovation progresses at an adequate rate, we'll have plenty of alternative forms of energy prior to the depletion of coal and oil. Of course, we can increases our store of hydrocarbons by drilling in Alaska, investing funds in exploration, deregulating the oil industry on an international scale, etc. What we must under no circumstances do is allow the government to interfere with the market in order to promote "hippie" power sources; the ensuing financial shocks would bring economic hardship to the US and retard our development.

1) Massive development initiatives into efficient methods of producing cellulosic ethanol.

2) Research into efficient ways to extract hydrogen from biomass.

3) Massive development of wind and solar power infrastructures.

4) Long term research into stable nuclear fusion power.

Due to my lack of education on the matter of the transition to alternative energy sources, I figured I'd ask my own resident panel of experts on everything in the world: NSG! What do you all think our societies should do to transfer away from oil as our primary source of energy?

It would be nice to think that Andaluciae was head of a real-life nation somewhere, who, having tired of his actual advisors, has decided you'll get as much of an answer on the NSG message boards.

Nice but unlikely alas.

As for the answer - I'm not a believer in nuclear power for 1 reason, which is that the more of the stuff there is around, the more likely it'll get into the wrong hands and, honestly, I feel nuclear power is a weapon too devastating to bear.

I can't remember where the quote comes from but it roughly goes: I'm less afraid of a nation with many nuclear weapons than I am an individual with 1 nuclear weapon.

So once again, methane methane methane.

I believe that much of our existing infrastructure can be easily adapted to run on coal rather than oil, so I don't foresee too many difficulties in that arena.

Was that a real proposition or a bad joke?

1. Provide tax credits for renewable energy and provide government matching funds to utilities to encourage net-metering of household power generation.

2. Fund research in to cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol, and other non-food based biofuels. Also fund renewable energy sources to improve economic competitiveness as well as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. Also fund new ways to increase domestic oil production, energy efficiency, and

3. Shift taxes on to oil and gas to better reflect the cost of producing them; the US spends the equivalent of $8 per gallon protecting oil production. If this burden were taken from income and corporate taxes and put on gasoline, Americans would be far more compelled to conserve.

4. Increase efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, and appliances. Provide larger tax credits for fuel efficient vehicles and upgrades to existing appliances, insulation, and heating systems.

1. Provide tax credits for renewable energy and provide government matching funds to utilities to encourage net-metering of household power generation.

2. Fund research in to cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol, and other non-food based biofuels. Also fund renewable energy sources to improve economic competitiveness as well as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. Also fund new ways to increase domestic oil production, energy efficiency, and

3. Shift taxes on to oil and gas to better reflect the cost of producing them; the US spends the equivalent of $8 per gallon protecting oil production. If this burden were taken from income and corporate taxes and put on gasoline, Americans would be far more compelled to conserve.

4. Increase efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, and appliances. Provide larger tax credits for fuel efficient vehicles and upgrades to existing appliances, insulation, and heating systems.

Those were actually good ideas.

So once again, methane methane methane.

WTF? You do realize that methane is a much more dangerous green house gas than CO2 and that it would make gobal warming worse? It's not a good thing to replace a bad option with a worse.

Due to my lack of education on the matter of the transition to alternative energy sources, I figured I'd ask my own resident panel of experts on everything in the world: NSG! What do you all think our societies should do to transfer away from oil as our primary source of energy?

Buckyballs with trace amounts of nitroglycerin should be laced into oil.

When 1 of every 1000 cars, houses and planes start exploding at random, people will switch to alternative energy. :)

WTF? You do realize that methane is a much more dangerous green house gas than CO2 and that it would make gobal warming worse? It's not a good thing to replace a bad option with a worse.

Yes I do, so let's capture and use it rather than let it be wasted.

WTF? You do realize that methane is a much more dangerous green house gas than CO2 and that it would make gobal warming worse? It's not a good thing to replace a bad option with a worse.

Methane itself is 23 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Turning it into CO2 actually helps, you fool.

Methane itself is 23 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Turning it into CO2 actually helps, you fool.

Is that the best you can come up with? Transform something that's 23 times worse than CO2 into CO2 when we actually need to cut CO2 to begin with?
Stop the usage of natural gas and coal, cut back on CO2 and invest in renewable energy sources. Then we might at least have a chance to change the environment into somehting better.

Is that the best you can come up with? Transform something that's 23 times worse than CO2 into CO2 when we actually need to cut CO2 to begin with?
Stop the usage of natural gas and coal, cut back on CO2 and invest in renewable energy sources. Then we might at least have a chance to change the environment into somehting better.

Go back to see my post that contains my solution. My solution doesn't involve methane.

I'm just noting that you somehow think that burning methane that would already be released into the atmosphere is somehow a "bad" thing.

Chemically speaking, it's an improvement.

Go back to see my post that contains my solution. My solution doesn't involve methane.

I'm just noting that you somehow think that burning methane that would already be released into the atmosphere is somehow a "bad" thing.

Chemically speaking, it's an improvement.

I'm talking about burning methane that we dig up from far beneath the earth. Then it's a bad thing as with natural gas.

*snip*
I'll take that as a "please explain, I've never seen any of the threads in which this has been brought up"

It's called vertical farming and it involves basically stacking greenhouses so you can grow 30 acres of crops on 1 acre of land. By being a greenhouse, such structures are isolated from the outside world and crops grown within do not require pesticides or other treatments common to traditional farming practices today. This isolation also allows for farmers to increase CO2 levels within the facilities which in turn accelerates growth and increases overall crop yeilds. CO2 and other "pollutants" are not that at all, they are resources that uncreative minds have written off as useless waste without considering ideas shared by myself and a few scientists and engineers. You see, most flora on Earth take in CO2 photons through their leaves and nutrients and water through their roots, then break down and recombine these into food for the plant and a waste gas, O2. When coal is burned it releases energy in the form of heat and a waste gas, CO2. See where I'm going with this? You run the CO2 from a coal or garbage-fired boiler into the greenhouse to increase crop yeilds. World hunger and cheap power are both solved for about a century. Time which can be used to develop (not just find but actually mass produce and deploy) a more perminant solution to energy demand.

So you see, a change in lifestyle isn't really what we need, it's creative minds using existing technology in new ways.

I'm talking about burning methane that we dig up from far beneath the earth. Then it's a bad thing as with natural gas.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

Most of the world's methane is trapped in the oceans in clathrates.

That is, trapped in the water at some depth. In the Carribean, it's rather shallow.

Every once in a while, it all wants to bubble out, all at once. This has happened before, and it WILL happen again.

Would you rather grab that methane and make it less harmful, or would you rather wait for it to bubble out all at once according to nature?

Is that the best you can come up with? Transform something that's 23 times worse than CO2 into CO2 when we actually need to cut CO2 to begin with?
Stop the usage of natural gas and coal, cut back on CO2 and invest in renewable energy sources. Then we might at least have a chance to change the environment into somehting better.

True we're not cutting carbon, but we're making a lot of it 23 times less potent.

We're also letting people use less oil and coal.

Also helps that it's easy to implement, beneficial to the environment (in terms of nutrient rich fertilizer), doesn't look stupid (as do those spiky windmills they use for power) and doesn't require drilling for (as in most other gas), nor nuclear waste, is transportable...

As well as making farms, trash pits and more slightly less whiffy.

It's renewable as well, as the baked beans I ate for dinner will shortly attest.

-

I'm sorry but I think that I've misunderstood but what exactly do you want to do? When I hear someone talk about methane I instinctively think about digging natural gas up, is that what you want to do?

I'm sorry but I think that I've misunderstood but what exactly do you want to do? When I hear someone talk about methane I instinctively think about digging natural gas up, is that what you want to do?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12599674&postcount=7

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12599674&postcount=7

I agree with what's in that post.

Wind power makes up what? 1% of the energy consumed by the United States? Maybe not even that. And tidal is a fraction of wind.

Solar might have a real shot but not in the way you may think. Rather than use sheets of expensive photovoltaic cells, I propose the construction of more parabolic dishes focusing heat on stirling engines. Stirling engines can achieve the highest efficiency of any real heat engine, up to 80% of the Carnot efficiency, limited only by non-ideal properties of the working gas and engine materials, such as friction, thermal conductivity, tensile strength, creep, melting point, etc. The engines can theoretically run on any heat source of sufficient quality, including solar.

But you can't just say that we'll do it all right now, these things take time. You need to figure out how you're going to get the extra power to harvest the materials needed for such a project and to perform the action of actually executing such a plan. That's where the coal-powered vertical farming comes in. Lot's of cheap power, and because I like to kill as many birds with a single stone as I can, "MOAR" food. You know, so I don't have to watch anymore of those stupid charity commercials on tv about the starving kids of some far away land.

There, problems solved. No need to change lifestyles, I can go on being the overwheight, obnoxious, greedy, stereotypical American you probably think I am. And it was all done with *gasp* existing technology so it's cheaper than making everyone drive those stupid new super-expensive hybrid cars.

One way to start is by putting huge taxes on oil and using money made from those taxes to go into alternate fuel sources.

One way to start is by putting huge taxes on oil and using money made from those taxes to go into alternate fuel sources.
No! That just hurts the economy and puts people out of work. technical problems call for technical solutions. Military problems call for military solutions. Political problems call military solutions.

No! That just hurts the economy and puts people out of work. technical problems call for technical solutions. Military problems call for military solutions. Political problems call military solutions.

Look, if things are going to be put in place to protect truckers and people who absolutely need to drive in order to work, fine. But money is required and a lot of it. Just like cigarettes are taxed, so should oil. People don't listen to dying polar bears, they listen to their wallets. Taxes put on oil have worked in other countries.

Look, if things are going to be put in place to protect truckers and people who absolutely need to drive in order to work, fine. But money is required and a lot of it. Just like cigarettes are taxed, so should oil. People don't listen to dying polar bears, they listen to their wallets. Taxes put on oil have worked in other countries.
Did you even bother reading my suggestions? You know, the ones that would provide about a hundred years of power and food? In exchange for this thing called money? Which can then be used for lots of solar powered stirling engines.

Is the first thing you think of in the morning "I'm not getting taxed enough; please, government, take what I have and grow large and fat oh wise and benevolent governmet"? Government can never be trusted to do the right thing with the money it steals from the populaces it subjugates.

Did you even bother reading my suggestions? You know, the ones that would provide about a hundred years of power and food? In exchange for this thing called money? Which can then be used for lots of solar powered stirling engines.

Is the first thing you think of in the morning "I'm not getting taxed enough; please, government, take what I have and grow large and fat oh wise and benevolent governmet"? Government can never be trusted to do the right thing with the money it steals from the populaces it subjugates.

Some people actually care more about the environment and the situation we're creating for our grandchildren than our wallets. We may not be able to stop the mess we've created but I will at least be able to answer with a somewhat clean conscious in the future when my eventual grandchild asks me what I did to prevent the catastrophic situation that we will have put them in then.

If you start thinking outside your box you'll realize that measures need to be taken to create a better environment. And the market is a lousy tool when it comes to do that. The goverments of the world need to act together and most goverments have realized the threat. Others haven't.

This is a technical problem. I have provided outlines of technical solutions free of charge. I would be willing to turn those ideas into construction documents for a small fee. You said I should think outside the box. I have. I have chosen to think beyond your narrow pre-conceptions, beyond the call to simply beat down a populace with penalties for living their lives and confiscate their hard-earned finacnes through excessive taxation. I have thought outside the sphere, it has yeilded a solution to the need for cheap energy, the need for more food, the need for revenue for more perminant sources of power, and all while cleaning the air of a resource you brand as a pollutant because your closed mind cannot grasp its potential.

No amount of money thrown at a problem will ever solve it. You need plans, ideas. Realistic ones. I have provided just that. What is it about them that you do not believe will be a success?

step one - stop subsidizing the oil companies

Due to my lack of education on the matter of the transition to alternative energy sources, I figured I'd ask my own resident panel of experts on everything in the world: NSG! What do you all think our societies should do to transfer away from oil as our primary source of energy?

Although not an expert in alternative energies, I dont think there is any one answer unless you take the sci-fi options and ring the planet in solar panels or they develope workable fusion generators.

Although on a local scale alot should be possible.
Nations like saudi arabia or australia, near the equator with little humidity could convert to solar power.
High wind areas, moutainous or on the atlantic could rely of windpower.
There is also geothermal sources, rivers, etc...

Realsitically though I dont think any of these current methods would meet all our requierments.
Maybe a more important step at the moment would be to look more into efficiency in energy usage. Better insulation, re-using heat energy given of by machinery, etc...

Realistically I don

Did you even bother reading my suggestions? You know, the ones that would provide about a hundred years of power and food? In exchange for this thing called money? Which can then be used for lots of solar powered stirling engines.

Is the first thing you think of in the morning "I'm not getting taxed enough; please, government, take what I have and grow large and fat oh wise and benevolent governmet"? Government can never be trusted to do the right thing with the money it steals from the populaces it subjugates.

There is no reason why what you said won't work but where is the incentive? What is there that will make people want to change? I don't want to be taxed and you don't want to be taxed but our alternative is simply to change human nature. You start, I'll be right behind you.

There is no reason why what you said won't work but where is the incentive?
Profit. Publicity. Wealth and recognition are the very foundation of human nature. It is in the nature of every aggressive animal to want more than it has because it doesn't know when it might be cut off. It is in the nature of every animal to be known for something so that it can attract more. More food, more sex, more territory, more respect, more everything. What I propose isn't just human nature, it's the nature of every living thing on the planet. What I propose is a tool to get more. What more could you ask for?;)

Deregulate the power distribution market.

Deregulate the power production market.

Allow the construction of more nuclear plants.

That's all you need. There's no need to interfere in the market further - the high price of fossil fuels will drive the innovation for you.

I'm sorry but I think that I've misunderstood but what exactly do you want to do? When I hear someone talk about methane I instinctively think about digging natural gas up, is that what you want to do?

Sorry, no, no it's not.

Aside from all the farm animals (I'm sure zoos could probably reduce their power costs as well), trash dumps and other, the melting of the perma-frost in Siberia and Alaska is uncovering huge methane-releasing... ammm... bogs, as they're so fittingly called.

Frankly, if I had the money, I'd be buying up condo space in Siberia for my new methane-powered Summer seaside resort chain.

I shall call it....MSG - 'The flavour of Siberia' would be my tagline

Ban individual cars.
Ban oil as a fuel source.
Public transportation, which everyone would be taking, would thus run on ethanol.
Subsidize innovation in renewable energy.
Build plants to create renewable energy.

Ban individual cars.
Ban oil as a fuel source.
Public transportation, which everyone would be taking, would thus run on ethanol.
Subsidize innovation in renewable energy.
Build plants to create renewable energy.
And while we're at it, let's ban fire, eating meat, self-defense, expression of opposing views, and just about every other personal liberty in the world.

Profit. Publicity. Wealth and recognition are the very foundation of human nature. It is in the nature of every aggressive animal to want more than it has because it doesn't know when it might be cut off. It is in the nature of every animal to be known for something so that it can attract more. More food, more sex, more territory, more respect, more everything. What I propose isn't just human nature, it's the nature of every living thing on the planet. What I propose is a tool to get more. What more could you ask for?;)

You haven't proposed anything except for vertical farming. What should cars be run on? How will we get electricity to our homes? Most importantly, how will we recuce the CO2 we let out in the atmosphere?

Sorry, no, no it's not.

Aside from all the farm animals (I'm sure zoos could probably reduce their power costs as well), trash dumps and other, the melting of the perma-frost in Siberia and Alaska is uncovering huge methane-releasing... ammm... bogs, as they're so fittingly called.

Frankly, if I had the money, I'd be buying up condo space in Siberia for my new methane-powered Summer seaside resort chain.

I shall call it....MSG - 'The flavour of Siberia' would be my tagline

I would imagine there aren't too many condos in Siberia :)

But your idea sounds good. It doesn't hurt the environment if you take advantage of methane that woul've been realeased anyway.

You haven't proposed anything except for vertical farming.
Those are just to take in emissions of existing technology, to take advantage of a neglected resource. Use every part of the buffalo. I've heard people constantly bitch and moan about CO2, about how it's so terrible and it'll kill us all and I thought to myself, "how could I shut them up and make money doing it?" and agricultural greenhouses is what I came up with.

What should cars be run on?
Coal liquefaction can give you fuels like gasoline. But what I'd really like to see is a modern version of the Ford Nucleon concept car put into full production. Just toss a Plutonium RTG module into the back and cruise around for thousands of miles without refueling.

How will we get electricity to our homes?
With cables like we do now. The farm facilities would have coal power plants on-site.

Most importantly, how will we recuce the CO2 we let out in the atmosphere?
The farm facilities could serve as giant air filters. Like for the coal plants and the air in general.

Due to my lack of education on the matter of the transition to alternative energy sources, I figured I'd ask my own resident panel of experts on everything in the world: NSG! What do you all think our societies should do to transfer away from oil as our primary source of energy?

1.Fund research in thermodinamic solar power (more cost-effective and more environment-friendly than photovoltaic) artificial geothermy (that is, drilling a pit through the crust about 15 km) and next-generation fission reactors (like subcritical reactors fueled by nuclear waste). While waiting for nuclear fusion, of course.
2.Better building: use of subterranean building (they're thermically better insulated). Ban air conditioning wherever it can be substituted by ventilation and insulation.
3.Secondary, more local-orientered sources like wind power or biofuels are to be implemented to create an effective mix of sources.
4.Transportation: stop IC engines (even hydrogen IC engines aren't a great idea), begin using fuel cells and electrical batteries. Less aircrafts, less cars, less trucks, more electrical trains and LRVs, both for commuting and for long distances (no need for maglev, the french TGV is faster than any maglev and costs a lot less!)
5.Stop inurbation of people, make living in the countryside better. Huge metropoleis aren't very energy-effective.
6.Reprocess waste to retrieve valuable substances.
7.Stop global population growth, go for stable demography until everyone on the bloody planet reaches decent living standards.
8.Industry must be reformed drastically, to achieve lower environmental impact and lesser waste of resources.

Just my 8 eurocents.

stop paving highways (and whatever other defacto subsidies might exist that favor oil, coal, and any other form of centralized combustion) and tax the hell out of everything other then home heating and cooking that uses combustion of anything in any way.

government could also help create a big enough demand for photovoltaic to make them a mass market item by requiring all their own fixed instalations to be powered, in combination with wind, by them.

these are of course, only the bare bones of cameroi's energy and transportation policy. the details of which are exaustive and constitute many weighty tomes, easily located in any of our universtiy engineering libraries. all of which are open to both students and the public 24/7/365.

=^^=
.../\...

Coal liquefaction can give you fuels like gasoline. But what I'd really like to see is a modern version of the Ford Nucleon concept car put into full production. Just toss a Plutonium RTG module into the back and cruise around for thousands of miles without refueling.

Yeah, a single freeway car crash throwing out more radioactive fallout than Chernobyl looks like a good idea.:rolleyes:


With cables like we do now. The farm facilities would have coal power plants on-site.

If cables can be avoided (by carrying energy in the form of H2 or via hot superconductors - hot superconductors mean temperature above the boiling point of nitrogen), it would be better. Power wires lose energy because of the Joule effect ( dissipated power is resistivity of metal*lenght of wire*(current)^2 ).


The farm facilities could serve as giant air filters. Like for the coal plants and the air in general.

A frequently forgotten fact: PLANTS DO NOT CREATE OXYGEN! Plants living in the atmosphere absorb carbon dioxide by day to create sugar, but by night they burn oxygen and sugar and exhale CO2.
The real "green lung" of Earth is the anaerobical flora of the oceans - that is, those algae and bacteria who don't use oxygen to "breathe" and exhale oxygen as a byproduct of their life processes.

from wikipedia:

Obligate Anaerobes
In some organisms called obligate (strict) anaerobes (ex: C. tetani (causes tetanus), C. perfringens (causes gangrene)), the presence of oxygen is lethal. This is because the presence of oxygen is processed by the organisms into the extremely toxic molecules of single oxygen (1O2), superoxide ion (O2-), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydroxyl ion (OH-), and other toxic molecules
Facultative
Facultative anaerobes (organisms that can survive in either oxygenated or deoxygenated environments and can switch between cellular respiration or fermentation, respectively) and obligate (strict) aerobes (organisms that can survive only with oxygen) have special enzymes (superoxide dimutase and catalase) that can safely handle these products and transform them into harmless water and diatomic oxygen in the following reactions:
1. 2O2- + 2H+ ---Superoxide Dismutase--> H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) + O2
The hydrogen peroxide produced is then transferred to a second reaction...
2. 2H2O2 ---Catalase--> 2H2O + O2

And while we're at it, let's ban fire, eating meat, self-defense, expression of opposing views, and just about every other personal liberty in the world.Fire is a personal liberty?

Ban individual cars.
Ban oil as a fuel source.
Public transportation, which everyone would be taking, would thus run on ethanol.
Subsidize innovation in renewable energy.
Build plants to create renewable energy.

After you do the first two, the entire economy grinds to an instant halt, and all the lights go out.

There isn't enough public transport to move the people who now drive cars.

All truck traffic would stop instantly. There would be no economy left to subsidize anything.

After you do the first two, the entire economy grinds to an instant halt, and all the lights go out.

There isn't enough public transport to move the people who now drive cars.

All truck traffic would stop instantly. There would be no economy left to subsidize anything.Naturally before the ban is enacted, more public transportation infrastructure would be created.

This is a technical problem. I have provided outlines of technical solutions free of charge. I would be willing to turn those ideas into construction documents for a small fee. You said I should think outside the box. I have. I have chosen to think beyond your narrow pre-conceptions, beyond the call to simply beat down a populace with penalties for living their lives and confiscate their hard-earned finacnes through excessive taxation. I have thought outside the sphere, it has yeilded a solution to the need for cheap energy, the need for more food, the need for revenue for more perminant sources of power, and all while cleaning the air of a resource you brand as a pollutant because your closed mind cannot grasp its potential.

No amount of money thrown at a problem will ever solve it. You need plans, ideas. Realistic ones. I have provided just that. What is it about them that you do not believe will be a success?
What sort of small fee are we talking here? I'd almost be willing to pay for these plans if it was within my budgetary range. I say almost because my ability to present them to anyone who would actually consider them is extremely limited, at best.

Quite frankly, everyone, I'm with Dosuun's plans here...they're extremely good, work with existing technology, and actually do help the environment. You want to slow down global climate change? Fine: let's use CO2 in the manner he speaks of. By using it in such a manner we keep it from actually going into the atmosphere, thus clearing the air. Always use what you can, and if you think you can't use something, figure out a way how. That's called efficiency and common sense.

I'm all for protecting the environment. I want the ecological balance to remain. I'd like to see the extinction of species due to human activity slow down considerably, if not halt altogether. On that same token, I also recognize what would be required to encourage people to actually do these things. Rather than work against human nature, I work with it. As such, I am in full support of Dosuun's plans.

I would, however, like to impliment Remote Observer's nuclear recommendations as well, as back-up energy sources, at least till we get those neato solar engines Dosuun was talking about working.

Listen to the engineer, folks...he knows what he's talking about, most definitely.

Naturally before the ban is enacted, more public transportation infrastructure would be created.

At tremendous initial cost that, though possibly necessary, is simply not likely.

Making use of methane is simple to implement with a few tax credits and/or low interest loans.

For those looking to nuclear, I make the point again - increased nuclear power leads to increased nuclear waste as well as an increased need to transport nuclear materials around, leading to the increased chance that it's siphoned off.

A country with a bomb I don't mind, an individual with a bomb frightens the bejaysus out of me.

At tremendous initial cost that, though possibly necessary, is simply not likely.

Making use of methane is simple to implement with a few tax credits and/or low interest loans.

For those looking to nuclear, I make the point again - increased nuclear power leads to increased nuclear waste as well as an increased need to transport nuclear materials around, leading to the increased chance that it's siphoned off.

A country with a bomb I don't mind, an individual with a bomb frightens the bejaysus out of me.
Hence the use of the technology Remote Observer specified, which solves both of those problems quite easily.

Dosuun - can I fix my methane-extraction filter unit to power your vertical farms? You can use the nutrient rich sludge left after methane-extraction to fertilize your plants

It replaces your coal fuel.

Why make billions when we can make....millions *strokes chin*

Dosuun - can I fix my methane-extraction filter unit to power your vertical farms? You can use the nutrient rich sludge left after methane-extraction to fertilize your plants

It replaces your coal fuel.
That would free up coal for other uses...it would certainly be one way of going about it, in any case. How well it would work, I don't know, but then I'm no engineer.

That would free up coal for other uses...it would certainly be one way of going about it, in any case. How well it would work, I don't know, but then I'm no engineer.

Why not just leave it in the ground?

Hence the use of the technology Remote Observer specified, which solves both of those problems quite easily.

Right, that was posted in response to a Nationalian request to me asking what I meant in terms of methane - I only skimmed at first because it seemed nuclear related and nothing to do with methane.

However, having now actually read it, and if it doesn't come at a huge cost then I'm fine with it.

As Dosuun says, we need viable, implementable and non-costly methods to actually get people to adopt practices that provide a multiple-beneficial solution to the problem.

I like vertical farming, I like using waste methane - these I like so far.

At tremendous initial cost that, though possibly necessary, is simply not likely.

Why not? Look at the european network of railways. And it's been constantly upgraded.
Of course, the amount of capital involved is something only a State can afford. That's why the transport infrastructures should belong to the State. The private sector may partecipate in running trains, but the rails have to be state-owned (just like roads).

Making use of methane is simple to implement
Methane has two drawbacks, though:
1.It is a fossil fuel (no, extracting methane from biogas will not yield enough methane anyway. :( )
2.The reaction is: CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O . Where's a combustion with carbon involved, there's carbon dioxide. Hence, greenhouse effect. We'd better jump out of combustion, at least in the transportation sector.

The ideal fuel chain could be: Make hydrogen out of water by using solar or nuclear energy. Use hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity for your car. Propel your car with electric motors.


For those looking to nuclear, I make the point again - increased nuclear power leads to increased nuclear waste as well as an increased need to transport nuclear materials around, leading to the increased chance that it's siphoned off.
Ok but: if you make few large nuclear powerplants, you'll reduce the chance of siphoning. If you also reprocess nuclear fuel on site, maybe in a subcritical reactor (they can use the waste of uranium reactors, or less radioactive atoms like thorium), you'll have low-radioactivity waste only. Then you dump the waste in a pit dug in an ocean trench - the ocean mud immediately closes the pit and bingo.


A country with a bomb I don't mind, an individual with a bomb frightens the bejaysus out of me.
I see your point... hey, the whateverth amendment says I have the right to carry a weapon, so why are you upset that I carry a nuclear warhead? ;)

At tremendous initial cost that, though possibly necessary, is simply not likely.Of course it isn't likely, neither is the ban on cars or oil. ;)

Why not? Look at the european network of railways. And it's been constantly upgraded.
Of course, the amount of capital involved is something only a State can afford. That's why the transport infrastructures should belong to the State. The private sector may partecipate in running trains, but the rails have to be state-owned (just like roads).

Fair enough

Methane has two drawbacks, though:
1.It is a fossil fuel (no, extracting methane from biogas will not yield enough methane anyway. :( )
2.The reaction is: CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O . Where's a combustion with carbon involved, there's carbon dioxide. Hence, greenhouse effect. We'd better jump out of combustion, at least in the transportation sector.

1. I'm talking waste methane, not digging for it, merely looking to reduce the already-present harm in a useful way - there's earlier posts covering this
2. Methane, as already pointed out, is 23 times more toxic than C02 and since it's going into the air anyway, better to reduce its toxicity than leave it be. Given vertical farms, that CO2 can be pumped into the greenhouses, methane fuel powers the generators and remaining sludge is fertilizer.

The ideal fuel chain could be: Make hydrogen out of water by using solar or nuclear energy. Use hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity for your car. Propel your car with electric motors.

Amm...to be honest I don't know either way about this but again, it's not really an immediately viable or likely short-term solution

Ok but: if you make few large nuclear powerplants, you'll reduce the chance of siphoning. If you also reprocess nuclear fuel on site, maybe in a subcritical reactor (they can use the waste of uranium reactors, or less radioactive atoms like thorium), you'll have low-radioactivity waste only. Then you dump the waste in a pit dug in an ocean trench - the ocean mud immediately closes the pit and bingo.

I think Remote Observer has a better solution than this

I see your point... hey, the whatever amendment says I have the right to carry a weapon, so why are you upset that I carry a nuclear warhead? :)

2nd Amendment.

Lol, I'd like to see someone take that to SCOTUS

EDIT: I'm not American if that's your implication

1. I'm talking waste methane, not digging for it, merely looking to reduce the already-present harm in a useful way - there's earlier posts covering this

I doubt about the feasibility of this. I've seen a report by the CCR of Ispra (an EC institute of research) and biogas has a well-to-wheels cost that's quite higher than fossil methane or hydrogen from nuclear plants.


2. Methane, as already pointed out, is 23 times more toxic than C02 and since it's going into the air anyway, better to reduce its toxicity than leave it be. Given vertical farms, that CO2 can be pumped into the greenhouses, methane fuel powers the generators and remaining sludge is fertilizer.

Ok. This still looks more like a local solution, that a global solution: you don't want the whole world covered by vertical farms, do you? Again, you pump CO2 into greenhouses, you get other CO2 because plants breathe (and produce CO2 during the night).


Amm...to be honest I don't know either way about this but again, it's not really an immediately viable or likely short-term solution
It is just taking the Prius and going a step further. This technology is ready to roll, it will just take time to implement, let's say 10 years (about 2 average lifespans of a car in the G8).



EDIT: I'm not American if that's your implication
Not at all.

Run out of oil, learn to ride horses. Simple.

Wow...the title I created for this thread is awfully pompous...sorry about that.

Wow...the title I created for this thread is awfully pompous...sorry about that.
There's nothing wrong with pomposity.