[t vago]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

This is a kindergarten answer. "Look what he's doing . . . !". I make an appeal for discussion, and this is what you respond with?

What's to discuss?

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

It has EVERYTHING to do with energy discussions and the need to start something NOW.

People are already doing something NOW.

Fracking, once thought of as some uneconomical pipe-dream, is now putting the USA on a path to be self-reliant in 5 years. That was another bit of wishful thinking, not so long ago. What's more, the peak-oil crowd can't stand the thought that there might more proven oil reserves under the USA, than the entire rest of OPEC combined.

And when the cost of fracking grows to be too great, synthetic fuel (which I posted a few links to, already) will become economical. People are already producing fuel using sunlight, water, and CO2. Put fuel producing scrubbers on the smokestacks of power plants, and you get more fuel AND you scrub out CO2 AND you make that waste heat actually do something useful - what a concept!

There are nuke plants on the drawing boards which promise to be much more efficient and safer than the ones before, yet nobody mentions them.

We even had ideas for turning solar power into low-power density microwaves to beam from orbit to rectenna farms. They would have provided a sizeable amount of power. I even remember that my university's engineering school had a graduate project about it. Why did this not receive any serious consideration? China certainly is considering it.

But it's all not as sexy as solar panels (which two government-subsidized solar power manufacturing companies went under last year, I believe) or wind turbines (which I've already mentioned).

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

This is simple science. This is not global warming. We know where fossil fuel deposits tend to be found. We have a good idea where they come from and we know that they are not being rapidly replaced outside of a very small amount of abiotic oil. We also know we are using it up at an increasing rate. I can think of no reason to doubt the above. Do you? If you do, please discuss. This has little to do with sales or faith.

I do not share your apparent belief that this will spell the end of civilization as we know it. Nor do I believe that ICEs are inherently bad. They're tools, like most of what we interact with.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The "peak oil" people keep setting deadlines for apocalypse as if their next movie contract depends on it. But, their premise is sound.

No, it's not. Peak oil theory depends on an unchanging rate of growth in fuel consumption, which is simply not true. It also depends on a fixed amount of supply, which is also not true. Shale oil, fracking, petroleum synthesis, orbital solar power, maybe even solar petroleum mining? Point is, nobody knows exactly when (or even if) this peak oil will occur. People who claim otherwise, are either selling something or are deluded.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I do not attempt to debunk those facts. I see the ugly reminders of the mistakes on a weekly basis. But, I also see the results of lessons learned. Those derelict turbines were poorly sited in some instances with too many unproductive dead days. Wildlife interaction studies were not sufficient in many instances to minimize bird kills. Poor design of the turbines themselves resulted in expensive field repairs meaning many sit silent because something as simple as a bearing race cannot be replaced without a complete take down and dis-assembly.

And when tax subsidies and handouts are removed, turbines suddenly become unprofitable and become abandoned.

Why did Solyndra and Suntech go bankrupt? They were two well-known solar power manufacturing firms? If alternative energy is indeed the wave of the future, surely these firms would be making hand-over-fist, and struggling to keep supply up to meet demand. Obviously, the converse is true.

There's something wrong with a given method, if it requires taking money at gunpoint from one group of people, in order to give this money to another group of people who would otherwise have to convince the public using traditional persuasion methods.