[Cool Hand Linc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Q')uote:
The only real long term solution will be to reduce population to increase energy per capita.


You could also go the other way and simply use energy more wisely so that everybody uses less energy per capita.

The high oil prices of the last several months is already doing it. While some are hurting (Ford and GM) the population at large is simply adjusting to the new reality.

Trust the markets to do it. We could all be more energy efficient, but most would only do it when it makes cent$.

[rowante]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou could also go the other way and simply use energy more wisely so that everybody uses less energy per capita.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Optimist', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he only real long term solution will be to reduce population to increase energy per capita.

[thequietkid10]

after we run out of oil we will use biofuel (waste products, alge, lawn clippings), solar, wind, nuclear, and syntheic fuels. The big question is, will be suffer through economic hard times, (like suggested in the book Sunset in the Desert) or massive die off, like mentioned on www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com. Conservation will also play a major role here.

After that, the holy grail, Fusion power. A gallon of ocean water has enough fusion material to provide the energy equivalent of 315 gallons of fusion power. However this is still years off, it will take us anywhere from 10-100 years.

What I believe we need to do is to conserve as much as we can and hold of Peak Oil for as long as possible.

[I_Like_Plants]

I think MD has it right, you know how there are people who like to romanticize how we lived in 1850? Well we'll all get to do that! And looking at the Amish and groups that are actually offshoots like the Minimites, it's not that bad a life.

and yes, per capita energy use about the same as Peru, which was not a bad place before the multinational corp's got in there and have done their best to starve everyone.

and ArimoDave, rickets comes from a lack of vitamin D, and was probably only a problem of far-north areas and areas where people worked dawn to dusk in factories, and hardly saw the sun. I myself worked as an electronics tech and the corp. I worked for had me working nearly 70 hours a week before I got smart and got fired, and I barely saw the sun myself.

Old-time industrial age factory workers I'm sure saw even less sun, and of course didn't know that sunbathing could be a good thing. So they got rickets. At least initially, enough people will know the reasons for diseases like rickets (get some sun!) and scurvy (pine needle tea for you!) to avoid diseases like that. Hopefully that knowledge gets incorporated into customs/culture and things like that are not a problem.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')fter that, the holy grail, Fusion power. A gallon of ocean water has enough fusion material to provide the energy equivalent of 315 gallons of fusion power. However this is still years off, it will take us anywhere from 10-100 years.

[suneel112]

And it's called the sun. Contrary to popular belief, solar energy can and will produce energy too cheap to meter. Consider that solar technology is at its infancy stages. There are only three problems with solar energy from photvoltaic cells

1. They are too expensive - Using plastic and bioproteins will greatly reduce the cost of making plastic-based solar cells. Even if oil goes up significantly in price, plastic or thin-film solar cells will be extremely cheap.

2. They don't produce enough energy - A conservative estimate for the daytime average of solar power that falls on every square meter of the ground is 450 W (On a clear day, this number is closer to 1000 W / sq. m). This is conservative even considering the cloud cover and low angle of sun in the United States (but still higher than in England). The problem right now isn't that there isn't enough energy - it is that the panels are not efficient enough in converting that energy into electricity. A "high-efficiency" panel is only 19 % efficient. Making this figure 80, or even 60 percent, would greatly reduce the problem.

3. They are bad at low angles - because they are covered with glass, and since the reflective glass makes it bad at low angles (defeating the purpose), in the current form it would be uneconomical to cover roofs with it. Applying anti-reflective coating and using rough surfaces and / or plastics would greatly help this problem.

Solar can and should be the MAIN long - term energy solution of the United States.

[Optimist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd it's called the sun. Contrary to popular belief, solar energy can and will produce energy too cheap to meter. Consider that solar technology is at its infancy stages. There are only three problems with solar energy from photvoltaic cells

[LadyRuby]

Regarding using the sun for energy, under "PO Media" from the menu, check out Smalley's presentation. He's certainly thinking sun (long-term anyway).