[turp182]

Here's an article I just finished concerned about the focus of research in light of the impending/occuring energy crisis.

http://www.turpintime.com/ViewItem.aspx ... 3054221930

Some notes on my approach: I specifically wasn't too "doomer". I also made an attempt to be as inclusive as possible, including reasons Peak Oil non-believers should pay attention.

I specifically didn't cover other topics such as conservation (and food supply, water, population,etc.). The point was to stay on topic.

The graphs represent a new level in my graphing abilities...

What do you think? I feel it's a different way to frame the issue.

Thanks.

[smiley]

I think you ve hit the nail concerning fusion. I think it is the only real change we've got.

Regarding the timeframe.

The ITER Tokamak will be lit in 2016. This is if all goes well, and if you look at all the amazing technologies that still have to be developed, I think this is very tight.

So hopefully we will have a working research facility in 2016, but it is a net energy consumer. The first working, energy-producing fusion plant is 20 years away at least.

Of course that process could be sped up as our priorities shift, but even the most optimistic scenario would put it behind the peak.

However I would not agree that it thus should be discarded as science fiction.

Unless you believe the most doomerish scenarios, we will have a number of years after the peak to work on alternatives. After all the great depression brought forth one of the greatest marvels of sustainable energy.