by MonteQuest » Tue 13 Feb 2007, 20:19:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NWMossBack', ' ')I could, and others have trotted out many ideas that are summarily dismissed (fusion, solar, bio, etc.) but my point is that dire necessity will trigger NEW solutions that we cannot anticipate now.
For instance when England burned through all it's forests making charcoal, the question on most people's minds was likely "how can we possibly get more trees for charcoal?" when the solution was in the minerals beneath their feet.
Sure, charcoal use caused a serious depletion of England's forests during the 18th century. And while charcoal easily created the heat required to melt tin and copper for bronze, and to smelt pig iron and steel, the production of the large quantities of steel required by a burgeoning modern society using wood was just not
scalable.
This was why the move was made to coal. There was no peaking in wood production in the world, only in the forests near the industrial centers.
Going from wood to coal power took 75 years.
A quote by Peter Tertzakian from
A Thousand Barrels a Second: The Coming Oil Break Point and the Challenges Facing an Energy Dependent World.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Historically, substitutions in the energy world take a long time and there's no reason to think the next substitution is going to happen overnight. While it's likely that we may not run out of oil before a substitute is found, it will be decades or more into the future before any new solutions make a difference."
It is a mistake to think that the speed of change in the technology world will be mirrored in the energy sphere, as technology is only as good as the energy form that drives it.