Are you preparing for economic collapse?

StevieJ

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

With us now hitting peak oil we needed something in development now, not when we hit $200 a barrel and everyone is screaming. If it's not in development now, it simply does not exist, as we are too close now to economic collapse, which I believe will start to show within a decade, if you don't count 2008 as the start.

Projects like this should allow the oil to last a bit longer.

The Crown Estate today announced nine sites around Britain for wind power generation with the aim of producing up to 32 gigawatts - enough to power 20 million homes - from 6,400 offshore turbines.

Harry_Powell

MatteH wrote: »

Where are the hydrogen powered planes/cars/trains etc then?

See other responses to my post. It's a LOT cheaper to use oil than hydrogen, so why would anyone use it now.

However, once oil starts to run out and get a lot more expensive (as we saw before the recession), it becomes more cost effective to use hydrogen.

If we use nuclear power to create the hydrogen, then it's a cost effective way to store energy for use in mobile devices such as planes/cars that can't be connected to the National electicity grid (trains will never run off hydrogen because they can run off electricity).

Perhaps we'll all have to get used to more expensive air travel (like the 50's) and use public transport more (also like the 1950's) but the world won't come to an end and we wont return to the stone age. Indeed you could argue that we'll finally learn to live within ecological boundaries.

If the nuclear fusion experiments work, then we will have plentiful supplies of electricity to convert/store in hydrogen.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

The technology debate does hold water because it is chemically possible in theory to get power from lots of resources.

It is just making them economically viable, oil does not have to be the be all and end all.

Cars can run on hydrogen, electric etc.

But there is oil from alge being developed.
http://www.oilgae.com/

But in reality we have not been looking to replace oil since the 1850's in reality we have only been looking for an alternative for the last 10 years.

I believe Shell are seriously looking at Algie

This is fascinating
Way back when, I was a member of a UK team that pioneered algae cultivation for feeding baby (spat) oysters. It was amazing the speed at which cultures could develop and (on occasion) just as rapidly crash if water quality and the nutrients balanace weren't spot-on.
No pun intended, but the Shell process is much "cruder", that is, much less sensitive. This could be a serious source of energy
Y/E

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=10832112&bid=51585&sort=whole#10832525

HammerSmashedFace

Really2 wrote: »

But if you could make cheap renewable electricity it would be an option.

Totally agree with there mate, and on a smallish scale we can do that now, it's one of the reasons why fusion would be the Holy Grail, not quite energy from nothing but close enough that we could continue our lifestyle for many 1000's of years.

But nothing we currently know will remotely scale to what the global population will require.

nearlynew

StevieJ wrote: »

I believe Shell are seriously looking at Algie

This is fascinating
Way back when, I was a member of a UK team that pioneered algae cultivation for feeding baby (spat) oysters. It was amazing the speed at which cultures could develop and (on occasion) just as rapidly crash if water quality and the nutrients balanace weren't spot-on.
No pun intended, but the Shell process is much "cruder", that is, much less sensitive. This could be a serious source of energy
Y/E

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=10832112&bid=51585&sort=whole#10832525

So you listen to some "nutter" on the internet when it suits you?

Harry_Powell

nearlynew wrote: »

So you listen to some "nutter" on the internet when it suits you?

I think the gap between someone talking on the internet about a subject area in which they have a certain amount of expertise and someone ranting on about the end of Western Civilisation, is vast.

nearlynew

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think the gap between someone talking on the internet about a subject area in which they have a certain amount of expertise and someone ranting on about the end of Western Civilisation, is vast.

what?

some guy, who years ago, used to cultivate algae and saw them multiply rapidly is now a f*cking expert?

do me a favour.

StevieJ

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think the gap between someone talking on the internet about a subject area in which they have a certain amount of expertise and someone ranting on about the end of Western Civilisation, is vast.

Good point Harry

StevieJ

nearlynew wrote: »

So you listen to some "nutter" on the internet when it suits you?

Here is another nutter, I know it is strange but I do prefer the guys suggesting solutions to future problems, interesting that Algae may also assist in dealing with the Co2 problem, it also provides some oil like by-products. The disadvantage is mainly cost, but as we are frequently informed oil is going to run out, I don't think this should be a problem.

These high yields can be attributed to algae's high growth rate, which is often monitored in hours instead of days, and has inputs of only land, sunlight, water, carbon dioxide (potential for carbon credits) and nutrients.
And while deriving fuel oil from algae has been cost prohibitive in the past, oil on its way to $150 per barrel or higher certainly makes it an attractive alternative.
Plus, the algae growth cycle can actually be used as a carbon sequestration mechanism because carbon dioxide is the primary input required by algae to grow. In fact, if the U.S. were to derive all its diesel from algae (60 bgy), the growth of that algae could displace 56% of U.S. power plant emissions.

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/investing-algae-biofuel/253

sabretoothtigger

Biodiesel is the most feasible alternative. Algae is not impossible but Ive been reading about it a few years now and unfortunately its still the ideal crop but not usable every day

Compared to hydrogen and other fancy stuff, the idea of biodiesel could be used tomorrow. Some cars will take a litre of sunflower oil in their tanks no problem or rapeseed which of course is a British crop we could grow.
Also within the last few years the taxman has suspended any fuel duty on these alternatives for private individuals

The downside is the efficiency of doing this. Those crops give about 100 gallons per acre per crop per season presumably. Thats not enough but the more exotic crops increase the yield and it becomes far more attractive then hydrogen imo

http://www.grist.org/article/biofuel-some-numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel