>> If we have to run intercontinental surface transport on sails because run >> out of oil, most of the people on the planet are going to starve.
I'd forgotten about that obvious truth. A hundred and forty or so years ago, the windjammers were just appearing. Sailing ships with steel hulls, masts and rigging which could be driven hard, gunnel down, for weeks on end. Passage times from London to Melbourne, London to San Francisco, London to Calcultta, varied year on year by a matter of days. Not months, but days… and you are correct, most of the people on the planet starved back then. It's difficult to find statistics for this last claim of yours but the windjammer statistics are easy to find. Steam came in because it was convenient, safer and used smaller crews, not because all of a sudden the Trade Winds failed or the sailing ships did not make reliable passages. The winds are still there and blowing strong and will continue as long as the sun shines and the world turns. Now, lets imagine we build windjammers from modern materials, spectra lines, roller reefing, carbon spars etc. and we used modern weather forecasting to make sure that the boats are easy to run, crews are small and the ships can make the best use of the weather… And for crossing the horse latitudes and berthing, we'd use a donkey engine, just as before. Would this cause most of the people on the planet to starve? Or rather, would it cause any more people to starve than are currently starving? Starvation is not caused or ameliorated by oil burning transport. It's mostly caused by poverty and poverty won't change just because you pour oil over it… look at most of the oil producing states in Africa. Surely, when you have a finite resource, it makes the most sense to make sure it lasts as long as possible? Once upon a time, Australia had 2-300 years reserves of coal and iron. Last year reserves were down to 70-90 years. Does this make sense? Every time I drive through the Hunter valley and see the endless coal trains carrying mountains worth of our children's future off to burn in some hot country, I think there has to be a better way. Given the choices of the current version of nuclear energy and the enormous associated risks and problems or engineering alternatives with creative thinking, doing with less or heaven forfend, doing without, I'd take the any other course than nuclear every day. It is not up to me to mortgage the future of future generations. I am not as omniscient as you Mike B and I am sure you'll be able to correct my errors. I can hardly wait. :-) D _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
