If you mean corn, the energy input/output ration is quite small (if positive at
all)...
Plus, using a high percentage of our arable land to use for filling our SUV's
vs. feeding people is perhaps not the best way forward.
As for help from the gov, FEMA, Uncle Sam, etc., I suggest developing self
reliant contingency plans.
Conservation will make more energy available quicker than any other route, but
we can't all move closer to our jobs and shifting to more economical vehicles
will take a decade or more. An increase in telecomuting would be great.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 10:15 AM
To: Mike Quinn; Lyndon Tiu; Texas Cavers
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
President Shrub thinks we will just switch to bio-fuels......that will
surely save the world....
On 10/28/07 8:53 AM, "Mike Quinn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> When was the last nuclear power plant built? When will the next
singular plant
> produce power? When will we have 10,000 nuclear power plants of *any*
kind?
>
> Given that some say the world is already past peak oil, I personally
don't see
> how we're going to make it to 10,000 nukes...
>
> see PO article in last Monday's The Guardian:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
>
> Graphic Showing Oil Producing Countries Past Peak Oil...
>
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/10/25/oil-producing-countries-past-peak-oc
> t-2007.png
> or: http://tinyurl.com/33ambo
>
> If we are past PO, then the likely ensuing hoarding will accentuate
the
> problem...
>
> Mike Quinn, Austin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 8:22 AM
> To: Texas Cavers
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
>
>
>
> Mike Quinn wrote:
>> Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute
of
>> Technology and author of the best seller: "Out of Gas: The End of
the Age of
>> Oil" estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to
replace
>> the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be
gone in
>> one or two decades.
>>
>
> That's assuming we are using 10,000 "fission" nuclear power plants.
> Uranium is a non-renewable resource. The supply of uranium will
follow a
> depletion curve similar to that of oil.
>
> "Fusion" nuclear (as opposed to "fission") holds more promise as it
uses
> heavy water/regular water/hydrogen which is more abundant, but if I
> understand it correctly, current fusion nuclear technology is only
good
> for WMD's and not for power generation.
>
> There is international work underway to develop fusion nuclear tech
for
> power generation. If I remember it correctly, a reactor is being built
> in France for this. Try googling it.
>
> --
> Lyndon Tiu
>
