Rusted Sky

Forget the global warming thing. We really do need to be looking for alternate energy. Regardless of where it comes from, the way we live is completely dependent on oil, agreed? World population is increasing, not decreasing. Various countries that have been very primitive and used low amounts of oil are now modernizing, and oil consumption is increasing. Oil is a finite commodity. Eventually, we're going to run out. I have no idea if it's going to be in 50 years or 500, but there _will_ be an end.
So...we need to find an alternative. It isn't going to be easy, and the sooner we get working on it, the better.

That said, it's going to be easier said than done, and I agree - no one so far has indicated _any_ understanding of the problem or a means to solve it. Clinton and Obama have legal degrees, for heaven's sake. McCain's degree is probably more science based since it's from a military academy, but it hasn't been the focus of his career. But at least he has _some_ grounding in science. The other two????

NADA.

suek-
Two things. First, although the world population is increasing, the RATE of increase is rapidly diminishing. The current projection is that the world population will peak at about 9 billion people at about 2050, which is a lot of people, but certainly less than the previous prediction that the population in 2050 would be 12 billion on its way up.
Second, we ARE working on alternatives, and have been for some time, because anyone who comes up with a real viable alternative to fossil fuels (any of 'em) is LITERALLY going to make a ton of money off of it. The problem is that such are not easy to find or invent, because the easy ones are already in use. The proposed alternatives do not solve the problems, for a number of physical reasons. Conversation is a good idea, but don't expect more than incremental improvements in power generation. Unless Bussard's fusion reactor pans out...

Our dependency on oil, Suek, is a great weakness. IF we were to suddenly lose all external oil, it'd be very difficult... but we'd survive. Technology might drop back to a mid-'30s scale, but we'd get by. Our priorities would change, food would get a lot more expensive, but we'd get by. Phase it on over, say, 20 years - and with the improvements in biofuels and trash conversion to menthanol/biodiesel, and we'd probably manage quite well.

As long as we were able to innovate, that is.

The problem with government programs is that an idea gets locked in (IE corn-based ethanol) and NOTHING else gets through (IE sawgrass celluose-based ethanol or light crude from bioreactors) even if it were cheaper per gallon. The government's paying good money to get a product a particular way from a particular feedstock - it doesn't matter how impractical it might be. Just look at the history of oil shale - that's been worked on for 30 years, and we still don't have it.

But Obama and Hil will find the way to do it - all we've got to do is throw enough money at the problem and it'll solve itself!

J.

John - to keep up with what's new re the WB-7, check out talk-polywell.org.

J.