[Irrampbroow]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Trains? In America? I ride the train everyday on my way to my job with the Military-Industrial complex.

[twiffatticy]

they couldn't even come close to meeting demand.

[Katrinsitter]

Wave power!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

[RerRoktoido]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Tidal could more than meet our demand alone. No.

[ReginaPerss]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Or it's not worth it to try to transport energy from some solar plant in the desert to Washington DC Supercooled superconducting cables?

Actually, I bet they're unfeasibly expensive, or something.

[mikelangr]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's no need for nuclear when there are perfectly green technologies that can meet demand, like wind, solar, and tidal. Nukes produce a poison we have no way to safely dispose of. The "dangers" of nuclear are mostly luddite scaremongering. The newer reactor designs are made so that the reactors can't suffer meltdown. Nuclear waste can be recycled back into nuclear fuel.

[truttyMab]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Think about that for a while until you realize why it might be even less efficient. It's not a given that cooling will cost more than the savings.

[megatrendsZ]

While not directly linked, I think we can take care of a good deal of our energy needs by solar. I used to be very skeptical about non-subsidized solar, but we're going to be hitting some cost sweet spots for thin film solar in the next several years.

Here is a fascinating presentation by Mark Pinto of Applied Materials about how they see this playing out. They hope to put solar power on the LCD panel cost trajectory. It was compelling for me.

http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/...-ee380-300.asx

See, especially, starting at ~ 35:00.

[Inconykic]

1. That doesn't actually make sense. Think about it a bit more.

2. It would only be necessary to conduct electricity to distant parts of the country in the first place.

[Pataacculako]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The "dangers" of nuclear are mostly luddite scaremongering.

... which is countered by the fact that nuclear is very heavily subsidized and therefore appears much cheaper than it actually is. no one is saying it isn't expensive. I know the navy spends alot to build nuclear powered ships like carriers.

But when we run low on oil, it won't seem so expensive.

The economy will take a major hit when we start running low on oil without a doubt.

[gomosopions]

I do believe solar and nuclear is our future. I'm skeptical about tidal.

solar for the southwest backed up by nuclear (for night time and rainy days). nuclear and natural gas everywhere else.

but we all know that won't happen. coal will be everywhere.

[poRmawayncmop]

All very mysterious.

[DoctorDeryOne]

If Nanosolar can deliver what they promise, our energy problems are solved. http://www.nanosolar.com/technology.htm

[Blahhhshsh]

Originally posted by Sandman


Supercooled superconducting cables?

Actually, I bet they're unfeasibly expensive, or something.
You're gonna need a lot of energy just to build the cabling! And, assuming that the energy loss isn't off the chain, all it takes is some jackass to go and cut the cables which stretch out from the source hundreds of miles away to the consumer.

[ñàéäèíã]

So far no one has commented on the point. No capacity (solar, nuclear etc) currently exists for peak oil.

[CoallyPax]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Commercially? I'd love to see a cite on that. http://www.amsuper.com/index.cfm

It's too buried in business/technobabble to be really convincing, though.

[wJswn5l3]

Read the bit on HTS cable.