just thought i would respond since i was one of the ones saying we dont really have a viable alternative fuel source yet

I find this to be an interesting comment. Two of the largest proponents of alternative fuels are oil companies, Chevron and Shell. Shell has worked tirelessly to create a hydrogen fuel cell car, which is almost done being road test in Washington D.C.

exxon was the one that created that awesome new green battery. SMART people with vested interests in oil know renewable sources are where they need to put their money and focus on. but the regular grunts who dont actually know anything will just be out of work and out of pentions

because in 50 yrs whats going to happen to an oil company where drilling is the only thing they do?

Let me elaborate more on my comment...I wasn't clear.

People, as in public average joes, who either are invested in from afar or do blue-collar work for oil companies seem to have a VERY negative view on any sort of alternative energy source.
I've spoken to many back when I was a student, had debates with them in class, etc...and that was strangely the resounding consensus.



The sun rises and sets every day. Somewhere, the wind is blowing. Tides go in and tides go out.

If we develop these technologies with the fervor that was seen in the development of the combustion & oil based energy sources of the last century, maybe they will actually become as (or even more) viable.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Feb 10 2008, 10:40 PM

Yep, I forgot about Exxon doing that. Chevron has developed some cool geothermal stuff that I think Iceland is in the process of testing.

Refineries will still be around in 50 years as we'll still need chemicals for everyday products, I just think the premium will be much higher.

People have a negative view of it because the shit doesn't work yet, or costs 10x more than what we do now. People tend to have a negative view of something that costs them way more money but does the same thing. I was watching Discovery and saw a science episode on energy, that asian dude that shows up in all of those shows mentioned how we can currently make anti-matter, but it costs us so much, it'd be like the national debt to create a teaspoon of the stuff.


I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the sun and the wind and the tides . Fervor has little to do with it. You guys who keep suggesting "well just go to solar, wind, etc! duh!", it's not that simple. It takes time to develop this stuff. The answer from you guys always seems to be, "well if we'd just build a better _________ then we wouldn't have to depend on oil anymore!".. DUH! Well if they'd just work harder they'd come up with a cure for cancer too right?

I was watching "this old house" the other day and they went to the sweetwater wind farms to check em out, and they mentioned how there's something like 2,000 large wind generators in texas now, surpassing california as the biggest producer/user of wind power. Even at the best, they still said that they generate no more than 2% of texas' power/year. and we have the best wind power setup in the country.

So the solution to alternative energy sources is "Well, they cost too much right now...so fuck 'em." ...?

I'm not advocating a sudden switch to everything but fossil fuels.
I would just like to see a more concerted and dedicated effort to further develop alternate and renewable energy sources (and for fuck's sake, not ethanol).

I don't want my fuel prices going up more than they already are. K thx

gl with that in 30 years...

As for wind energy goes (and I am an advocate):

I agree with Impala, there is A LOT more than switch to A to get dependence off of oil. For Denmark (an advance country with drive/determination concerning environment/alternative energies) it has taken about 25 years to get substantial improvements. Let's say you switch to wind energy and are gung-ho about it. Output due to wind farms can vary substantially, so you have to have the infrastructure to manage the shifts (which is pretty complex if the end users wants to see no variation when they want to turn on/off the lightbulb). I mean sure it takes about 3 days to get a windmill up, but managing the output is the tricky part.
I think everyone (some can agree excluding oil industries) WANT alternative fuels, it's just that most don't realize the complexity of adapting the system and want immediate results.

Here in Denmark, wind energy is 20% and they want it to be closer to 40% by 2020, but that isn't the crux of their energy plan. The BIG priority is to have NO increase in energy consumption during the same years, which is pretty ambitious, but they are so far about 5 years going strong. That is what we should be shooting for first is getting our consumption down. I mean we have twice the consumption per person than Japan and Germany...

two other minor points:
alternative energy doesn't cost 10x times that of the normal production we are getting now (excluding solar). Most are only tens of percentage points more (like around 30-40% more per kWh, or something...)

contrary to popular belief, there is a STRONG effort in the US for alternative energy. We are behind only Germany and Spain concerning Wind Power output I know and are the #1 research country concerning alternative energy...

Great post!

Denmark is a fantastic example of the cost of the switch.

I think Europe has it a little easier as far as not increasing consumption just because of the infrastructure. Your point about Japan is interesting as well, because again, it has to do with infrastructure, public transportation, and an overall weaning of the people's reliance.

Are you in Copenhagen?

Since I'm the main one who has said this, I should clarify.

I know it's not as easy as just deciding "ok, we'll do solar" and everything is magically fixed. My main point was that some people (not on here, I mean politicians and the like) seem to concentrate on a single type of alternate energy source, which I don't think is going to be the answer. Alternative liquid fuels will play a part in our eventual energy infrastructure, but I think we're going to end up with a wide patchwork of renewable energy sources. Wind, where it's viable (admittedly, not many places). Solar, pretty much everywhere once the cost comes down. It may not be a primary power source in most places, but it'd be great for offsetting power usage and should be easy to stick on the roof of a house. I have this vision of most houses 25 years from now being built with solar panels for partial energy and rooftop rainwater collection for water supply. It's probably a pipe dream, but I'd like to build a house like that.

Anyway, my point is that I think the solution is multi-faceted, rather than ethanol or hydrogen or whatever being a "magic bullet" to solve all of our energy problems.

I wasn't presenting that as a solution. I was merely saying that's how it is right now and that's why there hasn't been some massive switch yet.


What would you like to see? I don't get it man. This is exactly what I was talking about. "More effort, blah blah". Do you not think the top minds are already grinding away at this? Whoever comes up with the best energy alternatives will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. I assure you everyone (including the big oil companies) have their tachs pegged in tryin to get this deal figured out. Saying "well blah blah I'd like to see more effort towards curing cancer" doesn't get that done any quicker either. Even if you think it makes you feel "greener".

I completely agree, and would also like to have stuff like that on my own house. But like you said, "25 years from now". It's just not something that will happen overnight.

Eww... I wouldnt want rainwater to drink. I dont want to know what gets evaporated from our oceans and stuff. Yuck

you probably don't want to find out what you really are drinking then