Reply to: Oh dear: The 'cold' war starts up again

[expat]

gordon 'fat b@ stard' brown has done all he can to discourage UK energy companies from getting creative by doubling north sea oil taxes.

Increase them tenfold to discourage extraction. Firstly, it will be worth more later, secondly, that would encourage exploration.

[Lucifer Box]

help is on the way...
MIT has succedeeded in making solar cells from spinach

http://www.physorg.com/news1181.html

Now, if they could make spinach from solar cells...

[TGAOTU]

help is on the way...
MIT has succedeeded in making solar cells from spinach

http://www.physorg.com/news1181.html

Glory be, that saves the pork bellies for me!!!

[sappatz]

spinach

help is on the way...
MIT has succedeeded in making solar cells from spinach

http://www.physorg.com/news1181.html

[bfg]

It will soon become apparent that most deep gas is actually not fossil at all...

Soon???? It has been argued since the beginning of the 19th Century, Alexander von Humboldt and Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac both knew the biological origin of oil theory was most likely tosh. The temperatures and pressures required to form the hydrocarbons found in oil mean they simply cannot be created in the sedimentary rocks the reservoirs are located in as the biological origin theory proposes - they would be metamorphosed if subjected to that regime.

The modern abiotic oil theory was expounded in the 1950's and is widely accepted by metallurgists, geologists are a little slow to accept it as the current model has located most of the present oil reserves known in the world today. However the aboitic theory ALSO explains the presence of these deposits, for example the gulf states and also explains deposits such as the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin which is NOT explained by the biological origin theory.

[threaded]

It will soon become apparent that most deep gas is actually not fossil at all...

[stackpole]

All the required technical solutions are there - all thats needed is a governing regime - that is not obsessed with tax, red tape, and sending whatever is left over abroad.

I'm not sure all the required technical solutions are there.

We need better batteries to power cars and larger road vehicles over as long distances and comparable grunt as petrol currently does.

[Skeptical]

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 1950s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 1960s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 1970s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 1980s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 1990s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 2000s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 2010s

Fusion power is the answer, it's 20 years away: 2020s

Need I say more?

Nah, now it's expected in 2050

http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm

[TGAOTU]

what's happened to your entreprenurial spirit?

Since hubby's a nuclear stress engineer I'm expecting him to earn 2-3 times more than I currently am....

And there's less likelyhood of outsourcing this bit of work to Chenobyl...

Let the good times roll!

Jacko, ask him if he know's of a guy called Alan Taylor - ex BNFL and UKAEA(Risley).

[cojak]

Ffs

what's happened to your entreprenurial spirit?

Since hubby's a nuclear stress engineer I'm expecting him to earn 2-3 times more than I currently am....

And there's less likelyhood of outsourcing this bit of work to Chenobyl...

Let the good times roll!

[TGAOTU]

It's "funny" that this is happening before a Ukraine election...

Looks like the Rooskies want their boy to win this time.

[mcquiggd]

All the required technical solutions are there - all thats needed is a governing regime - that is not obsessed with tax, red tape, and sending whatever is left over abroad.

[AtW]

Nope, that was the solution 10-20 years ago and that boat has well and truly sailed and we missed it.

Why missed? There is enough oil for at least next 30-50 years, given the advances in IT over the last 20 years I'd say chances to develop something now are better than before - there is no option really because nuclear power won't be of any use in cars for a long time.

I'd say a good start would be to ban petrol engines with gradual phaseout within 10 years - very low volume sports car makers can be exempt, but everyone else will have to switch to diesel. This alone would cut down fuel used by cars by good 35% while maintaining mobility. This will reduce CO2 big time too - a no brainer really, but a death penalty to Gordon Browns of this world who would lose huge chunk of revenue they get from motorists.

[vista]

The solution is to invest money - and lots of it - into non-nuclear/non-fossil fuels, put huge grants out - all those ridiculous taxes that are being robbed from motorists in this country should go into R&D for new fuels.

Nope, that was the solution 10-20 years ago and that boat has well and truly sailed and we missed it. Not to say that we shouldn't do it now but its not an immedate solution to our current energy needs.

It's all good and well to want green solutions but the price of gas is only going one way and many older people will die because they cannot afford to heat their homes - we are in the midst of a crisis and solutions need to be quick or more will die needlessly.

[AtW]

If it were so dangerous why have other countries made nuclear a big part of their energy strategy for so long and why are others actively building new stations.

They take their chances - they also have different geographical configuration, with the only exception of being Japan, but their culture is different from the UKs - they build sky-scrapers in country with regular earthquakes, so going nuclear probably does not increase risks big time anyway.

The solution is to invest money - and lots of it - into non-nuclear/non-fossil fuels, put huge grants out - all those ridiculous taxes that are being robbed from motorists in this country should go into R&D for new fuels.