XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   J. Clarke wrote:   
   > In article , robban@clubtelco.com   
   > says...   
   > > On 24/01/2014 4:25 am, Rod Speed wrote:   
   > > > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)  wrote   
   > > >> Doc O'Leary wrote   
   > > >>> Greg Goss  wrote   
   > > >   
   > > >>>> Modern North Americans just cannot fathom the scale of a horse-based   
   > > >>>> society.   
   > > >   
   > > >>> s/horse-based/sustainable   
   > > >   
   > > >>> And, sadly, the problem isn't just limited to North American.  The   
   > > >>> majority of sci-fi hand waves abundant energy into the future, but   
   > > >>> the reality is that, so far, that appears to be the hardest hurdle we   
   > > >>> have facing us.   
   > > >   
   > > >> Only hardest in a political sense. There are designs for (relatively)   
   > > >> inexpensive and easily-manufactured safe nuclear reactors which   
   > > >> wouldn't require the super-billions of dollars or the many, many years   
   > > >> to construct, but NOOKYOULAR PHEEER! pretty much kiboshes those.   
   > > >   
   > > > I doubt it will if energy does become hard get.   
   > > >   
   > > >> Solar power has come a **LONG** way in the last 20 years, and the ONLY   
   > > >> real hurdle it has left is storage.   
   > > >   
   > > > That is no hurdle now with national and sub national   
   > > > grids and others that are close to that like the EU etc.   
   > > >   
   > > >> If someone figures out a high-density storage medium,   
   > > >   
   > > > We already have, pumped water.   
   > > >   
   > > >> or is willing to install 2-3x base capacity so that the "storage   
   > > >> medium" is synthesized hydrocarbon fuel of some sort,   
   > > >   
   > > > I doubt that will ever make sense.   
   > > >   
   > > > The most that is likely is that for the most convenient   
   > > > transport fuel once natural gas and coal seam gas is   
   > > > no longer economic as a transport fuel.   
   > > >   
   > > >> the energy issue would be settled pretty well.   
   > > >   
   > > > It already is if you don't mind using coal and brown coal.   
   > > >   
   > > >> Farther into the future you have SPS, which has the advantage of no   
   > > >> interruptions of service and no losses due to atmosphere or clouds.   
   > > >> And the standard designs avoid the MICROWAVE DEATHRAY!!! problem.   
   > > >   
   > > > Cant see solar power satellites being viable myself.   
   > > > Bet we use safe thorium nukes instead. MUCH cheaper.   
   > >   
   > > Denmark and Spain now produce well over 25% of their total electricity   
   > > with wind power and that is set to increase.   
   >   
   > Bear in mind that the total power consumption of Denmark is tiny   
   > compared to that of, say, the US.   
      
   Iceland, another small population country compared to the US, uses   
   mostly geothermal options.   
      
      "About 85% of all houses in Iceland are heated with   
       geothermal energy. Renewable energy provides almost   
       100 percent of electricity production."   
      
      
   I can't remember how many he said, but some "expert" on TV a few weeks   
   ago claimed that putting solar panels in the deserts could easily   
   generate ALL the electricity needs for the planet. Of course, he didn't   
   say what the expense of setting it up and maintainging it would be   
   (sandstorms alone would probabyl destroy the panesl on a regular basis,   
   plus the movement of the dunes overrunning the panel areas).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)