Energy Future

It's clear that the prospect of drilling for oil in ANWR has generated a huge reaction from the nature photography community.

We live in a global economy with large demands for energy to propel our vehicles, fly us to our photo destinations, manufacture our cameras and gear, and otherwise allow us to pursue our craft / art of nature photography.

What is the solution? I think it's obvious that oil and coal burning needs to fall by the wayside at some point in favor of cleaner and non-emitting solutions. What should they be?

Agrarian subsistence lifestyles (which would probably support 10% of the present global population)? Nuclear power? Wind / solar / geothermal?

The huge deposits of He3 found on the moon by Apollo 17 is an inert, clean, neraly perpetual source of energy. In the long term, as we further deplete our planet, it may be the only solution.

Alternative energy sources are of course neccessary for the future. More R&D is needed to make solar viable and (gulp!) to make nuclear safer. For now we need to buy time by mandating energy efficiency if we can encourage the wisdom and courage among the powers that be. If that doesn't work, my advice would be to drink heavily!

Jack

We as humans believe that given enough time and brain cells, we can over come all obsticals in our way. Spelling has always been my snare.

There may not be an answer that affords us the present and continuing lifestyle we wish.

China could decide to dominate the ecosystem without regard to global ethics and all of the good works come tumbling down. We may run out of fuel and regress back to the dark ages.

In other words, consider Doug Adams "Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe"
We may have to accept plan B, We might not be here.

So each person must live to their own higher calling and help each other as they can. Even if all the problems are solved, you and I are not going to be here 100 yrs from now. Wyndham

EJ...what's He3?

wouldn't it be hard to get the He3 from the moon to the earth in large quantities?
Vito

..

Geo wrote:

photosbyvito wrote:
EJ...what's He3?

wouldn't it be hard to get the He3 from the moon to the earth in large quantities?
Vito


No, we have the technology to do it already... what we don´t have is the will.....

G

I'm more inclined to believe it's more of a $$$ thing, than there being no will for it.

We don't even have working fusion reactors AFAIK. I did some research today and it doesn't look like nuclear fusion has gotten to the point of producing more power than is consumed to create the reaction (with the exception of thermonuclear bombs, of course).

Here's an arguement that the green future is nuclear (fission):

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_n ... power.html

I know nothing about nuclear anything, except for a little miltary training on it that states: if you see a flash of light greater and bigger than any thing you've seen before, hit the deck and cover your eyes!
What about nuclear powered submarines and carriers? Couldn't that principal be put to use on land?

He3 = Helium 3

..

I still disagree George,
If you want to compare the war to lunar operations, then it's a simple matter of priorities, and we are doing what needs to be done first.

G,

Are you aware of any evidence that Helium3 fusion is technically more feasible than D-T fusion? We can't get that to produce net energy yet despite billions spent so far.

..

..

George,
Priorities! We have NO money marked for diggin around in space, we had NO money marked for a war on Iraq, OUR security and safety comes FIRST!

I dont see any other country willing to pour out the $$$ to go do minning on some moon! So why should we right now? Oh I know, because we are oil pigs, right? Well, there is still oil inside earth that will not cost anything close to what it would to start some lunar operation, to pull the oil out of where we have it only makes more sense than to fly off to some area in space.

I repeat, It's simple priorities.

Geo wrote:

Indications are that a deuterium and helium-3 fusion plant may be more feasable ... but when there is no will to build ( at an estimated cost of $ 6 billion ) a test plant, it´s a moot point..

So why not petition your government to start actions to look into this?

..

How quickly shall the will appear if China, India or Japan decide to go and do it first??

George,
Your going to see this the way you want to, as I will see it mine as well. I believe the war in Iraq is for OUR (our being me, you everyone) safety, not just my country. Sorry I wasnt very clear on that. I see I did type it out wrong.

I quote NASA ( an american organisation )

" For an investment of less than $15 billion--about the same as was required for the 1970s Trans Alaska Pipeline--private enterprise could make permanent habitation on the moon the next chapter in human history"

They have been wrong before? And how long ago was this written?

What other country is willing to go into space for this stuff??