Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"What would a viable long-distance communications network in the age of peak
oil look like? To begin with, it would use the airwaves rather than land lines, to minimize infrastructure, and its energy needs would be modest enough to be met by local renewable sources." http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=40585 Frank Dresser |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 4, 2:04 am, "Frank Dresser"
wrote: "What would a viable long-distance communications network in the age of peak oil look like? To begin with, it would use the airwaves rather than land lines, to minimize infrastructure, and its energy needs would be modest enough to be met by local renewable sources." http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=40585 Frank Dresser Fascinating article. Of course, it's much more likely that leaving oil behind in the next 30-50 years will result in net economic and health benefits, not economic ruin, given the proper priority to solar thermal, nuclear, wind, and solar electric technologies. History shows that large research efforts tend to spin off major economic benefits in terms of breakthroughs, process improvements, new products, and other positive externalities. (For example, an economy based on making carbon neutral fuel (like H2) from renewable or at least nuclear electricity would have little or no smog, with correspondingly fewer respiratory illnesses and deaths than our current regime.) But it *is* really sobering to realize how FRAGILE our technology is, because it's so interconnected and requires so many specialists to maintain, let alone extend, the state of the art. It's good to know that there are people among us who do for a hobby, something that really can do the job with technology that can be preserved and passed on. If there's one thing I don't worry about in a post-collapse world, we will be able to pass news and communications along via radio and remain *at least* as in touch as someone in 1930 would have been. Or much better if the collapse was slow enough to give us some time to prepare. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Dresser wrote:
"What would a viable long-distance communications network in the age of peak oil look like? To begin with, it would use the airwaves rather than land lines, to minimize infrastructure, and its energy needs would be modest enough to be met by local renewable sources." http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=40585 Frank Dresser There is no shortage of crude oil. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 4, 1:54 pm, Dave wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote: "What would a viable long-distance communications network in the age of peak oil look like? To begin with, it would use the airwaves rather than land lines, to minimize infrastructure, and its energy needs would be modest enough to be met by local renewable sources." http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=40585 Frank Dresser There is no shortage of crude oil. It's irrelevant whether there is a shortage of crude oil. First, it's an issue of supply and demand, with demand growing far faster than supply, and older wells do not produce nearly as quickly as they did when new. Second, even if major new finds were discovered, oil is no longer a feasible source of energy going much past 20 years or so into the future. It's well established, and the science is solid and universally accepted by mainstream science, that humans are destabilizing the climate beyond limits explained by natural processes, with unknown but almost certainly dire consequences in the long run, especially if natural processes start to run in the same warming direction as man-made ones currently are. There's no controversy about this. Really, there's not. Ask an expert. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|