[Ren]

If he can prove that the banks illegally foreclosed, that’s one thing. But he can’t just claim that’s the case, break into a house, and hope he wins his case against the bank. The houses are a lost cause for his clients. If there really is an issue with illegal foreclosure, he needs to sue the bank after the house has been taken, which I suspect will become big business soon.

As it is, unless he can prove wrongdoing right now, he should be charged with breaking and entering for every one of these cases.

His work is pointless anyway, since these people would just be foreclosed on again.

[Ren]

If he can prove that the banks illegally foreclosed, that’s one thing. But he can’t just claim that’s the case, break into a house, and hope he wins his case against the bank. The houses are a lost cause for his clients. If there really is an issue with illegal foreclosure, he needs to sue the bank after the house has been taken, which I suspect will become big business soon.

As it is, unless he can prove wrongdoing right now, he should be charged with breaking and entering for every one of these cases.

His work is pointless anyway, since these people would just be foreclosed on again.

[Ren]

If he can prove that the banks illegally foreclosed, that’s one thing. But he can’t just claim that’s the case, break into a house, and hope he wins his case against the bank. The houses are a lost cause for his clients. If there really is an issue with illegal foreclosure, he needs to sue the bank after the house has been taken, which I suspect will become big business soon.

As it is, unless he can prove wrongdoing right now, he should be charged with breaking and entering for every one of these cases.

His work is pointless anyway, since these people would just be foreclosed on again.

[Ren]

If he can prove that the banks illegally foreclosed, that’s one thing. But he can’t just claim that’s the case, break into a house, and hope he wins his case against the bank. The houses are a lost cause for his clients. If there really is an issue with illegal foreclosure, he needs to sue the bank after the house has been taken, which I suspect will become big business soon.

As it is, unless he can prove wrongdoing right now, he should be charged with breaking and entering for every one of these cases.

His work is pointless anyway, since these people would just be foreclosed on again.

[Ren]

If he can prove that the banks illegally foreclosed, that’s one thing. But he can’t just claim that’s the case, break into a house, and hope he wins his case against the bank. The houses are a lost cause for his clients. If there really is an issue with illegal foreclosure, he needs to sue the bank after the house has been taken, which I suspect will become big business soon.

As it is, unless he can prove wrongdoing right now, he should be charged with breaking and entering for every one of these cases.

His work is pointless anyway, since these people would just be foreclosed on again.

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]
>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that do not represent what I said. I did not say that.[/quote]

Of course you did. Not in so many words, but your stance is that we’re going to run out of energy, is it not? The only way we’ll run out of energy is if we continue at the current level of technology, using the same sources of energy in the same ways. That’s a lot of assumptions.

[quote]Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?[/quote]

And so begins the belittling – my favorite part of a debate. That’s when they start oozing frustration and immaturity, which only makes me look good in comparison. Unlike you, my default position is one of respect, so I don’t normally go there, but feel free.

Extraction is a perfectly correct term. Decomposition is another. Electrolysis is one method of extraction. There are methods of extracting hydrogen from water and organic matter that are far more efficient than electrolysis. They will never be 100% efficient, but the point is getting at the hydrogen (because hydrogen may eventually be more useful in some applications than electricity) and using renewable energy to do so – e.g., geothermal or solar. You don’t need a net gain if the “in” part of the equation is virtually free.

[quote]And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.[/quote]

Mmmm mmmm. Soaking up that condescension. Tasty. Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the part about fusion and geothermal, both of which have very bright futures, even if they’re a bit further off than large-scale solar. Feel free to try to poke holes in those two – I’m guessing with the “cost-prohibitive” argument, which is meaningless, as it only applies to today’s technology.

[quote]Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.[/quote]

A weak argument, especially considering I was talking about accelerating advances in all technology, not just solar. Efficiency, while important when supply is severely limited, is not as important as having plentiful sources, which we have – the sun, the Earth’s core, and its oceans. Efficiency will come with technological improvements.

[quote]Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise.[/quote]

I’m sure people told the Wright brothers they were dreaming. You can live in the 50’s if you like, but nanotechnology is here now, and it’s a given that it will only progress, and even alter the way we think about manufacturing and health. We’re now manipulating individual atoms (not just molecules) and building mechanical structures such as wheels on a nano scale. In decades, not centuries, you’ll have robots living in you and on you, cleaning your teeth, eating your dandruff, destroying cancer cells, and changing the color of your eyes and clothes at a thought. Once the tech matures, constructing a giant solar panel will be the easy part. The raw material is flying all over the solar system. Getting the other devices into space would take a few launches – not prohibitively expensive compared to what we now do routinely, and of course propulsion will have improved as well, if a space elevator isn’t already in place. There are no significant obstacles to microwave and laser transmission of energy at these distances, and efficiency is almost meaningless when the source is free and virtually limitless, at least for our needs. There are several large companies, including Sony, now working on space-based solar power systems which they intend to have functioning in 10-20 years. I would consider those to be test beds – the large-scale providers will follow shortly after, but long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[quote]Get real.[/quote]

Grow up.

[quote]The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.[/quote]

It doesn’t have to. This is a brick wall in your mind. Once you get past it, there’s just the pessimism to deal with…

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Author]

Posts