If we had the perfect source of energy...

[Arcesious]

This is hypothetical thread, one of those 'what could happen' discussions.

Alright, imagine if tommorow, mankind suddenly discovered some great answer to producing exponential amounts of clean, reliable energy? so efficient that the system of producing it could be reduced to the size of a small battery... And it would be able to replace all other forms of producing energy... Not that it matters 'how' in this discussion. Just, what would happen.

 

What would happen if a way to create energy so efficient was found that only several power plants across the entire world would to needed to produce power for the whole world, forever? What would it do to mankind? Would it solve things, or make things worse?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Depends on the energy's capital costs and who possesses it. If Germany discovered how to harness fusion(the holy grail of energy), it might not share it with the rest of the world. That could lead to wars with them that could have been avoided. If it is harnessed by everyone, then it would likely end war indefinitely because energy fuels everything that a nation needs.

 

The question of 'how' has to be addressed in order to predict and consider the outcomes of this 'holy grail' of energy. I won't unless another brings it up.

[Litofsky]

Currently, Humanity is locked in a mini-struggle over energy, oil, being the most lucrative form of energy today.

 

So, if we were to suddenly have the entire world powered, forever, I believe that we would find something else to war about. After all, with energy already paid for, our governments could spend the rest of their budgets building up their militaries.

[Darth_Yuthura]

If we had enough energy, it would allow for almost every other resource to be provided for. It would allow for us to build to the sky if there isn't enough land. Desalinization would provide all the water we would ever need. Aluminum is expensive because of the energy it needs... that would provide a much cheaper metal than steel and much more desirable. Transportation would also be conquered to a large degree.

 

It would detract many jobs that revolve around power sources, though. Odds are that we wouldn't invest in military as much if all we need is within reach and can't be stolen or lost easily.

[Nedak]

It would never happen.

 

Even if we had such technology I'm fairly certain companies wouldn't be selling them, since they can make much more money off other fuels, like oil.

 

Also, I doubt we would ever discover such energy, because nobody wants it to be found.

[EnderWiggin]

It would never happen.

 

Even if we had such technology I'm fairly certain companies wouldn't be selling them, since they can make much more money off other fuels, like oil.

 

If I had a perfect source of energy, and I sold it to you for $1000 and told you you never had to use gasoline/oil again, you wouldn't buy it? Now multiply that by the 300 million people in the USA - not to mention overseas.

 

 

Also, I doubt we would ever discover such energy, because nobody wants it to be found.

 

That's not entirely true

 

_EW_

[Nedak]

If I had a perfect source of energy, and I sold it to you for $1000 and told you you never had to use gasoline/oil again, you wouldn't buy it? Now multiply that by the 300 million people in the USA - not to mention overseas.

 

I read somewhere that America spent $1,132,824,000 on gasoline alone in 2006. What makes you think that companies would want to give up all of that yearly profit? Sure, they would make that if they sold this hypothetical device, but nobody would need to buy them again. They would only make profit off them once.

 

It's all about money my friend.

[EnderWiggin]

I read somewhere that America spent $1,132,824,000 on gasoline alone in 2006. What makes you think that companies would want to give up all of that yearly profit? Sure, they would make that if they sold this hypothetical device, but nobody would need to buy them again. They would only make profit off them once.

 

It's all about money my friend.

 

I'm not a gas company.

 

The people looking for these new fuels aren't oil execs.

 

_EW_

[Nedak]

I'm not a gas company.

The people looking for these new fuels aren't oil execs.

 

Of course not.

 

It would work the same as how the hydrogen fuel cell idea died.

 

oil companies would either buy off the inventor or "get rid of" the inventor.

[EnderWiggin]

Of course not.

 

It would work the same as how the hydrogen fuel cell idea died.

 

oil companies would either buy off the inventor or "get rid of" the inventor.

 

Hopefully the inventor would have enough integrity to not let himself get bought out.

 

As for getting rid of them? Srsly?

 

_EW_

[Nedak]

As for getting rid of them? Srsly?

 

Why not? It probably wouldn't be the first time.

 

Do you really think an oil company that makes $1,132,824,000 a year would just step aside?

[EnderWiggin]

Why not? It probably wouldn't be the first time.

 

Do you really think an oil company that makes $1,132,824,000 a year would just step aside?

 

Do you really think Exxon will hire a hitman (and get away with it)?

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

Han: there are plenty of big companies in other sectors that would eye a huge profit, and imagine the support from governments, especially energy-starved ones. As for why the hydrogen idea is on ice, look up how hard it is to store hydrogen on a car.

 

And if big oil have such power, why is renevables racing towards dominance picking up speed all the time.

[Nedak]

Do you really think Exxon will hire a hitman (and get away with it)?

 

Doesn't even need to be a hitman..

 

As I've said, we've already had countless opportunities to stop using gas, but for some reason our government (and oil companies) never take any interest in them.

 

imagine the support from government

I'm sure our government (USA) wouldn't like it. Our government makes just as much, if not MORE money then the oil companies do from taxing Oil.

 

And if big oil have such power' date=' why is renevables racing towards dominance picking up speed all the time.[/quote']

You don't see cars being run entirely on renewables.

 

 

EDIT:

As for why the hydrogen idea is on ice' date=' look up how hard it is to store hydrogen on a car.[/quote']

 

Not according to this man (which I've posted before). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU&feature=related

[Darth_Yuthura]

Of course not.

 

It would work the same as how the hydrogen fuel cell idea died.

 

oil companies would either buy off the inventor or "get rid of" the inventor.

 

I hate to admit it, but that would be the most likely outcome. Despite how desirable or efficient a new source of energy could become. If it's not profitable, no one will want to invest in it.

 

There is a nuclear reactor called the fast breeder. It's a much more efficient powerplant than standard heavy-water reactors, but they are not as profitable. Because they cost about twice that of a standard reactor, the investment on capital outweighs the fact they can produce almost a hundred times as much energy with the same quantity of uranium. The same thing is true with almost any energy with a huge capital cost.

[mur'phon]

As I've said, we've already had countless opportunities to stop using gas, but for some reason our government (and oil companies) never take any interest in them.

 

Please elaborate

 

I'm sure our government (USA) wouldn't like it. Our government makes just as much, if not MORE money then the oil companies do from taxing Oil.

 

And so do my gov't (the sheikhdom of Norway). However, a lot of countries aren't in that position, and a lot of politicans want to become known as the saviour of the world. Besides, you forgot about the non oil businesses looking for a tidy profitt from doing the saving.

 

You don't see cars being run entirely on renewables

 

*Looks out window, sees electric car* yes I do

 

youtube

 

Nice film, but I have a basic understanding of chemistry, and would love to see the chemistry behind it, as so far geting hydrogen from water has been rather energy demanding. Show me that, and you've got a believer.

[whatthehell]

there is such thing as antimatter. when combined with normal matter, it converts, 100% effeciency, to energy. there is a place in i believe europe that can create it. the problem is its production. it takes a long time to create a few atoms of it and only a few atoms per billion of normal matter convert to anti matter. it really is a facinating concept

[Darth_Yuthura]

there is such thing as antimatter. when combined with normal matter, it converts, 100% effeciency, to energy. there is a place in i believe europe that can create it. the problem is its production. it takes a long time to create a few atoms of it and only a few atoms per billion of normal matter convert to anti matter. it really is a facinating concept

 

Matter-anti-matter reactions are even more dangerous and far-fetched than fusion. In order to initiate and maintain a fusion reaction, more energy has to be invested than is returned. The heat from the reaction is so intense that it could not be allowed to come in contact with the reactor, itself.

 

When you start talking about anitmatter, the reaction would be more intense. less predictable, less understood, and less likely to be used before fusion is ever perfected. The conditions for both are extremely difficult to provide without the gravity or energy of a star.

[Nedak]

Please elaborate.

What I'm saying is that we have had technology to run cars on something besides gasoline for years (example:Steve Meyers Hydrogen Fuel Cell). There is even an Air Powered Car in production, which is getting barely any media attention and it will only be sold in parts of the UK and India. If the USA Gov. were truly interested they would be putting a lot more effort into perfecting and producing these inventions.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSLsXIxO1I&feature=related

 

And so do my gov't (the sheikhdom of Norway). However' date=' a lot of countries aren't in that position, and a lot of politicans want to become known as the saviour of the world. Besides, you forgot about the non oil businesses looking for a tidy profitt from doing the saving.[/quote']

 

A lot of governments probably don't have the resources or technology to even try and make that work. I can't think of the last time a third world country has contributed an amazing invention for the entire world to use.

 

 

 

*Looks out window' date=' sees electric car* yes I do[/quote']

You're lucky then. In all of my years I've been in a car, and outside seeing cars, I've never once seen an electric car. I've seen hybrid cars that use gas and electricity, but never a fully electric car. If anybody drives them, it's probably a select few.

 

 

 

Nice film' date=' but I have a basic understanding of chemistry, and would love to see the chemistry behind it, as so far geting hydrogen from water has been rather energy demanding. Show me that, and you've got a believer.[/quote']

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

 

At the bottom you will notice there are issues with the fuel cell. However, I'm sure these could be fixed if large companies and governments would help fix them.

[Rev7]

What would happen if a way to create energy so efficient was found that only several power plants across the entire world would to needed to produce power for the whole world, forever?

I personally think that would be a wonderful thing! But if you think of it from a certain point of view, it would not be that great of an idea if so quickly.

What would it do to mankind? Would it solve things, or make things worse?

Well, I think that it is a little give and take. 'Oil' is a business, and has workers. My guess would be a lot of workers. If something like this happened so quickly a lot of people would probably be laid off. Where do these people go for work, to provide for their families, to survive? I think that if something like this happened so quickly, it would make life much worse! But, if there is a way to introduce slower, I think that it could work. Of course, this is all just speculation.

[Totenkopf]

Don't believe that removing energy costs from people's financial burdens would make them any more altruistic. Governments either.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Don't believe that removing energy costs from people's financial burdens would make them any more altruistic. Governments either.

 

The advent of the steam engine was one of, if not the most important revelations to globalization. The definition of that is making the world more accessible or a smaller place. Energy was the fuel behind the locomotive, automobile, and airplane. As fuel became more common and cheaper, human progress exploded across the globe. It wasn't until fairly recently that the availability of fuel has slowed this process.

 

Globalization is almost directly linked to the average person's quality of life, so if the price of energy continued to decrease, globalization would only be slowed by the development of technology. In recent years, the price of fuel has been the limiting factor in globalization.

[True_Avery]

Alright, imagine if tommorow, mankind suddenly discovered some great answer to producing exponential amounts of clean, reliable energy? so efficient that the system of producing it could be reduced to the size of a small battery... And it would be able to replace all other forms of producing energy... Not that it matters 'how' in this discussion. Just, what would happen.

I hope that never happens for the same reason I hope things like cancers, diabetes, etc never get cured.

 

Humanity needs its limiting factors. Perfect energy would get rid of one of our largest limiting factors in our society, which would lead to mass expansion.

 

We don't need that. We are already starting to hit a population crisis, and by 2060 this world should be decently overpopulated with roughly 12 billion people. We cover a good portion of this planet and seem to show little interest in stopping.

 

If anything, we need more limiting factors in our society to calm our growth. We are going to build ourselves to death. Once this planet reaches its population cap for us, a lot of bad things are about to happen.

 

This isn't some "save the planet!" environmentalist rant. The planet can, and will always take care of itself with or without us. Its been hit by meteors multiple times for starters. This is a "pretend you care for the planet!" rant, because all this really amounts to is "save the humans!".

 

The more limiting factors we place on ourselves, the closer to we get to saving the human race. Because, honestly, this planet couldn't care less about the hair's width of a time we've been on it.

 

It would never happen.

 

Even if we had such technology I'm fairly certain companies wouldn't be selling them, since they can make much more money off other fuels, like oil.

 

Also, I doubt we would ever discover such energy, because nobody wants it to be found.

Oil companies will only be on top for so long.

 

And if we were to find the perfect energy source, it wouldn't stay quiet. And I doubt the inventor could be bought out, because he could make more by selling the perfect energy than he ever could with bribes.

 

And, like the electric car, it can be beaten down for a time but the public will eventually get a hold of it. They are now in the form of Hybrids, but they are a smarter choice than an Electric car anyway.

 

there is such thing as antimatter. when combined with normal matter, it converts, 100% effeciency, to energy. there is a place in i believe europe that can create it. the problem is its production. it takes a long time to create a few atoms of it and only a few atoms per billion of normal matter convert to anti matter. it really is a facinating concept

Anti-matter, for now, is a thing of fiction as far as being used as an energy source. It is anti-matter. Whenever it comes in contact with matter, the two destroy each other and release untold amounts of energy.

 

It is by definition the most powerful source of energy in the known universe. Being so, it is incredibly hard to make. Once made, it cannot come in contact with any form of matter what-so-ever or it will explode and be lost. It would have to be made, captured successfully in a vacuum, and then harnessed into some form of power.

 

But, before it is ever used as a power source it will be used as a weapon.

 

Don't believe that removing energy costs from people's financial burdens would make them any more altruistic. Governments either.

Maybe, but it makes them more content. Having a high number of content societies could lead to a more "peaceful" world in some ways. Its been working so far anyway.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Would it make some people break on finances? Yes. Shift the world order? Most certainly. Countries that are important due to any energy matters today could be meaningless quite fast if such energy was ever brought to us.

 

Nevertheless, the world revolves, time passes and that's progress. It wouldn't solve anyhing for us, though. In the capitalist society we live, one would always try to outsmart the other on the quest to have even more efficient energy and the cicle would continue.

 

The advent of the steam engine was one of, if not the most important revelations to globalization. The definition of that is making the world more accessible or a smaller place. Energy was the fuel behind the locomotive, automobile, and airplane. As fuel became more common and cheaper, human progress exploded across the globe.

 

And was that a good thing? Surely, if you can make use of it's benefits. But the bad side effects that also exploded on the Industrial Revolution you're talking about - such as masses poverty - are undeniable and persists this day and age.

[Totenkopf]

Mass poverty would exist w/o the industrial revolution. Some of the most populous socieities have been largely agrarian for significant portions of their history.