If you mean corn, the energy input/output ration is quite small (if positive at all)... Plus, using a high percentage of our arable land to use for filling our SUV's vs. feeding people is perhaps not the best way forward. As for help from the gov, FEMA, Uncle Sam, etc., I suggest developing self reliant contingency plans. Conservation will make more energy available quicker than any other route, but we can't all move closer to our jobs and shifting to more economical vehicles will take a decade or more. An increase in telecomuting would be great. Mike
-----Original Message----- From: John P. Brooks [mailto:jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 10:15 AM To: Mike Quinn; Lyndon Tiu; Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics President Shrub thinks we will just switch to bio-fuels......that will surely save the world.... On 10/28/07 8:53 AM, "Mike Quinn" <mike.qu...@tpwd.state.tx.us> wrote: > When was the last nuclear power plant built? When will the next singular plant > produce power? When will we have 10,000 nuclear power plants of *any* kind? > > Given that some say the world is already past peak oil, I personally don't see > how we're going to make it to 10,000 nukes... > > see PO article in last Monday's The Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html > > Graphic Showing Oil Producing Countries Past Peak Oil... > http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/10/25/oil-producing-countries-past-peak-oc > t-2007.png > or: http://tinyurl.com/33ambo > > If we are past PO, then the likely ensuing hoarding will accentuate the > problem... > > Mike Quinn, Austin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] > Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 8:22 AM > To: Texas Cavers > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics > > > > Mike Quinn wrote: >> Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute of >> Technology and author of the best seller: "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of >> Oil" estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to replace >> the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be gone in >> one or two decades. >> > > That's assuming we are using 10,000 "fission" nuclear power plants. > Uranium is a non-renewable resource. The supply of uranium will follow a > depletion curve similar to that of oil. > > "Fusion" nuclear (as opposed to "fission") holds more promise as it uses > heavy water/regular water/hydrogen which is more abundant, but if I > understand it correctly, current fusion nuclear technology is only good > for WMD's and not for power generation. > > There is international work underway to develop fusion nuclear tech for > power generation. If I remember it correctly, a reactor is being built > in France for this. Try googling it. > > -- > Lyndon Tiu >