Can it happen? will it?
It's 15 years in the future. The world supply of clean drinking water is running out due to overpopulation. Canada has lots of open land, and the worlds largest freshwater supply. Because Canada has a good standing and record with the U.N and other countries worldwide, they have remained neutral with international water prices, such as gas is right now.
But, one day that changes. The U.S decides that because they are our neighbours, and more economically powerful, they should have the right to the fresh water on Canadian ground. When Canada refuses to hand our water supply to American corporations, they retaliate. War is declared upon Canada, much to the world's surprise.
The question is not who will win the war. The question is what is the worlds response. What countries will come to Canada's aid? Who will join U.S due to promises of cheaper water? How would an invasion in Canada effect the economy, as we are the largest suppliers of water, lumber, fish, and many other natural resources that are vital.
From: The Man in a Hat | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:47:38 PM | Message Detail | #002
I'm sure we can find a way to purify the ocean water before we go to war with Canada. I don't forsee lack of water as a problem any time soon.
---
My name is a secret Or dude shes pregnat them breast always ballon when their planted -Huh?
From: hero boy | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:51:40 PM | Message Detail | #003
we can purify ocean water now....it's just that it's rather expensive so we dont do it
---
Bowser and GanonPr0n http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?ilcocy1e1o9g
From: Half There | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:57:50 PM | Message Detail | #004
Your "Completely possible scenario" is actually rather fanciful.
---
...he loves dancing, on the other hand. What is art if not... girls in skin-tight, translucent outfits heaving and grinding onstage? - Lava
From: Yoshi123 | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:59:57 PM | Message Detail | #005
As others have said, you're discounting the large increases in technology that will undoubtebly occur in those 15 years. Look back at 1990 to see how much things have really changed. Furthermore, if there are countries that would suffer from the water shortage, it would be third world countries, China, India, perhaps Japan, and other population-dense or poor countries. The USA would start rationing water which would probably do well for awhile. Think of how much we use for showers daily.
---
Parenthesis can (not) be ignored.
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:00:21 PM | Message Detail | #006
That isn't completely possible at all.
From: SupermanExtreme | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:04:59 PM | Message Detail | #007
Look back at 1990 to see how much things have really changed.
I could be wrong but I don't think it was much different in 1990. The basic form of energy consumption hasn't much changed since the 1800s.
---
Hopefully sony will add a second nub with future firmware updates- cephalopoid
From: Yoshi123 | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:09:56 PM | Message Detail | #008
I could be wrong but I don't think it was much different in 1990. The basic form of energy consumption hasn't much changed since the 1800s.
Well, I mean as far as general technologies. Perhaps as water purification and consumption go, things may be similar, but I mean techological advances. Humans have shown the enormous capacity to invent and create, so I'm drawing the conclusion that given the need we'd be perfectly capable of coming up with a solution.
---
Parenthesis can (not) be ignored.
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:14:05 PM | Message Detail | #009
It's funny to assume that it isn't completely possible at all. 15 years ago, if someone mentioned that we would be having a fossil fuel crisis, would anyone have listened? I'm going to school for environmental resources, and this is just one of many possibilities for the future of our resources.
Purifying the ocean isn't a solution either, that can cause lots of problems within tributaries where the salt water/fresh water mix is so incredibly balanced, any majour disruption in the ocean could throw off entire food chains, causing mass destruction of coastal environments. It would be alright for a while, maybe, but once people started relying on it to much then it would cause more problems than it solves in the long run.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:22:59 PM | Message Detail | #010
15 years ago, if someone mentioned that we would be having a fossil fuel crisis, would anyone have listened?
Nobody is listening today.
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:27:45 PM | Message Detail | #021
...because there's no fossil fuel crisis. We have plenty of oil on our continent, and eventually we might even get to use it.
As for desalinization, it's already in use in many cities. It's not nearly as expensive as it was even seven years ago. In ten years it will be in common use.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: Genesis Dragon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:29:34 PM | Message Detail | #022
When someone says that something is a "completely possible scenario" I generally feel that said scenario is the complete opposite of its descriptor.
---
Attorney General of Vets/Dragon Elite Founder
The above post may contain sarcasm. What a shock.
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:30:07 PM | Message Detail | #023
lol, if nobody is listening today, then what makes you think they'll listen about an issue as obscure as water? If there is no demand for an alternate source of water, will companies invest money into looking for an alternate source?
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:31:06 PM | Message Detail | #024
What the hell are you talking about?
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:32:30 PM | Message Detail | #025
lol, if nobody is listening today, then what makes you think they'll listen about an issue as obscure as water?
See my post above. There is no "water issue."
If there is no demand for an alternate source of water, will companies invest money into looking for an alternate source?
Son, the energy companies already have the technology to harness and sell alternate energy sources. They have for decades. They're not using them because the petroleum money train is still in high gear.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:33:40 PM | Message Detail | #026
From: Genesis Dragon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:29:34 PM
When someone says that something is a "completely possible scenario" I generally feel that said scenario is the complete opposite of its descriptor.
Sorry for the double post, but I'm not in any way saying that this is the most likely, or even having a good chance of it happening. But it is completely possible if humans stay as greedy as we are right now. With outcries of gas prices being so high right now, how much would people be concerned if an essential of life was to become so rare in an otherwise simple western world.
And yes, there is a fossil fuel crisis. Over 50% of our fossil fuels are gone from earth. And Japan is starting a program to get cars to roughly 2 billion citizens over there, instead of them having to rely on cars. Thats a third of the worlds population suddenly driving, adding more CO2 to the air, and using up more fuel. If you don't believe that will be a drain on earths health, then what is it?
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: dotdotdead | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:35:20 PM | Message Detail | #027
...because there's no fossil fuel crisis.
*slaps teegar, then drags him to a gas station and shows him the prices*
---
"I can't hear you, BK Broiler!"
~Dane Cook
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:36:28 PM | Message Detail | #028
With outcries of gas prices being so high right now, how much would people be concerned if an essential of life was to become so rare in an otherwise simple western world.
They won't be, because by the time the oil runs low we'll already be running on something else.
And yes, there is a fossil fuel crisis. Over 50% of our fossil fuels are gone from earth. And Japan is starting a program to get cars to roughly 2 billion citizens over there, instead of them having to rely on cars. Thats a third of the worlds population suddenly driving, adding more CO2 to the air, and using up more fuel. If you don't believe that will be a drain on earths health, then what is it?
Japan doesn't have 2 billion citizens, or anything even approaching that number. Nice try, junior.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:36:57 PM | Message Detail | #029
You're
not very up to date of current events, are you?
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:37:04 PM | Message Detail | #030
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:32:30 PM
lol, if nobody is listening today, then what makes you think they'll listen about an issue as obscure as water?
See my post above. There is no "water issue."
If there is no demand for an alternate source of water, will companies invest money into looking for an alternate source?
Son, the energy companies already have the technology to harness and sell alternate energy sources. They have for decades. They're not using them because the petroleum money train is still in high gear.
Again, thats not correct. Did you know that to harness wind power, you need a windmill. And the cost and energy it requires to create one windmill, that windmill will never make a positive net profit or energy gain, compared to the initial costs of manufacturing. The same goes for solar panels. Common solar panels are only about 5% efficient, resulting in a net loss of energy compared to production costs. Hydroelectric is nearly 99% efficient given the right circumstances, but it isn't popular, and to do that we need the fresh water which is running out. Biomass heating (drilling into the earth and using the heat from the core to power turbines) will again, never make up for the costs of drilling the hole through the limestone and granite plates you have to penetrate to get the heat.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:37:42 PM | Message Detail | #041
*slaps teegar, then drags him to a gas station and shows him the prices*
*slaps ddd, then drags him to the idiots' houses who horded gas in the wake of Katrina, thus partly explaining the rise in gas prices*
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:37:44 PM | Message Detail | #042
That was to his post before teegar, about oil prices.
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:38:02 PM | Message Detail | #043
Damn it teegar, wait in line!
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:39:02 PM | Message Detail | #044
Sorry Ohnoitsmee, I'm debating another issue on another forum, including Japan. I confused the two of them. I meant China, and looking at it now, to me it looks fairly obvious that it was as simple an error as that. But I apologize for getting it wrong.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:39:46 PM | Message Detail | #045
I wasn't that one who made the comment about your demographic fallacy. That was teegar.
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:40:13 PM | Message Detail | #046
Rapid fire mode ON! Go me.
Again, thats not correct. Did you know that to harness wind power, you need a windmill. And the cost and energy it requires to create one windmill, that windmill will never make a positive net profit or energy gain, compared to the initial costs of manufacturing.
Then why are they in use in numerous mountainous areas around the world?
The same goes for solar panels. Common solar panels are only about 5% efficient, resulting in a net loss of energy compared to production costs.
No kidding. We've known about this for years.
Hydroelectric is nearly 99% efficient given the right circumstances, but it isn't popular
...now, perhaps it isn't, but it will be when it's time for it to be...
and to do that we need the fresh water which is running out.
Desalinization, blah blah blah...
Biomass heating (drilling into the earth and using the heat from the core to power turbines) will again, never make up for the costs of drilling the hole through the limestone and granite plates you have to penetrate to get the heat.
And you've conveniently left out one of the historically safest and most powerful forms of energy: nuclear. Nice selective reasoning there.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:42:29 PM | Message Detail | #047
I did leave out Nuclear. Because while it is safe, instances such as Chernobyl make it not popular worldwide. In North America, it is gaining popularity, and I think that is a good way to be headed. But the majority of North Americas power is still from Coal plants. And internationally, Nuclear Power isn't popular at all. That's why thousands of nuclear technicians come to Canada every year, because there isn't work around the world.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:43:48 PM | Message Detail | #048
oh, and because if you mass produce windmills, each one increases the overall efficiency if you use them as one, such as in Sweden (I believe) off the coast, where there are hundreds. But to do that requires a lot of land, which we are also running out of as we reach the population limit that earth can support.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:44:34 PM | Message Detail | #049
shepcon, here's your error in reasoning. You are applying modern circumstances to futuristic scenarios. You are not accounting for changes in culture, technology or economy. Your entire basis is unstable because you're not extrapolating out every possible circumstance. Instead, you're trying to fit unreasonable factors around a doomsday scenario. And it's not working,
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:45:57 PM | Message Detail | #050
But to do that requires a lot of land, which we are also running out of as we reach the population limit that earth can support.
...
...you do know that currently there is one human per ~9.5 square miles of land, right? We're nowhere close to running out of land.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: Captain Afrohead | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:47:50 PM | Message Detail | #061
First of all, shepcon:
No. Just no. Everyone else has done a good job explaining why.
Secondly, I find it funny that nuclear power powers 70% of France, but we still use antiquated systems that are prone to failure.
---
Since when did I side with anyone besides Kagata?- Kagata
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:54:17 PM | Message Detail | #062
Alright Teegar, but where is that open land? The countries that will need power, such as Japan and China, don't have a whole lot of open land to build those. The only countries that have that kind of room would be the countries like Canada and U.S.A that have sufficient nuclear power, or in areas like africa or the outback in australia where setting up windmills will do no good.
And if you're claiming that I can't make my arguments because I don't know every possible future, how can you argue against it? You don't know what the future will hold, so how can you say that it won't turn out like the one possibility I brought up? That would therefore make any of our arguments pointless, bringing us back to square one.
And Afrohead, if everyone else has done a good job explaining why, and I've made a valid argument for every one of their points, doesn't that mean that I've also done a good job? Because my point of view is in the minority, and only has one person arguing for it, that doesn't mean that its impossible. Hence the word Scenario.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
But, one day that changes. The U.S decides that because they are our neighbours, and more economically powerful, they should have the right to the fresh water on Canadian ground. When Canada refuses to hand our water supply to American corporations, they retaliate. War is declared upon Canada, much to the world's surprise.
The question is not who will win the war. The question is what is the worlds response. What countries will come to Canada's aid? Who will join U.S due to promises of cheaper water? How would an invasion in Canada effect the economy, as we are the largest suppliers of water, lumber, fish, and many other natural resources that are vital.
From: The Man in a Hat | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:47:38 PM | Message Detail | #002
I'm sure we can find a way to purify the ocean water before we go to war with Canada. I don't forsee lack of water as a problem any time soon.
---
My name is a secret Or dude shes pregnat them breast always ballon when their planted -Huh?
From: hero boy | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:51:40 PM | Message Detail | #003
we can purify ocean water now....it's just that it's rather expensive so we dont do it
---
Bowser and GanonPr0n http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?ilcocy1e1o9g
From: Half There | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:57:50 PM | Message Detail | #004
Your "Completely possible scenario" is actually rather fanciful.
---
...he loves dancing, on the other hand. What is art if not... girls in skin-tight, translucent outfits heaving and grinding onstage? - Lava
From: Yoshi123 | Posted: 9/13/2005 8:59:57 PM | Message Detail | #005
As others have said, you're discounting the large increases in technology that will undoubtebly occur in those 15 years. Look back at 1990 to see how much things have really changed. Furthermore, if there are countries that would suffer from the water shortage, it would be third world countries, China, India, perhaps Japan, and other population-dense or poor countries. The USA would start rationing water which would probably do well for awhile. Think of how much we use for showers daily.
---
Parenthesis can (not) be ignored.
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:00:21 PM | Message Detail | #006
That isn't completely possible at all.
From: SupermanExtreme | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:04:59 PM | Message Detail | #007
Look back at 1990 to see how much things have really changed.
I could be wrong but I don't think it was much different in 1990. The basic form of energy consumption hasn't much changed since the 1800s.
---
Hopefully sony will add a second nub with future firmware updates- cephalopoid
From: Yoshi123 | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:09:56 PM | Message Detail | #008
I could be wrong but I don't think it was much different in 1990. The basic form of energy consumption hasn't much changed since the 1800s.
Well, I mean as far as general technologies. Perhaps as water purification and consumption go, things may be similar, but I mean techological advances. Humans have shown the enormous capacity to invent and create, so I'm drawing the conclusion that given the need we'd be perfectly capable of coming up with a solution.
---
Parenthesis can (not) be ignored.
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:14:05 PM | Message Detail | #009
It's funny to assume that it isn't completely possible at all. 15 years ago, if someone mentioned that we would be having a fossil fuel crisis, would anyone have listened? I'm going to school for environmental resources, and this is just one of many possibilities for the future of our resources.
Purifying the ocean isn't a solution either, that can cause lots of problems within tributaries where the salt water/fresh water mix is so incredibly balanced, any majour disruption in the ocean could throw off entire food chains, causing mass destruction of coastal environments. It would be alright for a while, maybe, but once people started relying on it to much then it would cause more problems than it solves in the long run.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:22:59 PM | Message Detail | #010
15 years ago, if someone mentioned that we would be having a fossil fuel crisis, would anyone have listened?
Nobody is listening today.
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:27:45 PM | Message Detail | #021
...because there's no fossil fuel crisis. We have plenty of oil on our continent, and eventually we might even get to use it.
As for desalinization, it's already in use in many cities. It's not nearly as expensive as it was even seven years ago. In ten years it will be in common use.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: Genesis Dragon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:29:34 PM | Message Detail | #022
When someone says that something is a "completely possible scenario" I generally feel that said scenario is the complete opposite of its descriptor.
---
Attorney General of Vets/Dragon Elite Founder
The above post may contain sarcasm. What a shock.
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:30:07 PM | Message Detail | #023
lol, if nobody is listening today, then what makes you think they'll listen about an issue as obscure as water? If there is no demand for an alternate source of water, will companies invest money into looking for an alternate source?
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:31:06 PM | Message Detail | #024
What the hell are you talking about?
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:32:30 PM | Message Detail | #025
lol, if nobody is listening today, then what makes you think they'll listen about an issue as obscure as water?
See my post above. There is no "water issue."
If there is no demand for an alternate source of water, will companies invest money into looking for an alternate source?
Son, the energy companies already have the technology to harness and sell alternate energy sources. They have for decades. They're not using them because the petroleum money train is still in high gear.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:33:40 PM | Message Detail | #026
From: Genesis Dragon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:29:34 PM
When someone says that something is a "completely possible scenario" I generally feel that said scenario is the complete opposite of its descriptor.
Sorry for the double post, but I'm not in any way saying that this is the most likely, or even having a good chance of it happening. But it is completely possible if humans stay as greedy as we are right now. With outcries of gas prices being so high right now, how much would people be concerned if an essential of life was to become so rare in an otherwise simple western world.
And yes, there is a fossil fuel crisis. Over 50% of our fossil fuels are gone from earth. And Japan is starting a program to get cars to roughly 2 billion citizens over there, instead of them having to rely on cars. Thats a third of the worlds population suddenly driving, adding more CO2 to the air, and using up more fuel. If you don't believe that will be a drain on earths health, then what is it?
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: dotdotdead | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:35:20 PM | Message Detail | #027
...because there's no fossil fuel crisis.
*slaps teegar, then drags him to a gas station and shows him the prices*
---
"I can't hear you, BK Broiler!"
~Dane Cook
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:36:28 PM | Message Detail | #028
With outcries of gas prices being so high right now, how much would people be concerned if an essential of life was to become so rare in an otherwise simple western world.
They won't be, because by the time the oil runs low we'll already be running on something else.
And yes, there is a fossil fuel crisis. Over 50% of our fossil fuels are gone from earth. And Japan is starting a program to get cars to roughly 2 billion citizens over there, instead of them having to rely on cars. Thats a third of the worlds population suddenly driving, adding more CO2 to the air, and using up more fuel. If you don't believe that will be a drain on earths health, then what is it?
Japan doesn't have 2 billion citizens, or anything even approaching that number. Nice try, junior.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:36:57 PM | Message Detail | #029
You're
not very up to date of current events, are you?
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:37:04 PM | Message Detail | #030
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:32:30 PM
lol, if nobody is listening today, then what makes you think they'll listen about an issue as obscure as water?
See my post above. There is no "water issue."
If there is no demand for an alternate source of water, will companies invest money into looking for an alternate source?
Son, the energy companies already have the technology to harness and sell alternate energy sources. They have for decades. They're not using them because the petroleum money train is still in high gear.
Again, thats not correct. Did you know that to harness wind power, you need a windmill. And the cost and energy it requires to create one windmill, that windmill will never make a positive net profit or energy gain, compared to the initial costs of manufacturing. The same goes for solar panels. Common solar panels are only about 5% efficient, resulting in a net loss of energy compared to production costs. Hydroelectric is nearly 99% efficient given the right circumstances, but it isn't popular, and to do that we need the fresh water which is running out. Biomass heating (drilling into the earth and using the heat from the core to power turbines) will again, never make up for the costs of drilling the hole through the limestone and granite plates you have to penetrate to get the heat.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:37:42 PM | Message Detail | #041
*slaps teegar, then drags him to a gas station and shows him the prices*
*slaps ddd, then drags him to the idiots' houses who horded gas in the wake of Katrina, thus partly explaining the rise in gas prices*
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:37:44 PM | Message Detail | #042
That was to his post before teegar, about oil prices.
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:38:02 PM | Message Detail | #043
Damn it teegar, wait in line!
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:39:02 PM | Message Detail | #044
Sorry Ohnoitsmee, I'm debating another issue on another forum, including Japan. I confused the two of them. I meant China, and looking at it now, to me it looks fairly obvious that it was as simple an error as that. But I apologize for getting it wrong.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: ohnoitSmee | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:39:46 PM | Message Detail | #045
I wasn't that one who made the comment about your demographic fallacy. That was teegar.
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:40:13 PM | Message Detail | #046
Rapid fire mode ON! Go me.
Again, thats not correct. Did you know that to harness wind power, you need a windmill. And the cost and energy it requires to create one windmill, that windmill will never make a positive net profit or energy gain, compared to the initial costs of manufacturing.
Then why are they in use in numerous mountainous areas around the world?
The same goes for solar panels. Common solar panels are only about 5% efficient, resulting in a net loss of energy compared to production costs.
No kidding. We've known about this for years.
Hydroelectric is nearly 99% efficient given the right circumstances, but it isn't popular
...now, perhaps it isn't, but it will be when it's time for it to be...
and to do that we need the fresh water which is running out.
Desalinization, blah blah blah...
Biomass heating (drilling into the earth and using the heat from the core to power turbines) will again, never make up for the costs of drilling the hole through the limestone and granite plates you have to penetrate to get the heat.
And you've conveniently left out one of the historically safest and most powerful forms of energy: nuclear. Nice selective reasoning there.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:42:29 PM | Message Detail | #047
I did leave out Nuclear. Because while it is safe, instances such as Chernobyl make it not popular worldwide. In North America, it is gaining popularity, and I think that is a good way to be headed. But the majority of North Americas power is still from Coal plants. And internationally, Nuclear Power isn't popular at all. That's why thousands of nuclear technicians come to Canada every year, because there isn't work around the world.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:43:48 PM | Message Detail | #048
oh, and because if you mass produce windmills, each one increases the overall efficiency if you use them as one, such as in Sweden (I believe) off the coast, where there are hundreds. But to do that requires a lot of land, which we are also running out of as we reach the population limit that earth can support.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:44:34 PM | Message Detail | #049
shepcon, here's your error in reasoning. You are applying modern circumstances to futuristic scenarios. You are not accounting for changes in culture, technology or economy. Your entire basis is unstable because you're not extrapolating out every possible circumstance. Instead, you're trying to fit unreasonable factors around a doomsday scenario. And it's not working,
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: teegar | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:45:57 PM | Message Detail | #050
But to do that requires a lot of land, which we are also running out of as we reach the population limit that earth can support.
...
...you do know that currently there is one human per ~9.5 square miles of land, right? We're nowhere close to running out of land.
---
It's as if someone's life hangs in the balance, and the only way to save them is by discussing traffic as hard as you can. -- Vyyk
From: Captain Afrohead | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:47:50 PM | Message Detail | #061
First of all, shepcon:
No. Just no. Everyone else has done a good job explaining why.
Secondly, I find it funny that nuclear power powers 70% of France, but we still use antiquated systems that are prone to failure.
---
Since when did I side with anyone besides Kagata?- Kagata
From: shepcon | Posted: 9/13/2005 9:54:17 PM | Message Detail | #062
Alright Teegar, but where is that open land? The countries that will need power, such as Japan and China, don't have a whole lot of open land to build those. The only countries that have that kind of room would be the countries like Canada and U.S.A that have sufficient nuclear power, or in areas like africa or the outback in australia where setting up windmills will do no good.
And if you're claiming that I can't make my arguments because I don't know every possible future, how can you argue against it? You don't know what the future will hold, so how can you say that it won't turn out like the one possibility I brought up? That would therefore make any of our arguments pointless, bringing us back to square one.
And Afrohead, if everyone else has done a good job explaining why, and I've made a valid argument for every one of their points, doesn't that mean that I've also done a good job? Because my point of view is in the minority, and only has one person arguing for it, that doesn't mean that its impossible. Hence the word Scenario.
---
"Each company isn't putting a gun to your head and telling you that if the console they own fails, they will shoot you."-OreosRgood4me6j6