- Joined
- Jul 11, 2013
- Messages
- 15,217
- Reaction score
- 54
I have a simple hypothesis: there is no economically viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Now like I said, it's just a hypothesis. I might be completely wrong. Hydroelectric seems to be a good alternative, but only if you live near a waterfall. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before losses would consume the gains, so that is only a local solution at best. Nuclear is good, but that caries its own set of risks. I don't thinks solar or wind will ever be able to produce as much power as cheaply as digging a hole in the ground and pulling up compacted biomass.
Now since energy utilization is literally everything, increasing cost will decrease the quality of human life. There's no way around it. Transportation, heating, manufacturing, all depend on cheap energy. And the increased costs will have worse impacts on the poor.
So what's say you war roomers? Proving me wrong would be great news. I'm open to hearing it.
Now like I said, it's just a hypothesis. I might be completely wrong. Hydroelectric seems to be a good alternative, but only if you live near a waterfall. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before losses would consume the gains, so that is only a local solution at best. Nuclear is good, but that caries its own set of risks. I don't thinks solar or wind will ever be able to produce as much power as cheaply as digging a hole in the ground and pulling up compacted biomass.
Now since energy utilization is literally everything, increasing cost will decrease the quality of human life. There's no way around it. Transportation, heating, manufacturing, all depend on cheap energy. And the increased costs will have worse impacts on the poor.
So what's say you war roomers? Proving me wrong would be great news. I'm open to hearing it.