Lightning-The New Source of Electricity? [Resolved: No!]

[Phi for All]

Define crisis.

 

Right now, we're trying to wean ourselves off oil and look for alternatives we don't have as much infrastructure for. We'll always need more energy, and we're learning that this need must be addressed sustainably.

 

Crisis = Danger + Opportunity.

[Nicholas Kang]

Crisis, to me, means critical. Of course, we need to seek for opportunities. So, looking towards green industries would be a good choice. Develop solar, tidal, wave, hydrielectric, wind, biomass and geothermal energy would be ok. So, we don`t need need lightning yet currently and probably the future too.

[swansont]

Define crisis.

 

Right now, we're trying to wean ourselves off oil and look for alternatives we don't have as much infrastructure for. We'll always need more energy, and we're learning that this need must be addressed sustainably.

 

Crisis = Danger + Opportunity.

 

"We" here excludes countries that have little to no infrastructure at all, so they have a double-whammy: building both generation and transmission/distribution capability. But lightning as a possible solution suffers from that more than some other possibilities, if the lightning is striking up in the mountains, away from the population centers. Low yield, large transmission distance. It's lose-lose.

[Nicholas Kang]

What about if most populations of the countr(y/ies) are living near mountain areas? They rely on tourism industry of agriculture industry to live and survive.

[Ten oz]

then, correct my conclusion.

 

Do we have energy crisis now?

We have the ability to produce the energy we need. The crisis is in how we produce it. Fossil fuels are destroying our environment. We have alternatives but no one seems to be willing to walk away from a trillions of dollar fossil fuel industry.

[Nicholas Kang]

Aren`t they know that the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry will one day shut down due to lack of resource. They just see the money in a short period of time? Aren`t sucessful businessmen good in anticipating the foreseeable future?

[swansont]

Aren`t they know that the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry will one day shut down due to lack of resource. They just see the money in a short period of time?

Yes.

 

Aren`t sucessful businessmen good in anticipating the foreseeable future?

No, apparently not. You can have lots of success and make a lot of money building up a company for relatively short-term success.

[Phi for All]

A big quagmire surrounds the question of when to move away from an older technology that has established infrastructure, in favor of an emerging technology that could use help competing against the old. I have no doubt that the oil industry will continue to find ways to keep themselves profitable. If the playing field was even, I think it would be more obvious that alternative energies were needed. We still subsidize oil with taxpayer money and that makes it look more attractive than it really is.

[Ten oz]

A big quagmire surrounds the question of when to move away from an older technology that has established infrastructure,in favor of an emerging technology that could use help competing against the old. I have no doubt that the oil industry will continue to find ways to keep themselves profitable. If the playing field was even,

True, companies have invested billions in mines, oceans platforms, ships, and etc. Until the desired return on investment is achieved to the satifaction of their investors they don't care about anything but the here and now.

 

I think it would be more obvious that alternative energies were needed. We still subsidize oil with taxpayer money and that makes it look more attractive than it really is.

Excellent point. If gas in the states were $10 a gallon a lot would change. Problem is many industries don't want to see that. Higher energy costs would change the way people live and put certian industries at risk. Living in the suburbs and commuting 50 miles each way to and from work stops making sense if that 100 mile a day round trip drive is costing $400 dollars a weeks. That effects home prices, property taxes collected from those home prices, building contracts in those suburbs, etc, etc, etc.

[Phi for All]

Excellent point. If gas in the states were $10 a gallon a lot would change. Problem is many industries don't want to see that. Higher energy costs would change the way people live and put certian industries at risk. Living in the suburbs and commuting 50 miles each way to and from work stops making sense if that 100 mile a day round trip drive is costing $400 dollars a weeks. That effects home prices, property taxes collected from those home prices, building contracts in those suburbs, etc, etc, etc.

 

A free market economy should sort out a problem like this, and probably would if some of those who claim to want a free market economy weren't so busy manipulating legislation in their favor so they can keep competition at bay.

 

Anyway, further discussion seems to be straying off-topic. Interesting stuff, perhaps a new thread is in order?

 

 

[Nicholas Kang]

Split the thread. No hijacking.