posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:01 PM
Now our energy sources are for the most part oil and gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro.
They use oil and gas for certain operations in a nuclear power plant (emergency control-power generators, for example.)
They use diesel generators in coal mines.
They use nuclear-generated electricity in oil refineries.
It's all linked up. The grid is designed for redundance, too.
Corn alcohol is in our gasoline.
Liquid fuels, or gasses such as hydrogen, are manufacturable by using the other sources if need be. Just like the garbage fuels mentioned on other
threads. Transportation fuels need to be lightweight to compete with gasoline, and that's about it. The technology exists for alternate energy
conversion to standard infrastructures. It's the energy itself that's the problem. The nuclear equation STILL has not owned up to inevitable
disposal costs. Thus the problem, and the explanation about why we haven't gone nuclear. Even the pro-nuke people get uneasy when they look at the
actual numbers and costs for permanent, moderate disposal. We can ignore political considerations when talking theory. We can posit de-facto
revolutions to allow common sense to occur. Even so, we need new energy sources. That's a fact.
As far as "Why sideways?" it's because for every down you need an up, and if you try to combine the hot coming up and the cold going down, in a
simple vertical hole, you'll find a situation your accountants won't like: loss of power.
[edit on 5/1/2005 by Noumenon]