Jump to content

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


Nicholas Kang

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.