Dr Bell gets is right about nuclear, but wrong about Hydrogen. Until they develop micro reactors capable of turning water into hydrogen at the point of injection in an engine, its a long way off. People also forget steam power and the success of the Pritchard steam car in the late 60's, which disappeared after being bought out by Ford.

Its purely power and control driving the energy debate. These fools that advocate nuclear mining and enrichment, are either blind or have a energy control agenda. Why would anyone except the foolish advocate energy sources that can easily and quickly destroy life on this planet and giving it to countries already in dispute with their neighbours. Not very logical Mr Spock.

Laser drilling hasn't even got of the ground and requires huge amounts of energy, considering it took a few kilowatts to cut an .05 inch diameter hole in the laboratory and they've yet to drill anything outside the lab. So in reality, currently its economically unproved, unwieldy and decades away.

Kaep, whats this mean “Petrol itself could be easily manufactured at nuclear or geothermal power stations and is the most cost effective transport fuel option when oil runs dry.”

How does this work, what materials are used to produce petrol from nuclear energy. Yep lets ramp up uranium enrichment here, that way they won't have as much work to do when they get it to make bombs. Believing any country with access to enriched uranium will not use it to protect themselves, is insane logic.

Luckily by the time they get round to doing anything, it will all probably be over. The true reality may just be that oil supplies are already in steep decline, hence the desperation of the USA to secure the oil of the world for themselves, by invasion and destruction of the country. When you consider the US is building an fortress embassy that covers 42hectares in Iraq, costing billions, yet nothing has been done for the rest of the country except systematic destruction by bombing and the securing of oil facilities.

Alkchemist,

The world (viz China and India) is moving to nuclear power whether we want it or not.
If we can sit back and bury our heads in our ore, bigger nations will eventually come get it. You must understand that ENERGY is survival, not some optional accessory to life.

If we set the agenda and force our customers to use bomb-bane materials like PBR pebbles we can have a win-win situation.
But If we go this route we are morally OBLIGED to use 30-40% of the profits of increased Uranium revenue streams in R&D programs for Fusion, Space and Gethermal generation technologies.

The only questions remaining are, are we responsible enough as world citizens to take on that challenge and do we have the smarts?

What'll it be people?

Spock .. OUT!

PS Laser drilling is far more advanced than you say and low level alkanes are actually cheaper to manufacture and transport than H2, without massive car manufacturing changes.
Throw out that 1960 edition of Funk and Wagnells now!

You are correct about hydrogen being an energy carrier, but is not oil also,at least to the degree that 100% efficiency is not achieved in its use? Hydrogen can be produced from the energy of the sun, the efficiency of conversion is lower, H2 becomes classed as a carrier. The sun however appears infinite oil does not.
Research continues and semiconductors are now available with 35% efficiency though if we used roof tiles with 13% efficiency much of
our energy needs are satisfied.
Cost? And that of nuclear including using lower grade ore, building and decommissioning.
Hydrogen can then be stored and used to fuel cars or other transport, which currently produces some , 60% (I think), of GHG. Electricity some 30% of GHG which nuclear reactors could obviate (largely).
The key is the energy carrier will allow the use of a non polluting motive force replacing oil fuels or oil + ethanol (etc). Could also be used in different forms of fuel cells reducing the transmission cost of energy.
Sure nuclear could be used to produce H2 but this would be also inefficient. If sun and wind provide part of the daylight energy need, the timing corresponding with the higher usage during the day and nuclear or other the night then adding H2 production to the nuclear use would mean a larger nuclear station (or other) requirement.
Sure as Amory Lovins points out and gives many examples of thinking to produce nega watts (energy un needed) can go a long way and combined with a degree of planned living plus more efficient energy consuming devices, including housing and commercial production, a lot further in the quest to reduce GHG emission
Lovins also of course has a publication listing twenty hydrogen myths which is worth looking at www.rmi.org./

"Sun, wind, wave, tide or geothermal sources could all be used to generate the power for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen to generate yet more power. And that route could be almost entirely pollution-free. What is more, it could avoid still more land and water being used to raise crops of soy, corm or sugar-cane to be used for fuel instead of food."

The laws of Thermodynamics disagree with you. Feel free to argue with them.

Kaep, “But If we go this route we are morally OBLIGED to use 30-40% of the profits of increased Uranium revenue streams in R&D programs for Fusion, Space and Gethermal generation technologies.”

Since when has any politician, or corporation shown any morality unless forced to. You only have to look at the continuing rape of the planet by corporations and the obligations they show for their employees to have enough sense to see they're all morally corrupt.

Sorry, but all my knowledge about laser mining comes from the site you posted, my comments are according to their statements.

Before WW2, they sold our iron ore to the japs as they were building their war machine, on the proviso they wouldn't use it in the construction's of weapons. Ask the thousands of dead Aussies whose steel the Japanese war machine was made from.

Low level alkanes, that would be another hydrocarbon product wouldn't it. Kaep you certainly only favour the worst technologies available and dismiss those with the quickest answers to ease the crunch. Everything you envisage is 20 years away, or destroying the environment, unsustainable or renewable.

The reason they haven't created fusion, is probably because they don't really understand how it works and hopefully never will. Its a little frightening to think they may create a sun in a laboratory and expect to contain it, when they have no idea how or why it works as it does. You may open a door into a hostile dimension for us. What would a fusion reaction do in an atmosphere filled with volatile gases like ours, the current examples operate in a different dimension called space that has many forces we have no understanding of. Without those forces keeping it stable, how would a contained sun in our dimension react. Not nicely I expect

Alchemist, fusion has already been created in the laboratory - many times. It was achieved a long time ago. What's stopped the construction of fusion power reactors is that all the existing experimental structures consume more power than they produce. Confining the plasma so that it doesn't get cooled by the reactor walls has proved harder than anyone ever imagined.

As for what would happen to our atmosphere. The answer is nothing would. Not only is this clear on theoretical grounds (temperature and pressure too low), but if anything were going to happen, it would have done so when one of the many hydrogen bombs were detonated.

Sylvia.