It would seem to this observer that there are a number of reasonable and apolitical steps that should be taken by
real scientists when investigating the future energy needs of our world:
- For hundreds of million years hydrocarbons (coal, oil, tar and natural gas) were created as a result of plants capturing the energy of the sun and then, through natural forces, storing it underground for our future use. We need to know what might be the sum total of BTUs that were created during this period (a truly huge number) and how much of this energy might be realistically recoverable given probable scientific advances. And what are the possible error boundaries of these estimates?
- How much of this hydrocarbon energy has already been expended since we stopped depending on wood, wind and whale oil ... and how many years, decades or centuries might this energy reservoir sustain the entire world given realistic demographic and per-person usage projections. And what are the possible error boundaries to these estimates?
- Given these estimates and their error boundaries, at what point will the world likely need significant new energy sources and what might these energy sources be? Hydroelectric? Nuclear? Fusion? Tidal? Geothermal? Wind? Solar? or the possible requirement for some new energy technology? What are the possible risks and error boundaries associated with each of these options?
- What are the realistic apolitical economic and social implications of each of these paths to supplying our longer-term energy needs and what are the error boundaries therein?
- What are the chances that this will occur?
