PowerSwitch

There is no shortage of researchers looking for the next breakthrough. Some are developing "flow" batteries, which work by pumping charged liquid electrolytes. Harvard researchers working on "flow" batteries have identified a new class of organic molecules, inspired by vitamin B2, that can safely store electricity. Some are experimenting with new materials to combine with lithium, including sulphur and air. Some are using nanotechnology in the wires of electrodes to make batteries last longer. But history counsels caution: game changers haven't come along often.....

boisdevie wrote:Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?

Mark wrote:

boisdevie wrote:Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?

We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?

clv101 wrote:

Mark wrote:

boisdevie wrote:Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?

We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?

There is an interesting question about whether it's actually a good idea of 'slow the decline'... or putting it another way, delay the crash, extend and pretend etc... In the long run, say in 1-200 years, I expect the sooner the crash the better life will be for our descendants. If we do manage to keep the show on the road for another few decades, the crash, when it comes will be worse.

If, for example there'd been a global civilisation collapse with a significant degree of population die-off in, say, the eighties, the biosphere, climate etc would be in much better shape!

vtsnowedin wrote:

clv101 wrote:

Mark wrote: We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?

There is an interesting question about whether it's actually a good idea of 'slow the decline'... or putting it another way, delay the crash, extend and pretend etc... In the long run, say in 1-200 years, I expect the sooner the crash the better life will be for our descendants. If we do manage to keep the show on the road for another few decades, the crash, when it comes will be worse.

If, for example there'd been a global civilisation collapse with a significant degree of population die-off in, say, the eighties, the biosphere, climate etc would be in much better shape!

For those that survive the crash when it does come I suspect the only important question is whether or not nuclear war played a part in the die off. All else pails beside that question.

clv101 wrote:......pretty much the worse thing for the 200 or 400 year survivors would be another 100 years of 'business as usual'.