• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Hydrogen cars are the solution not drilling....

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
WTF? Where do you get your information? Talk about FUD.

We don't need 10,000 nuclear power plants, nor was I proposing that we completely wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The primary argument for EV's is that power plants and electric motors are very efficient while the ICE in your car is not. We're talking several orders more efficient, where a typical EV can get the fossil fuel equivalent of ~150 mpg.
The only reason EV is a "fad & for rich and famous" right now is because the technology is still lacking and very expensive. But so were ICE cars once too, with the similar arguments used against them then as you're using against EV now.

Oh, and BTW, the earth constantly receives 174 petawatts (174,000 terawatts) from the sun at all times. In fact, the sun already provides ALL of the energy on earth except for volcanic and geothermal. Fossil fuels themselves are just stored sunshine. Getting that 10 TW solely from solar power (which includes wind and hydro BTW) would not be that difficult. And IF we can't do that, then humanity is fscked anyway, because all other energy sources will eventually run out.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy

I look at off-shore drilling, drilling in ANWR, etc as a short-term solution to get us by while we work towards a long-term solution. There's no reason we need to let high oil prices continue to drag our economy down.

Heck, maybe one day they'll figure out how to get oil from oil shale in an efficient and safe manner as technology improves. We have something like 1.5 trillion barrels of oil worth in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That dwarfs the Saudi fields. Canada has some huge oil shale reserves too. It's no more pie in the sky than any other future solution.
I understand. I guess I just wish that the candidates would talk to us more about their plan Bs, Cs, and Ds for this issue. I want them to convince me that they are ready to use multiple solutions which work well together in order to solve the one problem. Both have kind of hinted at this but I have read nothing so far which has really grabbed me. I may just be asking for too much too fast. I don't know.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Toyota can't even get enough batteries to meet prius demand (only 64,000 a year) and y'all think the whole world can drive electric cars?
That's because the Prius batteries are still NiMH.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
Wut? Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our energy, and we only have like 100 facilities. Plus a lot of these are older designs, newer reactor designs are larger and more efficient.

And fuel requirements wouldn't be as big of a deal if we built breeder reactors and reprocessed our spent fuel rods. I'd be much more worried about radioactive waste. Nuclear just has to last another 50 years or so, by then we'll more than likely have commercial fusion reactors.
Thats false. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our household electrical needs which would skyrocket once we add cars, forklifts, buses and all things that use energy to the grid by a factor of 90.

Don't take my word for it here is Richard Smalley of Rice University, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry giving some prospective.

" We have to somehow wean ourselves of our dependence on oil, and the
sooner the better. What is less well known is the incredible
magnitude of the worldwide energy challenge that is before us. The
problem is not just oil. Somehow, within the next few decades, we
must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10
terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply.
To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000
breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission,
where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who
will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs?
Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at
that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon
enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human
suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil
and gas reserves on the planet?
Bullshit. Do you have any idea how much slack production there is already in the existing electrical grid? Electricity is the world's most perishable commodity. Any that is not used never existed in the first place, which is why we have power plants around the world spinning practically nothing all night every night. Just taking up that slack capacity could power most of the demand created by EV's. The notion that we would have to increase electrical production by a factor of 90 just to power EV's is pure FUD.

Nuclear power currently makes up ~15% of the world's energy production with 439 reactors worldwide. Even assuming that nuclear would have to provide 100% of world energy production (which would never happen) and that technology didn't improve (highly unlikely), we'd only need ~3,000 reactors.
However, that is once again not going to be necessary. Ever.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
WTF? Where do you get your information? Talk about FUD.

We don't need 10,000 nuclear power plants, nor was I proposing that we completely wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The primary argument for EV's is that power plants and electric motors are very efficient while the ICE in your car is not. We're talking several orders more efficient, where a typical EV can get the fossil fuel equivalent of ~150 mpg.
The only reason EV is a "fad & for rich and famous" right now is because the technology is still lacking and very expensive. But so were ICE cars once too, with the similar arguments used against them then as you're using against EV now.

Oh, and BTW, the earth constantly receives 174 petawatts (174,000 terawatts) from the sun at all times. In fact, the sun already provides ALL of the energy on earth except for volcanic and geothermal. Fossil fuels themselves are just stored sunshine. Getting that 10 TW solely from solar power (which includes wind and hydro BTW) would not be that difficult. And IF we can't do that, then humanity is fscked anyway, because all other energy sources will eventually run out.
Read up I quoted the scientist yes at a minimum 10,000 breeder reactors he says- what else do you dispute? Peak Uranium is a fact google it your own self.

As for your second part sure we could harness the suns power clearing all of south america and put solar panels up I'm sure the locals would like that you still havnt solved the problem of expense and oil needed and rare elements to make the panels.
 

Rustican

Member
Feb 7, 2005
120
0
76
Originally posted by: Zebo

Thats false. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our household electrical needs which would skyrocket once we add cars, forklifts, buses and all things that use energy to the grid by a factor of 90.

Don't take my word for it here is Richard Smalley of Rice University, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry giving some prospective.

" We have to somehow wean ourselves of our dependence on oil, and the
sooner the better. What is less well known is the incredible
magnitude of the worldwide energy challenge that is before us. The
problem is not just oil. Somehow, within the next few decades, we
must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10
terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply.
To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000
breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission,
where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who
will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs?
Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at
that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon
enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human
suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil
and gas reserves on the planet?
From reading the above quote it seems that Smalley is talking about world consumption of power not just the US. For 10K nuclear plants in the world i'll trade in all the coal plants. Can you post a link to the whole article to clarify.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: Rustican
Originally posted by: Zebo

Thats false. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our household electrical needs which would skyrocket once we add cars, forklifts, buses and all things that use energy to the grid by a factor of 90.

Don't take my word for it here is Richard Smalley of Rice University, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry giving some prospective.

" We have to somehow wean ourselves of our dependence on oil, and the
sooner the better. What is less well known is the incredible
magnitude of the worldwide energy challenge that is before us. The
problem is not just oil. Somehow, within the next few decades, we
must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10
terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply.
To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000
breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission,
where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who
will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs?
Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at
that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon
enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human
suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil
and gas reserves on the planet?
From reading the above quote it seems that Smalley is talking about world consumption of power not just the US. For 10K nuclear plants in the world i'll trade in all the coal plants. Can you post a link to the whole article to clarify.
Thats a nice thought but at 1 billion dollars a piece and with nothing to turn them seems like kind of a waste.

Link requested
http://web.archive.org/web/200...rd.edu/nur/oil_war.pdf
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Read up I quoted the scientist yes at a minimum 10,000 breeder reactors he says- what else do you dispute? Peak Uranium is a fact google it your own self.

As for your second part sure we could harness the suns power clearing all of south america and put solar panels up I'm sure the locals would like that you still havnt solved the problem of expense and oil needed and rare elements to make the panels.
I'm not arguing against peak uranium, I'm arguing against this notion that EVs would require subsisting on nuclear fission power only.

Solar panels are only a very small part of capturing solar energy. Read up, pal. You're way off and apparently being being fed nothing but FUD.

There is no ONE solution to the world's power problem. I suppose it's easy to play the "We're all doomed!" game by constantly insisting that there must be, but that's not how it is going to be.

One of my favorite solutions that could be implemented right now BTW is the Becker wind turbine. They're relatively small and inexpensive, and extremely efficient, especially in areas of high wind turbulence (like on top of urban buildings) where tradition windmill-style windpower generators don't work well. You could put one of these on top of every building in every major city in the US and each one of those buildings would become an electrical producer instead of consumer almost overnight.

edit: http://www.aerotecture.com/
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
Wut? Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our energy, and we only have like 100 facilities. Plus a lot of these are older designs, newer reactor designs are larger and more efficient.

And fuel requirements wouldn't be as big of a deal if we built breeder reactors and reprocessed our spent fuel rods. I'd be much more worried about radioactive waste. Nuclear just has to last another 50 years or so, by then we'll more than likely have commercial fusion reactors.
Thats false. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our household electrical needs which would skyrocket once we add cars, forklifts, buses and all things that use energy to the grid by a factor of 90.

Don't take my word for it here is Richard Smalley of Rice University, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry giving some prospective.

" We have to somehow wean ourselves of our dependence on oil, and the
sooner the better. What is less well known is the incredible
magnitude of the worldwide energy challenge that is before us. The
problem is not just oil. Somehow, within the next few decades, we
must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10
terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply.
To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000
breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission,
where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who
will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs?
Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at
that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon
enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human
suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil
and gas reserves on the planet?
Bullshit. Do you have any idea how much slack production there is already in the existing electrical grid? Electricity is the world's most perishable commodity. Any that is not used never existed in the first place, which is why we have power plants around the world spinning practically nothing all night every night. Just taking up that slack capacity could power most of the demand created by EV's. The notion that we would have to increase electrical production by a factor of 90 just to power EV's is pure FUD.

Nuclear power currently makes up ~15% of the world's energy production with 439 reactors worldwide. Even assuming that nuclear would have to provide 100% of world energy production (which would never happen) and that technology didn't improve (highly unlikely), we'd only need ~3,000 reactors.
However, that is once again not going to be necessary. Ever.
The only BS is guys like you posting pie in the sky solutions to our energy problems. Hope no one is duped into actually investing money in these crack pot ideas which defy physical realities and economics. I'll continue to invest in oil thank you very much.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434


Not really. To be honest, I am not entirely sure what the best way is for the government to do this. What I do know is I want to vote for the candidate who is motivated enough to find that answer and has not provided me with potential solutions which I disagree with. I am not against extra drilling if done in a way which I believe is proper, but there is no way that I am going to side with that option unless I am heavily convinced that the result of such drilling will be accompanied with some very serious moves to hasten progress that leads to getting America away from oil as much as possible.



They don't have a clue either, they are trying to top ethanol.

We should keep looking for other technologies(and refine what we now have) and we should drill here so we can become a bit more energy independent.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Zebo
Read up I quoted the scientist yes at a minimum 10,000 breeder reactors he says- what else do you dispute? Peak Uranium is a fact google it your own self.

As for your second part sure we could harness the suns power clearing all of south america and put solar panels up I'm sure the locals would like that you still havnt solved the problem of expense and oil needed and rare elements to make the panels.
I'm not arguing against peak uranium, I'm arguing against this notion that EVs would require subsisting on nuclear fission power only.

Solar panels are only a very small part of capturing solar energy. Read up, pal. You're way off and apparently being being fed nothing but FUD.

There is no ONE solution to the world's power problem. I suppose it's easy to play the "We're all doomed!" game by constantly insisting that there must be, but that's not how it is going to be.

One of my favorite solutions that could be implemented right now BTW is the Becker wind turbine. They're relatively small and inexpensive, and extremely efficient, especially in areas of high wind turbulence (like on top of urban buildings) where tradition windmill-style windpower generators don't work well.
I agree a myriad of solutions could fix our problem. It's too late too expensive for our strapped governments. Wall street won't even touch it instead preferring to invest with something with a actual return like weapons for getting oil.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
The batteries in the cars suck. There was a university that came out with new technology where the battery can last at least 2x as long.
Put the money into that and you have a winner
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
The only BS is guys like you posting pie in the sky solutions to our energy problems. Hope no one is duped into actually investing money in these crack pot ideas which defy physical realities and economics. I'll continue to invest in oil thank you very much.
Thanks for revealing your true motivation behind your FUD-spreading at least. :roll:

That at least explains your straw man about how we'd have to get completely off fossil fuel use (and switch completely to nuclear) in order to switch to EV.

The only people trying to defy physical realities and economics are those like you who insist that there can only be one solution to the energy issue. The oil companies thank you for your FUD spreading and other support.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
I agree a myriad of solutions could fix our problem. It's too late too expensive for our strapped governments. Wall street won't even touch it instead preferring to invest with something with a actual return like weapons for getting oil.
Then it's a good thing we won't have to depend upon govts and Wall Street, now isn't it?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Zebo
I agree a myriad of solutions could fix our problem. It's too late too expensive for our strapped governments. Wall street won't even touch it instead preferring to invest with something with a actual return like weapons for getting oil.
Then it's a good thing we won't have to depend upon govts and Wall Street, now isn't it?
Yeah you can depend on upstarts looking for a "optimistic" investors like Tesla motor cars. But the reality is it will take 45 trillion dollars to wean ourselves off oil and only govts and a collection of them can make it happen. Everything from mining and isolating lithium on a grand scale to building damns and solar plants requires huge investment only our cooperative governments or markets can make. Until then alternatives will always a fad because the ROI is poor compared to oil even at $10 a gallon.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,547
1,053
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Zebo
Read up I quoted the scientist yes at a minimum 10,000 breeder reactors he says- what else do you dispute? Peak Uranium is a fact google it your own self.

As for your second part sure we could harness the suns power clearing all of south america and put solar panels up I'm sure the locals would like that you still havnt solved the problem of expense and oil needed and rare elements to make the panels.
I'm not arguing against peak uranium, I'm arguing against this notion that EVs would require subsisting on nuclear fission power only.

Solar panels are only a very small part of capturing solar energy. Read up, pal. You're way off and apparently being being fed nothing but FUD.

There is no ONE solution to the world's power problem. I suppose it's easy to play the "We're all doomed!" game by constantly insisting that there must be, but that's not how it is going to be.

One of my favorite solutions that could be implemented right now BTW is the Becker wind turbine. They're relatively small and inexpensive, and extremely efficient, especially in areas of high wind turbulence (like on top of urban buildings) where tradition windmill-style windpower generators don't work well. You could put one of these on top of every building in every major city in the US and each one of those buildings would become an electrical producer instead of consumer almost overnight.

edit: http://www.aerotecture.com/
Thorium FTW. I've been reading stuff about India having enough Thorium to power the world for many many millennia.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,547
1,053
126
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Estimated World thorium resources

(RAR + Inferred to USD 80/kg Th): Country Tonnes % of world
Australia
452 000

18
USA
400 000

16
Turkey
344 000

14
India
319 000

13
Venezuela
300 000

12
Brazil
221 000

9
Norway
132 000

5
Egypt
100 000

4
Russia
75 000

3
Greenland
54 000

2
Canada
44 000

2
South Africa
18 000

1
Other countries
33 000

1




World total
2 492 000

 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: Zebo
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
Wut? Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our energy, and we only have like 100 facilities. Plus a lot of these are older designs, newer reactor designs are larger and more efficient.

And fuel requirements wouldn't be as big of a deal if we built breeder reactors and reprocessed our spent fuel rods. I'd be much more worried about radioactive waste. Nuclear just has to last another 50 years or so, by then we'll more than likely have commercial fusion reactors.
Thats false. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our household electrical needs which would skyrocket once we add cars, forklifts, buses and all things that use energy to the grid by a factor of 90.

Don't take my word for it here is Richard Smalley of Rice University, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry giving some prospective.

" We have to somehow wean ourselves of our dependence on oil, and the
sooner the better. What is less well known is the incredible
magnitude of the worldwide energy challenge that is before us. The
problem is not just oil. Somehow, within the next few decades, we
must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10
terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply.
To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000
breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission,
where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who
will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs?
Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at
that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon
enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human
suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil
and gas reserves on the planet?
Yeah my bad, I realized you were talking about how much it would increase if we started going electric for cars after I posted. Still, that 10,000 number seems really high. It'd be nice to know how he came up with that. Surely he took into account that gasoline ICE is only about 30% efficient, whereas electric motors are about upwards of 90% efficient.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it more, the 10,000 number sounds reasonable when you consider that he is talking about projected worldwide energy needs very many decades from now. His claim is based on a world population of 10 billion, which isn't supposed to happen until about 2050 at the earliest; I've seen some projections put it at 2100 or later, and most expect world population to crest at 10 or 11 billion, so it's not like the insane rate of growth we've seen will continue forever. Eventually China and India will become like other developed nations where population is steady, or if anything declining.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,665
0
0
750 million automobiles on the road in the world and climbing..
A dozen or so hydrogen filling stations..

Be prepared for very long lines in your pipe dream fantasy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY