[FoRK] The Ni-64 "theory" of "cold fusion" (more energy hacks)

Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Mon Jun 14 21:17:38 PDT 2010

--- On Mon, 6/14/10, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:

> Some interesting back-of-envelope figures, here.  If
> this is correct, upping the production of nickel globally /
> annually by a factor of a little over two could substitute
> for all oil-related energy production.  (There are a
> few unrealistic assumptions there.  At least.)
>   http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/if-nickel-64-theory-of-cold-fusion-is.html
> Nickel is the fifth most common element on Earth. 
> Russia and Canada are currently the top producers,
> accounting for about 40% and 30% respectively of global
> production.
> To head off the OB_EUGEN critique, like all the proposed
> fixes beyond e.g. ubiquitous solar, this one's obviously
> transient / non-sustainable over the long haul, and only
> economically viable over some range of time.  (Though,
> to be fair, even solar is "transient" on  long-enough
> time scale.)

I still seem to be missing something crucial every time someone says they can replace oil with something else. 

Small Fact: A significant percentage of oil goes into propelling untethered vehicles all over the place. And another significant portion is used for chemical feedstocks for, oh, about a gazillion things in our daily lives.

How, exactly, are those functions of oil going to be replaced with things like solar, cold fusion, whatever-other-static-generation-magic?

Yeah, I *know* you can use static electrical generation to charge batteries. But we can barely do cars right now and, even so, it would take years to replace any significant percentage of them. We can't do trucks or buses or trains or ships at all.

And, yeah, I *know* you can do electric trains, too. And buses/trolleys in a dense urban environment. But we mostly don't do them here in North America and most other parts of the planet. So, another total infrastructure replacement. 

And even if we could somehow rush that and ignore the car thing and just let personal transportation crash, there's still trucks and buses between urban centres. Trucks are our main source of transportation of goods in most of the world. Not just within urban centres but between them as well. And buses would be the only hope for personal transportation if we can't, or choose not to, replace the personal vehicle fleet in a realistic timeframe.

And what about the ship fleets. What's the timeframe to convert them to something-not-oil? And what's the something-not-oil that might actually work? 

Ummmm... I almost forgot about tractors. What about tractors?

And, of course there's all those pesky chemical feedstocks. There's not much we use or wear today that's not made from petrochemicals.

 ?????  What the hell am I missing when I react that someone's up their ass whenever they start talking about replacing oil with something that's only good for static electrical generation? How much oil is really used for static electrical generation anyway? Isn't most of it used for untethered transportation of one sort or another plus chemical feedstocks? Isn't coal the main hydrocarbon used for electrical generation? Isn't natural gas the primary liquid hydrocarbon used for electrical generation?  ?????

         ...ken... <Feeling either incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant.....>

More information about the FoRK mailing list