"And yes, ST is right, it's the cost of the various energies we use that limits our use, so it matters to us how much energy we use. So I guess on that basis, the answer to the thread's question is a resounding 'YES'."

If you don't 'personalise' it you impersonalise it and create a barrier that insulates individuals from the consequences of their actions. A lot of the argument in 'What The Green Movement Got Wrong' was about the failure of the Green Movement to engage with the people whose behaviour they were trying to modify. I'm sure something similar is a barrier to entry on here. Unless you know the characters involved in these discussions it can appear a REALLY scary place. Notice how many people come on here and begin their posts with a variation on: "I'm a newbie so please be gentle with me".

Pointless arguing beyond the personal-ish level because none of the big boys whose behaviour really does need modifying is listening. It is, after all, just a forum.

Oh, so we really need to decide if the "we" in the thread title means the Royal or the Universal "we".

Posted By: SteamyTeaJust looked at yesterdays National Grid figures and Scotland supplied 3.37% of the total UK electrical energy demand

Ah, but how much of the oil/gas that makes us nearly self sufficient is produced there?

Still plenty by fracking?

> var r = 6371e3;
> 9e9 * 2e3 / (4 * Math.PI * r * r)
0.035289656487157844

Yep, 2 kW each¹ giving 0.035 W/m² is OK, 20 kW each would be climatically significant (though nothing like as significant as the effect of CO₂ emissions to generate this amount of energy). The average European currently uses 6 kW and the average American nearly twice that. Given energy this cheap and they'd both use a lot more.

¹ For a reasonable guess at late 21^st century world population if nothing horrible happens first and there's lots of energy available.

Posted By: tonyThese will run out soon and then what

Before they run out viable alternatives/substitutes will be in use.
I think we are in interesting times as we know the consequences of 'peak' this and that, environmental costs etc, but we don't know where we are heading at the moment. The majority on here realise that using less is, at the moment, the cheapest method to reduce and extend, but we do not know what is around the corner (except that a perceptual motion machine is not).
So if you had to take a punt on what will be the major source of world energy when fossil fuels become uneconomical, which would it be?

solar

Posted By: SteamyTeawe do not know what is around the corner (except that a perceptual motion machine is not)

proposition for an Oxford Union Debate (first define 'what does it mean, if anything?'). ST as Proposer; any seconder? We have Joiner as chief Opposer.

We're presently in the debris of steam-age thinking, in which we still basically create brute resistances upon which various crude physical phenomena can batter themselves explosively (creating heat/friction), leaving a remnant of energy we can use equally crudely.

Schauberger spent his life pointing out that nature only uses such processes for destruction, at end-of-life. For creation and growth nature uses what he called Implosion, typified by the in-folding movement of water in a mountain stream.

His early observation of big trout hurling themselves 3m up a waterfall from a standing-start in a shallow pool, with little apparent muscular effort, led to his 'trout turbine' developments. These mimicked the vortexing action of fluids in a fish's gills or a bird's wing-tip feathers, apparently harnessing energy from 'somewhere'. He faced the usual denigration from establishment scientists, still in full force whenever 'perpetual motion' is deployed as a self-evident put-down. Except the open-minded SS, who gave him every facility which prob resulted in a zero-gravity machine (aka flying saucer) in the last days of WW2, which American techno snatch-squads grabbed, technology till on top-secret list.

Anyway, without a doubt, it's foolish to be sure that bizzare new energy sources under development at this minute are all just a con. Waiting for peer-revieved repeatable experimental results before it's safe to switch one's mind onto such possibilities, is to miss a big trick - time will tell. Start looking around now, with a bit of credulousness (aka benefit of the doubt) and let the post-steam-age seep in.

I can't be the only one who picked up on ST's typo, surely.

Or are you lot too polite to mention it?

We appear to ignore the fundamental that energy cannot be destroyed which should surely prioritise minimising need and waste irrespective of source. Current UK energy proposals indicate at least two thirds of imported fuel will be converted into waste heat creating direct global warming, £billions in trade balance deliberately wasted !! So personal opinion on thread question is "yes".

Posted By: fostertomStart looking around now, with a bit of credulousness (aka benefit of the doubt) and let the post-steam-age seep in.

does not equal

Posted By: JSHarrislosing any money you may invest in all the dodgy ones

At this stage, I'd be reading diverse, even esoteric background stuff, tuning into new ideas, rather than investing. Let the pioneer enthusiasts do the hardware (someone will provide the money, don't worry).

As I do/have myself, eating/sleeping solar capture/storage, new ways of doing buildable near-PH etc, even finding a few clients willing to put their money where my mouth is.

Extreme intensity at the edge is what creates the hitherto unimagined (Lennon, Jagger) - waiting for guaranteed investment opportunities, peer-reviewed research etc does not.