Or completely unreliable.
Spoilers Why do they need Dilithium?
- Thread starter Fateor
- Start date
That's also another plot hole.
And they should've been able to grow Synthetic Dilithium Crystals from scratch by the 26th century at least.
We can already manufacture Petroleum from Algae using base materials. We just need to scale it up in production and get mass production going to the point that it's cheaper than pumping oil out of the ground.
Electric Cars are primarily limited by the weight of Batteries and the return on range. Only very recently was the Battery to Weight ratio good enough. Especially compared to ICE (Internal Combustion Engines). Then there's the fact that ICE is constantly improving and re-tooling and re-training across the entire Logistics and Maintenance chain isn't a free act. There are alot more moving parts than you think. Don't forget supply chains to feed batteries, there are quite a few Rare Earth Minerals that use un-ethical mining in Africa like Cobalt which causes ALOT of issues.
The volume to energy density of Petroleum is incredibly good compared to current day batteries, that's why automobiles and large aircraft still use it. And Synthetic Petroleum + Carbon Negative Air Scrubbers are one of the technological options into the future that suck the CO² and re-use the Carbon for Synthetic Petroleum.
Geothermal has ALOT of maintenance issues where the pipes get corroded at a far faster rate due to the hot water. That makes the operational costs of Geothermal hard to justify to most Power Plant owners. It's not a magical solution until you can figure out how to make pipes that are corrosion resistant at a rate that the cost of pipe replacement isn't a financial burden or resource manufacturing burden.
As far as Thorium, we're still working out Molten Salt Reactors, but those have a very promising future since we have plenty of Thorium and we can downgrade existing Nuclear Waste from Millions of Years of Half-Life to ~300 Years of Half-Life which is far more manageable due to mixing in said Nuclear Waste into the Molten Salt and transforming it into a less toxic waste product.
I'll have to disagree with you on that, there will be plenty of reasons to use M/A-M reactors due to the abundance of Hydrogen in the Universe and the process to refine Deuterium & Anti-Deuterium is well known.
That and efficient Energy generation is why it's used, is it the ONLY power source, no it shouldn't be.
It's not as simple as you plot it out to be.
Despite the fact that we have different fuels to generate power, we still haven't made fundamental changes to the power generation.
Outside of the Photo Voltaic Effect, or Thermo-Electric, our primary form of Power Generation is still spinning a Turbine with Electro-Magnets on the end. That fundamental portion hasn't changed for a very long time.
The IRL fuels and source of Power have changed, but the base Electrical generation hasn't changed.
Wind Turbines spin the Generator
ICE spins the Crank Shaft or Rotor to spin a Alternator or directly drive the Transfer Case that goes to Wheels or Propellers.
Same with Geo Thermal Energy, the Steam that comes out still spins a Turbine for Electrical Generation
Nuclear is the same, it heats up water that spins a Electrical Generating Turbine.
(Coal/Natural Gas) also pulls off the same thing by heating up Water or some form of liquid to gas medium to spin the Electrical Turbine.
The larger basis for UFP StarShips and Space Vessels is the Electrical Energy Generation which was the conversion of whatever Fuel Source into EPS (Electro Plasma System) where their plasma can be transmitted long distance over EPS Grid that converted the EPS into usable Electricity to run the various systems connected to it.
But the biggest plot hole of course is that Romulans already use the AQS (Artificial Quantum Singuarlity) reactor that converts the energy into EPS already.
There's no reason why the UFP shouldn't be using that form of power generation on top of M/A-M reaction. They're generally compatible systems.
And that's the bigger plot hole.
Not to mention Tetryon Reactors.
And yet the Federation has still used M/A-M all the way up to "The Burn" for various reasons. Science isn't something you just magically bypass, fundamental laws of physics aren't something you can easily overcome just because you throw more computer power to simulate things.
Last edited:
It's just bad writing on the writers part who don't know enough about Quantum Slipstream and didn't watch enough about Voyager to properly extrapolate future uses.
Let's call it what it is, bad writers who don't understand existing cannon and refuses to do so.
Book mentions recrystalizing dilithium but he doesn't have access to the technology.
How exactly do we know X should happen by Y? There no magic formula to predict the future that I'm aware of. How many predictions of what the 21st Century will be like have come true?
How about we don't?
No, M/A-M reactors are one of the most "Energy Efficient" forms of power generation, that's why it stays around. The abundancy of Hydrogen in the universe makes it a truly "Renewable Resource". Hydrogen and it's conversion to Deuterium & Anti-Deuterium is amongst the most basic forms of Fuel Storage you can make. That's why it's a "Renewable Resource". It's TRULY GREEN. The whole point of Renewable is that the source of energy is abundant and easy to acquire along with being natural and everywhere. Hydrogen is that element in the Universe.
Again, see my Geothermal spiel above, but it's not as good as you think it is.
Petroleum's natural Energy Density and refined forms is what makes it as popular as it is.
Same with Car's, Planes, etc. But see above.
Again, the writers try to equate M/A-M with fossil fuels, but the writers don't understand jack squat about technology. Hydrogen & M/A-M is truly one of the GREENEST and most renewable fuel sources in the Universe.
It's why Sci-Fi generall goes for the M/A-M reactors, because of it's renewability, efficiency, and lack of waste.
That's a Private StarShip Owner issue. StarFleet has had access to the tech for centuries.
Are we talking scientific tech or just random predictions by wannabe nostradamus who have no technical backgrounds?
Both.
Well, we don't know where Book got his ship or where it was manufactured, but it doesn't look like UFP or Federation made.
So who knows what tech goes in it.
As far as Scientific Predictions, we've had a decent hit rate, far better than random "Seers / Visionaries / Nostradamus" types who predict random events.
Using Science as a basis, you can extrapolate future technologies with far more accuracy then random wannabe "Baba Vanga's" out there.
What predicted in the 19th Century is common in the 21st?
In the 19th century, science was still in it's infancy. The vast majority of people didn't have a good grasp of science.
Doesn't answer the question. I'm sure folks in the 26th Century feel the same about 24th Century science.
The predictions of what the 21st century will be like were not entirely incorrect though.
It was stated decades ago that we COULD have done that if we wanted to, but we didn't due to not having the political will to do so.
Our main issues stem from an outdated socio-economic system we have.
Today, its becoming more difficult to extrapolate future technological breakthroughs... not because something is 'impossible' but because things are changing at a vastly faster pace (exponential).
Its an acceleration of acceleration.
and yet voyager never use the tech again so
Sticking with petroleum is just bad.
Solar, Wind and Geothermal alone are more viable sources.
We had numerous viable designs for better batteries for a while, but it takes ages for them to get any kind of funding to be propelled forward.
At any rate, modern batteries are already powerful enough for cars and energy storage, and all of the materials for those can be easily sourced from landfills alone (there is 0 need to mine raw materials like cobalt, etc.).
There is 0 need to extract rare earth minerals from the Earth itself. The landfills are chockfull of matter which has be recycled/converted into materials for batteries.
However, recycling for the most part on this kind of level is simply not done.
Actually, these are very old concerns that don't really apply when proper planning is used... and both updated and modern Geothermal power plants don't encounter huge issues with corrosion.
With adequate preparation, this kind of 'maintenance' (if it pops up to begin with) is routine and relatively minimal.
And in addition to that, we do live in a day and age where we can DESIGN pipes with synthetic corrosive-resistant materials.
Also, Iceland has been using Geothermal for a VERY long time... however, a Geothermal power plant in Lardarelo/Italy has been in operation for over 100 years with a VASTLY increased operational capacity since 1913 and is one of the largest contributors of Geothermal electricity power generation today - I'm pretty sure that if your corrosion concerns were valid, most Geothermal facilities would not be in operation today.
Furthermore, Geothermal power plants are actually cheaper than Nuclear power plants of equal capacity in the long run because they have no running fuel costs.
Also, an MIT study from 2006 stated we could access (with the technology we had then) 200 Zettajoules of Geothermal capacity from the Earth... and 2000 Zettajoules with improved technology (currently, Humanity is using about 0.55 Zettajoules per year).
Oh and maintaining geothermal reservoirs is not particularly difficult with adequate preparation.... not to mention expanding on the capacity over time in existing wells.
Geothermal has a lot of misconceptions (and at one point, some of the concerns were valid, but it was demonstrated time and again that proper planning/preparation can mitigate those concerns).
Furthermore, the industry has been increasingly talking about viability of using non-used oil wells to convert them into Geothermal power generation facilities.
Most of the work (digging) was already done since the oil industry already digs to needed depths viable for electricity production.
Its not a 'magical' solution in any way... like with any technology, proper planning is needed to mitigate any problems... however, its FAR more viable than fossil fuels which is also clean, and if the world can spend the time and money to build thousands of km worth of pipes to transport gas and oil to where they need to get (not to mention maintain them - because they require huge amount of maintenance), then it would be dead easy in comparison to build needed infrastructure for Geothermal electricity production.
It was also stated that if just a fraction of subsidies that go into fossil fuels every year was shuffled to Geothermal, it would actually OVERTAKE fossil fuels in power generation pretty quickly.
A small correction, researchers apparently already found a way to zap existing nuclear waste from uranium power plants which would drop their radioactivity from millions of years to mere 30 minutes.
Also, we had the ability to recycle nuclear waste into Plutonium since the 1950-ies, however, some nations like USA opposed this because they thought it would encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In regards to Molten Salt Reactors, there are currently two of them in operation.
So its not like its impossible to implement Thorium right now.
We haven't made fundamental changes to power generation because we live in a world with an outdated socio-economic system and vested interests.
The fossil fuels industry is receiving mind-boggling subsidies every single year. A fraction of those subsidies could have propelled renewables to the point where they completely replace fossil fuels.
Even without subsidies, solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels.
And yet, the efficiency and environmental sustainability of certain power generation options (such as Geothermal) easily surpasses others.
Also, just because we hadn't changed certain moving parts in 100 years, it doesn't mean this method will continue to go on for the next 50 to 100 years.
A lot of what our society does is based on OUTDATED methodologies... but we've also only enjoyed electricity for about 132 years.
And we already have plans for non-moving parts.
In fact, take maglev trains... we could have created a whole network of maglev trains which are far more efficient in terms of energy usage since 1974 and because they have no moving parts, maintenance is minimal.
So its not like non-moving parts don't exist... or will not exist for power generation (actually, fanless wind turbines already exist).
Also, nuclear waste can be used to create batteries that lasts thousands of years.
Practically speaking, humanity is at a turning point where new inventions and fundamental changes to baseline methodologies are introduced.
But as I said, we could have shortened this time frame by quite a lot if we went in a different direction (socio-economic system-wise) decades ago... still, we are where we are.
and yet voyager never use the tech again so
It used QS once when first encountering it on the fake Dauntless (and Arturis)... and it used it the second time 4 months later in Timeless.
Trek has a nasty habit of introducing new technology which is forgotten by next week.... but Quantum Slipstream is one of those which was used a second time, and even mentioned a third time (in Voyager's dealing with the Think Thank).
From the way TNG's 24th Century was portrayed, the average person had a far better grasp of science then we do today by a huge margin.
Which doesn't dismiss the idea that people from 200 years in the future would look back on them and think "how quaint they were with their primitive ideas about the universe". And of course we didn't meet too many average people in TNG.
Solar makes sense in certain regions, Wind is also regional dependent.
Geothermal depends on ease of access to the heat source.
Everything has a operational cost to get it going.
Making something work in the lab is drastically different from mass production. Figuring out Mass Production methodologies to make it cheap isn't easy. As far as sourcing it from landiflls, the retrieval process of all raw matter that you need including cobalt isn't a easy process, it's manual labor intensive at the moment and splitting everything down to it's constitutent parts isn't cost effective at the moment.
The recycling process isn't done because it is INCREDIBLY hard to sort through the vast piles of junk and breaking them back down to raw materials. If that part was easy, we would've done it by now.
And yet we aren't replacing all existing forms of power with GeoThermal plants right now.
http://www.renewables-info.com/inte...s/why_dont_we_use_more_geothermal_energy.html
So what we have here is an environmentally friendly energy source with enormous potential and yet only a tiny fraction of it is being used. Worldwide, 12,635 megawatts (MW) of geothermal power is online in 2015, with current estimates predicting around 21,500 MW in 2020. Given total geothermal potential these are really small numbers, and not something global geothermal industry can be proud of. For example, U.S. geothermal power plants currently provide only around 0.4% of total U.S. electricity generation.
The Earth's geothermal resources are more than enough to supply entire humanity's energy needs but sadly not today, and definitely not with today's technologies.
What is the main problem with currently available geothermal technologies? The first thing is the reach of these technologies which is very limited as only areas near the tectonic boundaries offer economic viability of new geothermal projects.
High capital costs are usually main stumbling block for new geothermal power projects. According to 2010 data the estimated costs of geothermal power plant construction and well drilling are at €2-5 million per generated MW of electricity.
Geothermal drilling is also one of the main reasons why world doesn't use more geothermal energy. Geothermal drilling is significantly more complicated than oil drilling because geothermal drilling has to go through igneous and metamorphic rocks, which are harder and lot more fractured compared to sedimentary rocks through which most oil wells are drilled. Also, lot higher temperatures are involved compared to those associated with oil wells.
What global geothermal energy industry needs is a major technological development. This, however, will be difficult to achieve given the fact that geothermal drillers create only a small number of new geothermal wells each year so there's not a lot to build and learn from.
Some technologies, like for instance Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) technology offer hope that harnessing geothermal energy could spread to much wider area in years to come. The working principle of this technology is to create a subsurface fracture system in which water is added through injection wells and then is heated by contact with the rock and returns to the surface through production wells, as in naturally occurring hydrothermal systems.
To conclude, the technologies to harness geothermal energy will have to significantly improve in order for geothermal energy to become more used on global scale. Less expensive drilling, wider area to harness the resource from and reduced capital costs – these are all the solutions on which global geothermal energy industry should build its future progress.
As already stated above geothermal energy has practically unlimited potential, and could theoretically power our entire planet. Finding the adequate technology to exploit this potential is essential for geothermal energy to become one of the most important energy sources in years to come.
That requires the plant owners to properly plan and maintain them.
You should be a spokesman for Big GeoThermal.
See Above
And we'll still need Petroleum for Aviation / Space along with Long Distance hauling of goods in reasonable amount of time. Until you get past the batterie's power density to weight/mass issue compared to losing weight while using Petrol, Petrol is more cost effective at the moment.
Certain Short Distance Hauling makes sense with Pure Electric Trucks, I've seen them around for short distance hauls from the central distribution center to local markets. I'm all for that conversion where it makes financial sense.
But at the moment, the battery tech isn't here and Hybrid's make more sense at the moment. I've already done alot of the basic math to see the best possible result to get more people onto Greener methods of transportation in everyday automoting, and Plug-In Hybrid vehicles with batteries designed to move a vehicle at 50 mi of the vehicles GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Restriction) for the life-cycle of the battery (12 years or 50% of it's original capacity) is more than enough. The expectation of my regulation is that every day, your plug-in hybrid vehicle can carry up to the GVWR which is far more payload than an average person uses on a daily basis, for the rest of it's expected operational life-time. Within that Life-time, you'll have more than enough battery for day to day use with a bit extra for natural battery degradation over it's expected usage before the battery needs to be taken out to recycled.
Fossil Fuels will have it's place as long as we still need it for Aviation / Flight & Outter Space along with cost effective & fast moving vehicles.
Even if we remove the subsidies and make it pure neutral where the government isn't interfering with the market in ANY WAY shape or form, there will still be need for Fossil Fuel.
If you can figure out how to make Anti-Grav / Repulsor technology work off of pure electricity at a efficient rate, then you'd be the next great inventor. Until that happens, we have to use the tech that works right now.
Links?
No, we don't. We needed Plutnoium because of making Nukes. That's part of the benefits.
The regulatory and investment hurdles to getting it approved everywhere for it to make mass market use is still there.
Why don't you try to change it since you are such a Futurist Thinker. Try pushing your views onto the world stage if you think you can get any traction.
In certain areas in certain circumstances. It's not a universal catch all, there are optimum ways of using each tech in optimum locations. It's not a magic bullet to lower the cost of electricity for all.
Until that new tech is created, tested, and validated, we're stuck on the same method of generating electricity.
And if you're such a wise sage, I dare you to try to push your world views on fixing our OUTDATED methodologies onto the greater global stage and see if it gains any traction.
The difficulty of the maglev trains isn't the maintenance of the train itself, it's the maintenance of the track.
Which "Fanless Wind Turbine" technology are you talking about?
Yes we need them for satellites to explore deep space or parts that need batteries to last a ridiculous long time.
It's always going to be a bit slower than you think to go from lab results to mass production for consumer use.
If you're as wise as you think you are, please try to enlighten the world and push them on the better path. You claim you know how to fix it, the world stage is yours and you can make it your oyster.
We met enough to get some idea of how they react. And even then, they were far more informed about basic science then what we have now.
