A few days ago I watched a film called “Chain Reaction” or something similar. In the film some scientists find a way to extract energy from water, IIRC they said a glass of water could provide enough power to fuel Chicago for a full year. My assumptions are that once the initial outlay of the power plant was paid for it required very little in the way of maintenance, the only input to the system was water and the only output from the system was electricity (i.e. no waste to be disposed of).
What would the world economic effect of a “free” source of electricity be? I presume that the oil producing nations would be hit hardest but would like to hear the Straight Dope.
This may be a little off-topic, but this has the makings of a Great Debate anyway…
I would think that oil-producing nations and oil companies would welcome a cheap alternative energy source. In fact, I would think we all would welcome it. Why? Because (in the absence of virtually unlimited free energy) we’re going to need all that petroleum to produce cheap plastics and the many other useful products that come from petroleum. It isn’t just energy for which we depend on oil. They’re also the least expensive source of some of our favorite products.
I have wondered why oil producers and oil companies haven’t started to rein in the use of oil as fuel in order to preserve it for other uses. I don’t know much about the relative amounts needed for energy versus other products, so maybe there isn’t a real crunch on the horizon yet.
IIRC, the amount of oil used annually to make plastic for the in the US is equal to only a couple days worth of oil used for transportation. And remember, you can make oil from any hydrocarbon source + energy, so that further reduces the importance of existing oil reserves in the long term.
In general, very cheap energy would have a net deflationary effect on just about everything. Everything takes energy to make and transport, so reducing that input cost will reduce the cost of any product any a competative market.
It would still take many years though to switch over cars to non-oil sources though - cheap energy would make hydrogen electrolysising plants viable economically, but building the fuel stations and other infrastructure for fuel-cell cars would take awhile.
Alternatively, cheap energy might make synthetic oil production much cheaper, allowing it to be price competetive. This has the advantage over hydrogen in that it doesn’t need new infrastruture to be built in place, and if you use renewable carbon sources ( like sewage, lawn clippings, other plants or animals) you don’t put any net carbon into atmosphere, and thus, no global warming problems.
Energy is a “gatekeeper resource”. All economies (actually, all life, period) is dependant on it. The less restricted energy is, the less restricted all economies are. With the actual technology you suggest, we can envision a massive economic boom. Moreover, we can expect impressive new industrues and technologies riding that boom, increasing the effect further.
A great many industries are defined primarily by energy costs, so quite a few products could become amazingly cheap compared to their current state.
I’d think water shortages would no longer be a problem, since we could desalinate seawater. But what if the new fuel source produced waste heat? That by itself could cause problems.