Most Important Cities (Hard Economic Power, Industrial Base, Engineers)

[Astorian31]

Originally Posted by grogers385

Try operating your computers on unreliable wind and solar power, not on the reliable energy sources of: Coal, Oil, Gas & Nuclear.

These two industries (Computers and the Petrochemical) are the backbone of the modern world.

Wind power already reliably supplies 5% of US energy needs, and growing rapidly. In other countries, that percentage is higher. There is nothing unreliable about these technologies, they are just not as cost effective as fossil fuels. Yet. But that's to be expected when you consider that the fossil fuel industry is a mature industry with over a century of experience and an immeasurable amount of government subsidies.

What I will concede though, is that battery technology limits the over night effectiveness of solar energy. But this problem should be solved in the next coming decade. At the moment though, there is nothing unrealiable about solar if you use it in conjunction with other clean energies such as wind or hydroelectric.

That's not to say that the US can be converted to solar and wind over night, but to say they are unreliable is a farce.

PS, my computers operate on solar

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Try doing either of those without food.

See where this logic goes?

Try growing food on a large enough scale to feed the worlds population without reliable forms of energy.

I'm sorry, but anyone can sow chaos in a modern first-world population by cutting off two things - the power supply and the water supply. Like it or not, Houston is the hub for the world's energy industry. I definitely agree that oil itself is declining in importance at a very slow rate, but natural gas is slowly increasing in importance at the same time.

Solar and wind will never be reasonable transportation fuels and electric vehicles have high life-cycle environmental costs (in some ways higher than internal combustion engines) when you take into account the energy required to harvest lithium and other rare earth metals for battery manufacture, as well as the pollution associated with ultimate battery disposal.

In other words, there is not currently a silver-bullet technology that will replace O&G on a wide scale - its diminished importance will be on the margins (i.e. in non-transportation based applications). Oil generation only accounts for 1% of all US power generation capacity anyway, natural gas is at 33% and rising.

I voted for Houston in this poll.

[grogers385]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Try growing food on a large enough scale to feed the worlds population without reliable forms of energy.

I'm sorry, but anyone can sow chaos in a modern first-world population by cutting off two things - the power supply and the water supply. Like it or not, Houston is the hub for the world's energy industry. I definitely agree that oil itself is declining in importance at a very slow rate, but natural gas is slowly increasing in importance at the same time.

Solar and wind will never be reasonable transportation fuels and electric vehicles have high life-cycle environmental costs (in some ways higher than internal combustion engines) when you take into account the energy required to harvest lithium and other rare earth metals for battery manufacture, as well as the pollution associated with ultimate battery disposal.

In other words, there is not currently a silver-bullet technology that will replace O&G on a wide scale - its diminished importance will be on the margins (i.e. in non-transportation based applications).

I voted for Houston in this poll.

Exactly.

Wind was the transportation fuel, but it got replaced by the internal combustion engine for good reason!

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Try growing food on a large enough scale to feed the worlds population without reliable forms of energy.

I'm sorry, but anyone can sow chaos in a modern first-world population by cutting off two things - the power supply and the water supply. Like it or not, Houston is the hub for the world's energy industry. I definitely agree that oil itself is declining in importance at a very slow rate, but natural gas is slowly increasing in importance at the same time.

Solar and wind will never be reasonable transportation fuels and electric vehicles have high life-cycle environmental costs (in some ways higher than internal combustion engines) when you take into account the energy required to harvest lithium and other rare earth metals for battery manufacture, as well as the pollution associated with ultimate battery disposal.

In other words, there is not currently a silver-bullet technology that will replace O&G on a wide scale - its diminished importance will be on the margins (i.e. in non-transportation based applications). Oil generation only accounts for 1% of all US power generation capacity anyway, natural gas is at 33% and rising.

I voted for Houston in this poll.

Houston is the hub for the US's energy industry--the energy industry is globally very diffuse.

Solar and wind aren't the fuel--they are sources from which you generate electricity. It's batteries or capacitors that are actually going to store electricity for transportation uses. Solar has reached grid parity in many reguons of the world and has ample room for improvement as it's currently nowhere near its theoretical limits.

[jessemh431]

Anyone who didn't vote LA is either extremely biased or just doesn't know anything about the city. Engineers and industrial base? It's one of the last remaining industrial cities, the Port of LA/LB is the largest in the world. Aerospace is still heavily prevalent throughout the entire region and is one of the reasons why LA even got so large. Oil rigs and refineries are spread throughout the region. To vote for NYC or Chicago over LA is actually laughable.

I voted Houston, LA, and SJ. Houston for oil obviously. LA for reasons above. And SJ because of tech; different type of engineering, but engineers nonetheless.