Game_Over Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Before a load of the Eco nutters were banned and set up their own website last year discussions like this were a daily occurrence. We used wood as fuel and before that ran out we switched to coal. We then used coal as fuel and before that ran out we switched to oil and gas. Before oil and gas runs out we will switch to nuclear. The driving factor is cost. At the moment gas and oil are too cheap and plentiful to justify entirely replacing them. What people forget is that most of the cost of a barrel of oil is nothing to do with the cost of production. Apparently it costs 5 dollars a barrel to pump oil in Saudia Arabia and 25 dollars to extract it from oil shale. So when the 5 dollars a barrel oil runs out we will start extracting the 25 dollars a barrel reserves - of which there is 200 - 400 years of supply for the US alone. At the end of the day the amount of energy available to us is effectively unlimited. All that is required is the economic imperative to develop alternatives. Unfortunatley - as 'Global warming' is a massive con there is currently really no incentive to abandon fossil fuels at the present time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 So when the 5 dollars a barrel oil runs out we will start extracting the 25 dollars a barrel reserves - of which there is 200 - 400 years of supply for the US alone. Sorry about the delayed response, but 200-400 years? Are you sure? What is your source for this fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishbone Glover Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I'd be interested to know the source of that as well. There's approx 90 years worth of shale oil, assuming demand doesn't increase significantly. Tar sands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Fossil fuels are ingrained in everything we do and they are running out. Wishful thinking about "free markets" and "science" somehow saving us are , in my view, rather optimistic. We don't have a minor engineering problem to overcome here... We have to make a catastrophic sea change in everything we do, with international cooperation and planning. Even then, there could be mass war, famine and disease within the next hundred years. ah - the left wing's wet dream - that capitalism will fail capitalism will drive innovation, with some blue skies help from universities and public funding, and we'll probably get by Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellerkat Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Sorry about the delayed response, but 200-400 years? Are you sure? What is your source for this fact? I'd be interested to know the source of that as well. There's approx 90 years worth of shale oil, assuming demand doesn't increase significantly. Tar sands? Perhaps that includes shale gas? How long does a trillion cubic ft last anyway, and what's the EROEI? The potential poisoning of the watertable needs to be considered too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 ah - the left wing's wet dream - that capitalism will fail capitalism will drive innovation, with some blue skies help from universities and public funding, and we'll probably get by I'm not actually left wing. I'm guessing you saw my post on the public sector pay thread and stalked me over to this one to work out who I am What you're doing of course, is having blind faith in capitalism to solve all problems, like it's some kind of panacea. Good for you. Hope makes life easier . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 It sounds like you're confusing ideas that aren't much more developed than a vague concept only of any practical use to a science fiction author with those that at least stand a chance of being buildable. The former we're not even sure if it stands up to the laws of physics, the latter are generally "merely" engineering problems, to a greater or lesser degree, where we know it's definitely possible, just not how to actually make it work. My point really is that all of it is basically science fiction as not a single one of these alternative energy ideas has yet come to anything. Maybe something will though, but everything I see now is bascially just theory, or proven to be unworkable (so basically just a nice theory with no viable practical application). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) My point really is that all of it is basically science fiction as not a single one of these alternative energy ideas has yet come to anything. Maybe something will though, but everything I see now is bascially just theory, or proven to be unworkable (so basically just a nice theory with no viable practical application). Of course, a blind man will always have a hard time seeing anything... Do you expect to find the latest new energy developments splashed on page 3 of the Sun or as a research article in GQ? Read this for starters if you are indeed seriously interested: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece Edited May 13, 2011 by wise_eagle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Read this for starters if you are indeed seriously interested: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece Yes, I hope it comes to something. Perhaps also promising is:- http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2011/04/18/university-of-huddersfield-research-into-nuclear-alternatives-86081-28536940/ It also proves that the Huddersfield Daily Examiner is a better source than both The Sun and GQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Sorry about the delayed response, but 200-400 years? Are you sure? What is your source for this fact? Source? Game_Over just makes it up as he goes along. He don't need no feckin' sources! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compounded Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 My point really is that all of it is basically science fiction as not a single one of these alternative energy ideas has yet come to anything. Maybe something will though, but everything I see now is bascially just theory, or proven to be unworkable (so basically just a nice theory with no viable practical application). The alternatives do not have a hope of competing with oil wells, hence the need for subsidy. We do waste on hell of alot - eliminating that waste is all that's needed for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I'm not actually left wing. I'm guessing you saw my post on the public sector pay thread and stalked me over to this one to work out who I am What you're doing of course, is having blind faith in capitalism to solve all problems, like it's some kind of panacea. Good for you. Hope makes life easier . nice generalisation; and yes, capitalism, given appropriate tweaks and experience, has been a panacea for poverty for hundreds of years, it has a superb track record, based on tangible objective measures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) My point really is that all of it is basically science fiction as not a single one of these alternative energy ideas has yet come to anything. Maybe something will though, but everything I see now is bascially just theory, or proven to be unworkable (so basically just a nice theory with no viable practical application). To label fusion by magnetic containment science fiction is to my mind inappropriate. The theory behind this high energy fusion (as opposed to "cold fusion") is well understood and is considered mainstream by most physicists. As an earlier poster pointed out, the challenges behind it are mainly engineering ones rather than scientific. The technique is well enough thought of by politicians to throw E15 billion of funding at it (still miserable IMO compared with the $500 billion US yearly defence budget) with the hope of achieving an improved reactor by 2018 (ITER). The current reactor (JET) has trailblazed many of the scientific and engineering issues. The engineering challenges mainly relate to the handling of high energy neutrons produced by the fusion plasma. A good summary can be found on wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iter In contrast the possibility of so called LENR reactions is certainly not mainstream physics. There is no clear theoretical explaination as to why these should work and no well accepted scientific theory regarding such reactions. Although I as a physicist don't rule out the possibility of them working, I think it is unlikely, certainly within the framework of our current understanding of physics. To my mind there are several other significant possibilities for improvement in energy generation, none of which are clearly defined. The first is improvement in solar cell technology which would allow increases in efficiency/reductions in cost. There appears to be significant development taking place in the areas of nanotechnology to reduce both the cost of solar cells and improve the efficiency. The second is the possibility of improving generator efficiency through stronger magnets. At the moment the worlds strongest permanent magnets are NdFeB. If the remanance of these materials could be improved then the efficiency of wind turbines could be improved. AFAIK at the moment these magnets are made from simple alloyed materials (allbeit in careful amounts and probably thermally handled carefully as well) but improvements in creating these materials and organising them at the molecular level would surely lead to improvements*. Finally there is the possibility of using superconducting cables for electricity power transmission. Companies such as American Superconductor are already prototyping this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holbrook_Superconductor_Project Projects like this reduce the amount of electricity lost in transmission in the grid. So although they will not generate energy, in a similar manner to the magnet technology they will lead to significant improvements in energy usage. I don't regard either the advances in nanotechnology or fusion via magnetic confinement as science fiction. There are certainly issues as to how these technologies might be upscaled, and exactly how and what benefits these technologies will bring, but they are developing and it is virtually cetain that some benefit will come as a result of them. I regard things like a Star Trek warp drive as science fiction, because there is no current mainstream scientific theory which describes how one would work on a practical basis. *Actually if you are getting picky they are made of sintered powders, but the powders themselves have some internal atomic distribution/arrangement. The word molecular is inappropriate as well. Edited May 14, 2011 by Gigantic Purple Slug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 nice generalisation; and yes, capitalism, given appropriate tweaks and experience, has been a panacea for poverty for hundreds of years, it has a superb track record, based on tangible objective measures Capitalism with appropriate regulation can do this yes. What it does not provide is a guarantee that it will produce the technology to replace oil. Maybe private industry can provide some good poor houses or soup kitchens though, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Great post Gigantic Purple Slug. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Capitalism with appropriate regulation can do this yes. err - look here, ffs...actually I agree, ok What it does not provide is a guarantee that it will produce the technology to replace oil. it's impossible to talk in terms of guarantees since there aren't really absolutes available under any system - i would suggest that capitalism, having at its core a set of intellectual freedoms, is the system most likely to foster the brains to create subsitutes, or rather a set of energy approaches to act as an overall functional substitute, being the system most likely to foster economic coping mechanisms for a world with less energy. A tangential example is big agribusinesses in Brazil (I think) doing very good jobs of applying large scale financial and science principles to feeding the masses. I really find it hard to see the global warming issue as being any more than a big problem, not the end by any means, and certainly something we should be able to cope with whilst still producing sufficient calories and increasing standards of living for the poor - unless we get really really exceptional population growth, which I hazard would be self correcting anyway. I can't see any way out of burning all the fuels that we have, I think it is inevitable, except of course better to make best use instead of in 8 litre personal trucks. can I go back to calling you a motherf*cker now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.