Peak Oil
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Tue Sep 6, 2005 @ 2:42am |
 Coolness: 194130 | Good work. More people should be made aware of this.
While I dont think things will be as bad as the most pessimistic prognoses draw it and the decline will force some rapid-fire research into solutions, it is entirely possible we wont have enough time to come up with a working one. If there is anything that can save the situation, it is the [ www.focusfusion.org ] Fusion. Excrept on Focus Fusion: ...we have "maxed out" on the utility of fossil fuels as the source of our power. Renewables, while wonderful, cannot hope to replace that power anytime soon (and possibly not ever). New energy sources are urgently needed. ...We have the technology to develop stunningly cheap power plants that produce electricity directly, without the use of heat to run a steam engine. We hope to develop highly reliable, compact, modular designed power plants that can be brought on-line quickly, have no emissions or radioactive waste, and can be put anywhere. Instead of huge power plants costing several hundred million dollars each, serving a large region, you can have many smaller "mom-n-pop" plants for a fraction of the price that serve smaller locations and offer greater local control and security. Rolling blackouts will be a thing of the past. The fuel for these plants is dirt cheap and abundant. It won't run out for billions of years. In sum, Focus Fusion proposes the possibility of cheap, clean, abundant, decentralized energy easily accessible to everyone. This is a radical departure from the energy supply story we are all used to [- peak oil warnings]. And it fundamentally changes the equation of all the strategies and analysis that are currently in place regarding energy and global welfare. However, there is currently no working solution in place. I only found [ www.fuelcellscanada.ca ] reference I found to the fuel cell Atrix mentioned and the site of the development company is amateur at best, and lists other units they made under products section. If the alternative fuel cell was working well, I'm sure it would hit the market or at least make it to their developments page. We're left to hope Focus Fusion will be proven practically feasible and its implementation will begin in time before energy shortage major enough to seriously hinder research. Still, I think humanity will overcome. We've gotten over bigger things than this. As long as Earth doesnt shit us out, we'll be alright. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ikce replied on Tue Sep 6, 2005 @ 1:23pm |
 Coolness: 65580 | Originally posted by MURDOCK ROCK...
99.9% of the plastic out there is poisoning us. but there is natural alternatives that we can use to make non toxic plastics... unfortunately at 3 times the cost for now :0( FOSSIL FUELS ARE FUCKING BAD FOR US!!! Money for life... where is the deal? they sould not think about money ... they should think about us... ! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Wed Sep 7, 2005 @ 7:03pm |
| Coolness: 194130 | At this rate, we're gonna have to cut oil use one way or another.
Problem is, electricity depends on burning the abundant and very polluting coal. As I've said, I got high hopes for fusion. That's the only developing tech right now that seems realistically attainable enough to work, and would provide enough energy to sustain the growth of our civilization without having to stunt it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 12:36am |
 Coolness: 55605 | fusion? realistically attainable? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 11:32am |
| Coolness: 194130 | That's the only developing tech right now that seems realistically attainable enough...
As in, govts are building a reactor now, theres a slew of independent research & development underway, and science today more or less points to its feasibility. This is something that can not be said for some other "future energy" prospects, say, moon solar stations channeling energy to earth, volcano power stations or "space elevator" strips of carbon film with fuelcell crawlers running on them back and forth from satellites. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 2:34pm |
| Coolness: 55605 | solar panels and geothermal are about 500 percent more realistic than some fusion fantasy. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 2:38pm |
 Coolness: 339770 | there are already two fusion reactors that are in contruction right now. the main problem is that the ignition power requirement is higher than it's output.. but that is sure to get better in the future.. fusion will eventually become a viable source of power, it's just going to take time.
fusion is possible. we've got a big ol' fusion reactor heating our planet every day. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ikce replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 4:02pm |
| Coolness: 65580 | Hydro electricity at this time is the more efficient and ecological energy that we have... Mais... seulement le quebec en dispose! Si on pourrais Nationaliser sa et le vendre... le quebec serais riche! Quebec? Nah! Canada ! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 4:04pm |
| Coolness: 194130 | Small-scale geothermal is useless for global energy, and large scale geothermal is right now more impossible than fusion. Do some googling, read up on it and you'll see what I mean.
Solar panels on earth couldnt even begin to produce enough energy per surface they take up to fuel even the demands of yesterday, forget those of today and tomorrow. The solar moon project might. But "beaming" this energy to Earth is far less realistic now than making the conventional Deuterium-Tritium fusion possible given current scientific achievements and technology we already have. The ignition power problem is only initial plasma ignition, after that the plant becomes economically viable as it continues to operate for an estimated lifetime of 15 years each. Most importantly, fuel is abundant and is enough for a billion years which should be enough time and energy for humanity to either kill itself or fix the shit we've done to Earth and expand into space. There is also a more revolutionary movement in fusion research, one I've mentioned earlier - Hydrogen-Boron Fusion. It focuses on minimalist approach and using different fuel which won't even produce radioactive waste. Although there are some roadblocks, it looks very promising. Oh yeah, like Ian said, sun operates on fusion and its been doing great long before we were here and will probably continue to do so long after we're gone one way or another. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 5:09pm |
| Coolness: 55605 | who is talking about "global" energy? Global energy is a useless concept at this point. What existing power grid is going to transmit power globally.
and you are wrong about solar panels. there are houses in california that actually produce a surplus of energy from solar panels that they use for their own electrical production, and they sell this power back to the utility. And this is just on a HOUSE, not a huge solar farm in a desert. So check your facts on solar panels, the technology has advanced and you don't know what you are taking about. Any sci fi "let's beam energy from space" plan is completely unrealistic. They can't even maintain the space shuttle, let alone develop new space technology. The funding isn't there, big corporations are scared to death of space travel / development other than as a novelty, and can you imagine the regulations required to beam microwaves down to earth? saying the sun operates on fusion is completely meaningless. how is that supposed to somehow indicate that it is the best technology? Oh wow, hurricanes generate more power than have every been generated by any power grid cumulatively in the history of man - let's create some man made HURRICANES and use those for power!!! It's just as ridiculous an analogy. Fusion may be the answer some day, but the key is to refine existing tech instead of some pie in the sky solution. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 5:57pm |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 6:20pm |
| Coolness: 55605 | when you say "we", what exactly do you mean? Quebec? Canada? The US? Because power grids are managed regionally, and it is not a trivial matter to transfer power across north america, let alone on a global basis.
Regarding your source of information on solar energy - that page is dated 1999. Hardly a good example, and in any case, these houses do exist, they do frequently have energy surpluses, and they are cost effective to build even if you DON'T factor in the energy savings. You are wrong about a "uge solar farm in the desert *might* be capable of powering a small town nearby." Perhaps it is you who might wnat to check your sources. In INC magazine a couple of months ago there was a very interesting article about a solar company in New Mexico. The online version is here: [ www.inc.com ] some quotes: ""A farm 100 miles by 100 miles would be enough to displace the fossil-fuel consumption of the U.S.," Plenty of room for that in the desert. "Big, expensive solar panels in very sunny areas produce relatively little power, which winds up costing about 25 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity. (A kilowatt is about enough to power 14 75-watt bulbs.) Electricity from a conventional natural-gas-burning power station, by contrast, costs about seven cents per kilowatt hour. Slawson's library raid turned up a book that detailed a different approach: a thermoelectric solar dish system developed by McDonnell Douglas (later absorbed into Boeing) with a Swedish firm called Kockums, technology that was later sold to and tested by Southern California Edison. Instead of using rays of sunlight to knock out electrons, the dish reflects and concentrates the rays in order to heat and thus expand a gas. That expansion is then put to work by a device called a Stirling engine to turn a conventional electric generator. The approach is nearly twice as efficient as most photovoltaic systems -- while doing away with semiconductors and other expensive materials. " So he purchased the technology, developped it to the degree that he can sell it for 8 cents per kilowatt hour, and has been running a successful company that is in the final stages of negotiating agreements to feed american power grids. As you can see, the technology has advanced past simply sitting a solar panel in the sun. Your statement regarding dusion that "Nothing else that is within reach comes anywhere near" is baseless. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 8:41pm |
| Coolness: 194130 | I'll look into your link, but "displace" does not mean "replace". In fact, "displace" is not quantifiable at all.
The page I quoted is a quick link from google, as Ive mentioned. There is plentifu info on the web about solar energy, and most (recent) summaries agree that even with current technologies solar power is largely insufficient to sustain even our infrastructure, much less growth. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Thu Sep 8, 2005 @ 11:05pm |
| Coolness: 55605 | it's important to do thorough research, not just grab links off of google. and the web is hardly a reputable source for scientific knowledge. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Fri Sep 9, 2005 @ 5:35pm |
| Coolness: 194130 | My information is from various sources on and off the web, the link was something I googled to point to from my post. I really couldnt be bothered to backtrace and quote the sources which contributed to my opinion on the issue, after all, this is just ravewave.
I read the article you linked to. Interesting, and I like how they strive to use components that already exist to cut costs, but I still really doubt this approach will be const effective enough (both buildding/miantenance costs as well as EROI taken into account) to replace fossils. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Fri Sep 9, 2005 @ 5:54pm |
 Coolness: 201330 | I really couldnt be bothered to backtrace and quote the sources which contributed to my opinion on the issue, after all, this is just ravewave.
Well then your opinion is invalid, even if it's just ravewave :D |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ashtraygirl replied on Fri Sep 9, 2005 @ 6:15pm |
 Coolness: 89590 | my weed delivery service has upped their prices due to gas prices! finally the gas crisis has hit home! (*&@$&*^ fucking bastards! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Sat Sep 10, 2005 @ 12:35pm |
| Coolness: 194130 | Scotty, thats flawed logic. No amount of sources can make a point valid or invalid, only strengthen the point. :b Time to read that logic 101 booklet again dude.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Sat Sep 10, 2005 @ 4:40pm |
| Coolness: 201330 | no, as far as I am concerned the point is invalid and should be ignored |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mtl_mtl replied on Sat Sep 10, 2005 @ 5:40pm |
| Coolness: 55605 | yeah - discussion is far more than logic dude. |
Peak Oil
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
