I may be a little late to the game here
[quote]Bambi wrote:
OK since people in the GAL thread suggested the quieter posters start up more threads?
Energy. It’s a huge issue, not only with the issue of oil supply but also how we power our electricity network.
Over in the UK we’ve just started building new nuclear power stations that will come online in 2017/18 which I think are essential if we are to reduce emissions while retaining quality of life
Here are some questions I’d like to see chewed over before putting in my 2 penniworth?
- What are your views on renewable power, specifically solar, wind, hydro-electric and tidal. Can they be any more than supplementary to energy needs?[/quote]
The most positive estimate that I have found is 20%, and that is even taking 50 years to get there. (Unfortunately 50 year projections on anything are bordering on fantasy.)
I don’t have a problem with their use, and encourage it. But there is the unfortunate political BS, and the fact that people actually think subsidies are a good thing. What subsidies actually do is hide the real cost of these things.
One thing people do not seem to understand is that the cost is a product of the energy used to create everything. So generally if using the “environmentally friendly” method actually costs more (before subsidy,) then it may not actually have saved anything, money or energy.[quote]
- Oil supply. Will shale oil and gas provide replacements to middle-eastern oil, or is this proof that we’re running out of the stuff? Is a transition from oil possible? Is Peak Oil anything over than an internet scare story? What about synthetic oil, such as biofuels and oil derived from algae?[/quote]
As I pointed out in another thread, people are not aware of how massive the quantities of hydrocarbons are in the Earth. We are not barely running out of oil, although the “cheap stuff” is not out there in the quantities they once were. But there is more then just the “cheap stuff”.
The stuff you hear about is called light sweet crude. And the numbers (proved) are business numbers. They refer to the oil the companies know for a fact they are going to get. They are also extremely conservative numbers. And a very minor bump in technology increases those numbers all the time. But there are also numbers like probable. Meaning they most likely are going to get that oil. But they don’t count those numbers. And honestly those are still very conservative numbers.
But before the discussion of shale, and oil sands, everybody is forgetting about heavy oil. People focus on the light crude because it is so cheap to get. And because of that, people really didn’t focus on other sources. But the available sources of heavy oil are double what the light is.
But that is still a drop in the bucket as to what is available in shale, and sands. One area in America has enough oil to cover the Earth for 100 years. And there are plenty more sources out there.
But this does bring up some problems. First is the cost. Obviously it costs much more to extract, but those numbers have been dropping dramatically as the technology has advanced.
Fracking (cylons?) is the technology that is really moving things along here. But unfortunately it is also the focus of a lot of propaganda.
That video that was posted earlier in this thread is an example of that propaganda. In it they show a person starting a fire at his faucet because of methane in the line. Problem is this is not an abnormal occurrence. Methane does in fact get into water lines, even without fracking, and is fairly harmless, unless you attempt to start it on fire.
Now people are talking about fracking causing minor earthquakes. This may be true, although I don’t know if people are blowing it out of proportion yet. People forget to notice there is a reason they are called minor. But of interest is the fact that there may actually be a benefit. If there is any buildup of earthquake energy locally, this could actually dissipate some of that stored energy. (Earthquakes build up, then release.) The result is that when it does it, it is weaker then it would have been. (They have actually been attempting to cause this in the past by pumping water into fault lines. Don’t know if this research, or attempt is still going on or not.)
They do use a specific sand for this, and one company is making a killing selling a specifically designed sand that works really good for this.[quote]
- Nuclear - what are your views on it. Anti-nuclear sentiment in the UK is still quite strong but has diminished from its height inthe 80s. Do you trust the nuclear industry to not repeat another Fukushima?[/quote]
Even Chernobyl was not as bad as people make it out to be. Although it should be mentioned that Chernobyl was not designed properly, and the reason for that was it wasn’t a regular reactor, but designed for quickly producing weapons grade material.
Fukushima was unfortunate, but it has held well. It was also 40 years old, and close to being decommissioned. The 40 years isn’t as much about how old it is, as much as how out of date the thing is. We are generations ahead of that technology right now. The safety of something that can be built today is many times safer then Fukushima.
In Fukushima, they had to pump water into the reactor, and powering up these things was an issue, but the current plants are designed to do this automatically if there is a power outage. It is the power that keeps the water from running into the plant and cooling it.
The Fukushima Daiichi event did suck, and still sucks. But we do need to remember this was a 40 year old plant being hit by an event that only occurs once in over a hundred years, and happening to be that devastating at that specific location, and when the reactor was as old as it was, but before it was shut down. That was very unlucky. Very Very unlucky.
I believe the death toll from the tsunami was over 20,000. The Fukushima event’s biggest risk is to it’s employees, and the people who went in and pumped water at their own risk.
Many people don’t know that nuclear plants cannot explode like a bomb. Pretty much impossible due in part to how the fuel is designed. In fact they are terrible targets for terrorists.
The real problem with nuclear is how much the plants cost to build. Now they do produce so much energy, and so little waste, that they do eventually pay for themselves, but they are still a massive cost.
People unfortunately see these plants as being managed by Mr. Burns, and run by Homer Simpson.
It has been mentioned that we should each produce our own power, and this does sound attractive. But there is a big reason for the single large power plant, and that is efficiency. By mass producing power, we produce more total power with less fuel.[quote]
- The first nuclear fusion plant goes online in southern France in 2019? Is this anything over than a pipe dream?
Thoughts people (anyone)?[/quote]
There are actually 2 fusion reactors going online, on different dates. But unfortunately they are still test reactors. The hope is that the next reactors built after these tests are complete will be fully functioning reactors.
This is not a pipe dream, but it has been a very hard road, and there are still a few things to figure out, hence the “test” reactors. But Dr. Michio Kaku expects it to be about 20 to 30 years when fusion really will be here.
I have to say I disagree with him, somewhat, stating that oil will keep climbing, as I see events affecting this.
Anyway this needs to be done. One these things start supplying energy, there will be an energy renaissance. People will find some political reason to oppose it. But this will bring about massive amounts of energy. It will seem unlimited. (Nothing is.) But we will be off this planet before we ever come close to running out.
No chance of meltdown, no emissions to speak of, the main fuel is extracted from water.
The thing that sucks is that I will be in my mid 70’s when this happens.
Oh, I believe anti matter was brought up. Maybe that was a joke, (we don’t have any dilithium crystals) but unfortunately the only anti matter we have ever come into contact with was man made.
It takes so much more power to create then we would ever get out of it, but not only that, this is possibly the most expensive stuff on Earth. It would be like buying old Picasso paintings to burn to heat your house. (Damn, now I want to do that.)[quote]
- Is government funding and diversion of funds to alternate energy possible or is this something the market needs to push forward?[/quote]
I prefer the market, and there are reasons. Too many people think nothing ever happens without the government.
But the question is would ITER exist without 7 governments funding it? Or is the fact that there are at least 10 different big research projects into fusion show that it would have been?
If companies were not taxed as much as they are, would they have more money invested into research? (I know many here won’t have an open mind to this question.)
