[quote]The Mage wrote:
Finite. I hate when people use that word, especially in arguing about energy.
Do you know what finite means? You must understand that the Sun only has a finite amount of energy. Another 4 billion years and it will run out of the hydrogen that fuels it.
The first thing to understand is that we do not have an energy problem… yet. The problems we are experiencing are only in the minds, and the results of the actions of politicians.[/quote]
Finite is a valid term to discuss the different natures of certain energy sources. Hydrocarbons are both theoretically and practically finite. This finite nature effects our usage of them and their political implications as well. Existing fission energy is finite as well and that distinguishes it from the nature and potential of fusion technology or a new type of fission technology. These are valid differences in quality and political implication.
Solar and renewable are finite I’ll give you but if you are trying to argue that there isn’t a near infinite qualitative difference between the practical limits of four billion years versus the several centuries that the world will use hydrocarbons then you are being silly.
The issue is one of being proactive; not that we should be paranoid because some of our energy isn’t sustainable. It isn’t the fact that we are running out of hydrocarbon energy that is dangerous so much as us increasingly depending on foreign sources that could easily be disrupted. Couple this with the massive increase in demand from competing nations and it makes sense that we should seek more domestic energy sooner than later. Again this is my main point.
[quote]The numbers we have been given about what oil is left is faulty. There is a lot more light sweet crude then people think, and as technology improves, that number goes up. Then there are all the sources that they don’t count. Heavy oil, oil shale, oil sands.
We have 800 billion barrels of oil that is extractable at current technology, and with in-situ technology, it is more environmentally friendly then ever, and quite competitive at under $40 a barrel.
Even then, gas to oil technology can actually turn methane into a synthetic crude. And we can actually manufacture methane. (Everyone forgive me for repeating myself for the millionth time.)
The “renewable” sources are great, but only complementary. They might slow our usage of oil, coal, and gas, but they are not able to replace them.[/quote]
I agree with all this and that’s why coal should be the US focus. It is a proven technology and I have seen estimates say that the US has about 400 years worth of coal reserves even if we switched all our energy to coal. However to maximize our coal potential we need a more electric transportation system.
Not really. If you said the only answer is a practically infinite source like fusion or collecting the fusion of solar and renewable or a new more innovative fission nuclear industry then it would make more sense. I used practically infinite in hopes of not arousing your delicate sensibilities. Eventually the entire Universe will go dark some say, right??..???
Anyhow, I have no problem jumping on the fission nuclear bandwagon and saying lets make a hell of a lot more fission energy and invest more in research for both fission and fusion in America. Of course being pro energy over all other issues makes me an easy sell.
That said, great innovations in both nuclear technology and solar/renewable could potentially lead to an energy revolution and saying only nuclear is the answer is just speculation. Your speculation may well be correct though.
I do see that nuclear has many potential advantages over solar. If I had to pick only one innovation to pursue I would be with you and say nuclear fusion power is the superior solution. Nuclear unfortunately is a much harder sell to environmentalist.
[quote]Do not be worried about running out of uranium, it is 30 times more abundant then silver. We currently have a 70 year supply in current “proven” reserves. But between 1985 and 2005 nobody really looked for new sources of uranium. In fact there is enough in sea-water alone that if the price of uranium doubled, that would multiply the “proven” reserves by a factor of 10.
“Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilization of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its ‘fertile blanket’, can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor.”
Who is worried? I am not afraid of running out of hydrocarbons much less untapped uranium. My main point is that that as long as a finite easily centralized energy source(uranium in this case) is the basis of power the energy will have the same political weaknesses as hydrocarbons.
If an innovation makes fission energy extractable from something as abundant as sea water than this will no longer be the case but this is still in the realm of maybe and hopefully. I only hope for the best and prefer to prepare for the worse.
We should explore nuclear and solar with a passion but for all practical purpose coal and other hydrocarbons are what works and we have plenty of coal and tar sands in North America to bridge the gap.
Sooner than later is my sentiment. Why wait for Bin Laden to blow up middle east production when we can be almost immune to such catastrophes today?
[quote]Now that leads us to fusion. The last research reactor produced 16 megawatts for less then a second, which was considered a success, even though net energy production was negative. But the ITER reactor is expected to produce 500 megawatts for at least 16 minutes, (1000 seconds,) and produce 5 - 10 times the energy it uses. But this is still research, and the reactor is not expected to start until 2018.
We easily have a century of oil, gas, and coal available. Adding in nuke power gives us centuries, and eventually fusion will give us thousands of years, getting us to the source of energy our primitive minds cannot even fathom.[/quote]
We probably have much more than a century of hydro carbons in North America if the experts are to be believed.
Your statement hints at our true limitation. Fusion power is definitely the basic power of the universe and it is within our grasp but the implications of the transformation that such a power source would create within the human race would terrify the majority of people and their primitive belief systems.
Mandela was quite poignant in his famous observation that it is not that we are inadequate that is our greatest fear but that we are powerful beyond imagining.
[quote]Oh, and the car we need:
http://www.teslamotors.com/ [/quote]
Thanks for all the links.