NationStates Jolt Archive

Knowing the capacity of the human mind for avoiding new and unwelcome issues, I doubt this thread will generate much of a response, and what response there will be is likely to be hopelessly Utopian. Anyway, here's hoping . . .

I am just starting off as an engineer in the energy industry. Among many professionals in this field there is the certain knowledge that the primary fossil fuels which allow us to generate electricity, transport goods and produce the huge quantities of fertilizer needed to sustain industrial agriculture are running out, very fast. No replacements will be found in time, because all potential replacements have in fact been found, and research and practical use shows numerous insurmountable flaws.

The fossil fuels in question are of course oil and natural gas. Their abundance has been very much exaggerated. It would take too long for me to type out an introduction to the problem, so if you wish to take part in this discussion, please visit the following websites and read up on the facts.

A slide show with lots of easy graphs: http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html

Everything a beginner needs to know on one page: http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/

If you are going to post, please read the first two pages above. Those who do not risk being debunked quite spectacularly.

For more detail, though very time-consuming and probably unnecessary, you may wish to visit . . .

Lots of expert opinion (see toolbar on left): http://www.hubbertpeak.com

A petroleum geologist's newsletters: http://www.energiekrise.de/e/news/aspo.html

A Texas energy banker ringing alarm bells: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/domino/html/research.nsf/$$ViewTemplate+For+msspeeches?openform

The discussion I wish to start is basically, what do you guys think? You and I will have to live through this stuff, whether you accept its validity or not. Are you at all concerned at this stage? If not, why not? I guess what I am trying to do is test the water as regards general awareness of the idea of resource limitations to the continuation of our way of life. I have a good idea of what sort of response this will probably get, but it remains to be seen.

Those who have read the above articles may post away.

what i like is the way that civilization is is almost certainly going to continue skipping happily right along until the crash. "what? no problem here, we just have to drill in alaska. it'll all be ok."

Dude technological growth is infinite and the universe is infinite therefore resources are limited. Go look up the NEW GROWTH THEORY. It's actually been supported by decades of empirical facts instead of some "energy crisis" that people have began worrying about since the 1800s and has never happened because THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS.

Dude technological growth is infinite and the universe is infinite therefore resources are limited. Go look up the NEW GROWTH THEORY. It's actually been supported by decades of empirical facts instead of some "energy crisis" that people have began worrying about since the 1800s and has never happened because THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS.

heh, thank you mister cato institute.

hint hint, the universe isn't infinite, and technological growth isn't either. you are going to run into the laws of thermodynamics at some point.

Dude technological growth is infinite and the universe is infinite therefore resources are limited. Go look up the NEW GROWTH THEORY. It's actually been supported by decades of empirical facts instead of some "energy crisis" that people have began worrying about since the 1800s and has never happened because THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS.

heh, thank you mister cato institute.

hint hint, the universe isn't infinite, and technological growth isn't either. you are going to run into the laws of thermodynamics at some point.

Read Frank J. Tipler's Physics of Immortality for a scientific refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a universe where progress is infinite human-wise. And Tipler's more of a socialist than a capitalist. Technological growth WILL be infinite if people like you stop insisting that it's not. And the universe grows at the speed of light in every direction, according to the generally accepted Hubble's Law. So it is infinite for all intents and purposes we could possibly have. Unless it's closed in which case I refer the Tipler theory to you, which states that after the universe reaches maximum expansion (which is in trillions of years anyways) the amount of energy gradually diverges to infinity.

Dude technological growth is infinite and the universe is infinite therefore resources are limited. Go look up the NEW GROWTH THEORY. It's actually been supported by decades of empirical facts instead of some "energy crisis" that people have began worrying about since the 1800s and has never happened because THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS.

heh, thank you mister cato institute.

hint hint, the universe isn't infinite, and technological growth isn't either. you are going to run into the laws of thermodynamics at some point.

Read Frank J. Tipler's Physics of Immortality for a scientific refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a universe where progress is infinite human-wise.

iirc, that's the book that a reviewer for nature called "a masterful piece of pseudoscience".

you can't beat thermo. its just how the universe works.

If we remain in this single planet, it is likely we will dither away our resources, as we lived in a closed economy. If we gain extra resources from asteroids, other planets etc, due to the size of the universe, we will not run out of energy for a VERY long time..

If we remain in this single planet, it is likely we will dither away our resources, as we lived in a closed economy. If we gain extra resources from asteroids, other planets etc, due to the size of the universe, we will not run out of energy for a VERY long time..

that will all depend on whether we can get to those resources in an efficient manner soon enough though.

If we remain in this single planet, it is likely we will dither away our resources, as we lived in a closed economy. If we gain extra resources from asteroids, other planets etc, due to the size of the universe, we will not run out of energy for a VERY long time..

that will all depend on whether we can get to those resources in an efficient manner soon enough though.

We can get asteroids with cold-war space technology easily enough, getting to other stars is a problem though.

You're also expecting no new forms of energy. While alternative fuels are under researched and funded if a need arised you could probably develope them in time to avoid a complete degredation of the current industrial complex.

We can get asteroids with cold-war space technology easily enough, getting to other stars is a problem though.

Can we? If we can then why dont we? Because it prohibitively expensive, because it takes up a lot of energy and resouces (REsulting in loss on money, With little return) We havnt even been to mars, and we've barely ever sent men outside of the atmosphere.

And there is no fossil fuel ressources on mars.
Let's just wait for the aliens to bring their superior science, they will teleport us to their galaxy where there are girls in bikini.
But for the moment, we have to slow down on the energy we consume.

Maybe the aliens ran out of energy and thats why they havnt showed up "officially".


Or maybe they just know better not to come here.
It would really fuck up society.

It doesn't matter if the energy resources of the universe are infinite- the energy resources of the Earth aren't. If we're planning to follow this ridiculous daydream of continued exponential expansion of energy consumption, we'd still need to consume energy wisely. It's all very well saying there's an infinite amount of petrol available in the petrol station ten miles away, but if we're stupid idiots and don't set out to the petrol station until we've only got enough fuel left to go five miles, we're still just as stuck. At the moment, we're burning resources at an insane, reckless rate, because nobody can bear to be the one who smashes the present day economy by saying "Stop."
We need to slow down, rethink, start using our resources in a sustainable way that doesn't obliterate the landscape while we're doing it, and declare places like Antarctica and Alaska off-limits... permanently.

Nuclear power is the way.

If people stop being paranoid about nuclear accident, then nuclear power can produce enormous amounts of power from a very small amount of nuclear material, which is itself recylcable at least once. Nuclear power also produces no CO2 emissions, thus meaning it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

The potential for nuclear accident is almost nil, and the potential for a Chernobyl scale acident is damn near absolutely nil. We have much better safety tech than Russia had in the 80s (and Chenobyl was twenty years old then), and it was being used in a stupid way as part of an 'experiment'.

By the time we run out of uranium, we will have developed fusion power, which is in progress now (we have fusion reactions going, we just can't yet maintain them long enough for the power out to be greater than the start-up power cost).

Researching wind power, solar power etc. is pointless and we should stop funding them, and put all the money into fusion research. When we can make infinite power from water through fusion, what do we need wind turbines for?

Once we have fusion power, although we do not have completely infinite power (one can eventually run out of all sources of hydrogen, although it can be got from water, which makes up 2/3 of the earth's surface), we will have more than enough to last the human race until the sun goes out (assuming we last that long, which is very unlikely), at which point all life as we know it is doomed anyway, at least in this solar system.

There has been a break in a reactor in a nuclear plant in Japan a few months ago.
Japan has the only working supergenerator on earth (the french one has been stoped a while ago). This kind of generator needs the same temperature (at the 0.001 °C) in all of the hundreds of kilometers of pipe.
And any seism of more than 3 on richter's measure can turn any nuclear plant into tchernobyl.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Actually nuclear power isnt safe. See it costs a hell of an amount to run and maintain a plant. So operators are always cutting corners whenever hey can get away with it.

That and it creates a lot of byproducts that are impossible to be rid of.

Other than that Nuclear would be good. Oh yeah apart from limited uranium. Plus breeders dont work.

· Demand must then fall. The poor countries of the world will bear most of the burden. But the United States will be in serious difficulties. There is, I think, a strong danger of some ill-considered military intervention to try to secure oil. A stock market crash seems inevitable, as some investment managers are now telling us.

Sound familiar? In any case, both websites have opened my eyes to the humongous crisis facing the world today. I knew there was a worldwide oil crisis, but I did not know to what extent.

Im reading them now, But I think in order to claim infallibility, we should investigate for ourselves a bit more.
How do we know this guy is anymore credible than shills for oil companies?

Damn right Astrolia.
*This guy knows the score, He'll tell us what to do!

61 Logical Consequences
· The market is now perceiving that OPEC has lost control. It is a devastating realisation because it means there is no supply-based ceiling on price. Accordingly, prices are set to soar. Don't forget that in to-day's money, oil price went to almost $100 in the 1970 shocks
· Demand must then fall. The poor countries of the world will bear most of the burden. But the United States will be in serious difficulties. There is, I think, a strong danger of some ill-considered military intervention to try to secure oil. A stock market crash seems inevitable, as some investment managers are now telling us.
· The global market may collapse because of high transport costs and global recession.
· Self-sufficiency will become a priority

Wow Was this thing REALLY written in 2000? :D

Blah, Blah, Blah

Actually nuclear power isnt safe...
That and it creates a lot of byproducts that are impossible to be rid of...

byproducts that will be very dangerous for much longer than homo sapiens has existed so far. and nobody has yet thought up a way to tell people 100,000 years from now "dangerous, do not eat". if the history of archaeological sites is any indication, no place can remain secure for a few thousand years, let alone hundreds of thousands, except by accident and pure chance.

61 Logical Consequences
· The market is now perceiving that OPEC has lost control. It is a devastating realisation because it means there is no supply-based ceiling on price. Accordingly, prices are set to soar. Don't forget that in to-day's money, oil price went to almost $100 in the 1970 shocks
· Demand must then fall. The poor countries of the world will bear most of the burden. But the United States will be in serious difficulties. There is, I think, a strong danger of some ill-considered military intervention to try to secure oil. A stock market crash seems inevitable, as some investment managers are now telling us.
· The global market may collapse because of high transport costs and global recession.
· Self-sufficiency will become a priority

Wow Was this thing REALLY written in 2000? :D

I'm glad someone else noticed that too... makes you wonder... how much do the oilmen in the white house know about peak oil? Was Iraq part of a mad scramble to ensure an uninterupted supply?

I'm glad someone else noticed that too... makes you wonder... how much do the oilmen in the white house know about peak oil? Was Iraq part of a mad scramble to ensure an uninterupted supply?

maybe. but gas prices are still going up. if i was a democrat, i would make a political issue of it. "we started an imperialist war for oil, and gas prices are higher than they were before! wtf?!"

Why equate centuries with forever/never? My guess would be that technological civilization will continue for several more centuries, and that humans will be around for tens of thousands of years. But in neither case would I equate that with "forever". BTW, is anyone here familiar with the "doomsday argument"

Why equate centuries with forever/never? My guess would be that technological civilization will continue for several more centuries, and that humans will be around for tens of thousands of years. But in neither case would I equate that with "forever". BTW, is anyone here familiar with the "doomsday argument"

If technological civilization continues to exist for "several more centuries", it is a reasonable assumption that by then we would have ways of tapping into the infinite resources of space and celestial objects.

Happy 2500th Post TGM.

How the hell do we get the fuel to get to those infinite resources?
And what if some other speicies has the same idea?
And no the universe does not have infinite matter, What theory you Belive makes absolutley no difference to reality. You have to proove it. And the preveiling theory now is that the universe will expand forever diffusing matter along with it and it'll be a slow death and on into entropy.



Im not familiar with the doomsday argument. What is it?

Happy 2500th Post TGM.

How the hell do we get the fuel to get to those infinite resources?
And what if some other speicies has the same idea?
And no the universe does not have infinite matter, What theory you Belive makes absolutley no difference to reality. You have to proove it. And the preveiling theory now is that the universe will expand forever diffusing matter along with it and it'll be a slow death and on into entropy.



Im not familiar with the doomsday argument. What is it?

In human terms, we have plenty of time. As for getting the 'infinite' resources: We will use the resources that we find nearby to propell us further along, then we will use those resources to get even further, and then even further... To use a term from Stephen Baxter's "Time", we will bootstrap our way throughout the universe.

Im not familiar with the doomsday argument. What is it?

Which doomsday argument may that be?

In human terms, we have plenty of time. As for getting the 'infinite' resources: We will use the resources that we find nearby to propell us further along, then we will use those resources to get even further, and then even further... To use a term from Stephen Baxter's "Time", we will bootstrap our way throughout the universe.

Your missing the point, We are saying that we are running out of energy and thus wont be able to.

In human terms, we have plenty of time. As for getting the 'infinite' resources: We will use the resources that we find nearby to propell us further along, then we will use those resources to get even further, and then even further... To use a term from Stephen Baxter's "Time", we will bootstrap our way throughout the universe.

Your missing the point, We are saying that we are running out of energy and thus wont be able to.

we will eventually come to an equilibrium here on Earth(admittdly after some sort of catastrophe), but travelling through space doesn't take all too much energy as there is gravity to propel you along and no air to slow you down

Escaping the pull of the sun is just as hard as escaping the pull of the earth. and escaping the pull of the galaxy will also be just as difficult.

Escaping the pull of the sun is just as hard as escaping the pull of the earth. and escaping the pull of the galaxy will also be just as difficult.

Small steps at a time. Once we get off the Earth, gaining resources from the solar system is simple, even now we use gravity to sling-shot probeas about the place, we've even used the suns gravity to sling-shot a probe out of the solar system.

If you want an efficient way to get off-planet, have a look at Space Elevators. They cost a lot, but once they're up, they cost almost nothing energy-wise to run.

Escaping the pull of the sun is just as hard as escaping the pull of the earth. and escaping the pull of the galaxy will also be just as difficult.

Small steps at a time. Once we get off the Earth, gaining resources from the solar system is simple, even now we use gravity to sling-shot probeas about the place, we've even used the suns gravity to sling-shot a probe out of the solar system.

If you want an efficient way to get off-planet, have a look at Space Elevators. They cost a lot, but once they're up, they cost almost nothing energy-wise to run.

Yeah but will we have the resources to get off the earth.
I'm a big fan of space travel, Im familiar with proposed methods.

Escaping the pull of the sun is just as hard as escaping the pull of the earth. and escaping the pull of the galaxy will also be just as difficult.

Small steps at a time. Once we get off the Earth, gaining resources from the solar system is simple, even now we use gravity to sling-shot probeas about the place, we've even used the suns gravity to sling-shot a probe out of the solar system.

If you want an efficient way to get off-planet, have a look at Space Elevators. They cost a lot, but once they're up, they cost almost nothing energy-wise to run.

Yeah but will we have the resources to get off the earth.
I'm a big fan of space travel, Im familiar with proposed methods.

All we need is enough energy to get a single facility off the earth. That facility will gather resources and produce another facility. those two will go and gether more resources and build more facilities and then eventually transfer the resources and energy back to Earth to lift even more facilities.

Escaping the pull of the sun is just as hard as escaping the pull of the earth. and escaping the pull of the galaxy will also be just as difficult.

Small steps at a time. Once we get off the Earth, gaining resources from the solar system is simple, even now we use gravity to sling-shot probeas about the place, we've even used the suns gravity to sling-shot a probe out of the solar system.

If you want an efficient way to get off-planet, have a look at Space Elevators. They cost a lot, but once they're up, they cost almost nothing energy-wise to run.

Yeah but will we have the resources to get off the earth.
I'm a big fan of space travel, Im familiar with proposed methods.

All we need is enough energy to get a single facility off the earth. That facility will gather resources and produce another facility. those two will go and gether more resources and build more facilities and then eventually transfer the resources and energy back to Earth to lift even more facilities.

All we need is enough energy to get a single facility off the earth. That facility will gather resources and produce another facility. those two will go and gether more resources and build more facilities and then eventually transfer the resources and energy back to Earth to lift even more facilities.Which ressources are you talking about? There isn't any oil on Mars. Sun ressource? Well we should use more solar electricity, we are not yet fluent with this. And nearest star except the sun is 4 billions years from here (at light speed), so don't count on it. The end of oil ressources is 20 years from now.

Well actually how do we know there isnt oil on mars?
Theres water. And so there probably was organic matter. Which means there could be oil. But its irrelivant. There wouldnt be very much and besides if we could get the equipment and man power to mars, we would be so advanced that you not be in need of it and have progressed past it.

Well actually how do we know there isnt oil on mars?
Theres water. And so there probably was organic matter. Which means there could be oil. But its irrelivant. There wouldnt be very much and besides if we could get the equipment and man power to mars, we would be so advanced that you not be in need of it and have progressed past it.And anyway, we can just suppose that there is a possibility that there could be oil on Mars, vs we are sure than we run out of oil in 20 years. And I don't imagine a pipeline going from Mars to earth within 20 years.

Yeah i wonder if the sun would catch in fire if it ran through it........



:D

Blah, Blah, Blah

Actually nuclear power isnt safe...
That and it creates a lot of byproducts that are impossible to be rid of...

byproducts that will be very dangerous for much longer than homo sapiens has existed so far. and nobody has yet thought up a way to tell people 100,000 years from now "dangerous, do not eat". if the history of archaeological sites is any indication, no place can remain secure for a few thousand years, let alone hundreds of thousands, except by accident and pure chance.

Nuclear power is as safe as anything else. Oil isn't safe (remember piper alpha? Also what saddam did to the oilwells during the gulf? And the number of oil slicks we have every year). Cars (42, 815 deaths in USA alone in ONE YEAR [2002, www.usatoday.com]) kill more people than Chernobyl ever did (only 31 immediate deaths, 7000 'eventual deaths' [www.cnn.com], maybe many more over the next twenty years, but still nothing like the car death toll), but of course, we don't refuse to touch them because they are 'unsafe'.

The disposal of nuclear materials is a problem, but not half as big as problem as this 'energy crisis' is going to be, if indeed it does occur.

Please remember also, the number of deaths expected to result from global warming due to drought, flooding and extreme weather events. Nuclear power produces no CO2 emissions, and, unlike windpower, solar power, tide power etc. is comercially and scientifically viable on a large scale, now. Not in twenty years, now. By the time we have fully efficient, large-scale renwwable energy we will likely have fusion power anyway.

By turning radioactive materials into glass, placing the glass in a copper or iron jacket, and burying it in holes or trenches in underground caverns, covered with concrete or bentonite, they should last up to 1000 years before any radiation escapes. After 500 years, the radiation will have declined to the level of uranium ore, stuff which is naturally in the ground, and hasn't killed us yet.

And for goodness sake, this 'deadly' uranium waste causes cancer. So does sunlight. So does being alive (well, cell division, eventually), so do a large number of commercial chemicals. The small death toll, over say 1000 years, from nuclear waste if it is ever found or escapes, should be compared to deaths from global warming, acid rain, 'energy crisis', or indeed to unrelated events such as lightning strikes (1318 deaths over fifteen years in the USA alone [http://cisat.isciii.es] were attributed to lightning), just to show how bloody small and insignificant it is!

Oh, and as for the person who says breeder reactors don't work. Got any proof? Because they keep being built, and keep producing nuclear fuel from nuclear waste. Unless it is all an enormous government cover-up.

Im sorry, The only Info i have on Breeders is from a very comprehensie book....written before chrenobyl :D
Although am i right in assuming they dont generate enough energy to be self sustaining? And would be a real drain to maintain.
And although you make other good points in your posts, they are technicalities, and, symantics.


Just for fun (http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html)

Well, well, a sensible discussion! I am pleasantly surprised!

First, removing a few absurdities from the debate:

- Nothing can get around the 2nd Law. It is an absolute. Anyone who tells you otherwise does not know what they are talking about. If they did, they would not be saying it.

- The solar system contains mineral resources only, not energy resources. We cannot produce high-grade energy from rock. There is solar energy, but manufacturing solar panels and indeed all semiconductors on an industrial scale requires gravity, huge quantities of energy, and factories the size of many football stadia. This, combined with the 2nd Law and interstellar distances, effectively confines us to Earth forever, and if some people cannot accept that, certainly for far longer than the next few decades, which is the period which matters.

Now that we have that out of the way . . .

The White House does indeed know a lot about this energy crisis, this administration contains lots of oil industry men who know this very well. It is an open secret really, because for every oil man in the administration, there are plenty willing to say what is happening. A few famous (independent) names: Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffeyes, Jean Laherrere, and of course Hubbert himself. Some information about them and others is at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/experts/

There is also Matthew R Simmons (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/), an energy adviser to the Bush administration, who has been talking about this stuff for years.

Armed interventions in oil producing countries have throughout history been shown to interrupt oil production. Oil production requires a minimum of political stability, if there is a discontinuity in the political life of a nation, oil production drops and takes a long time to recover. The US does not seem to have learnt that lesson, although they could be playing the long game.

Anyway, it is a serious problem, how many conspiracy theories have the full attention of industry experts? The question is what to do about it. I believe that raising awareness is a good idea, but am under no illusion that the vast majority of people will only accept it when they start having to queue for extremely expensive fuel and people are discussing supply problems on TV. It happened during the UK petrol protests in 2000, but the problem went away after a week, so everyone forgot. People really do live in their own bubble, never seeing the machinery which supports them, making trite delusional comments when the people who actually run that stuff say there is a problem. Nature has a way of dealing with you if you do not give it respect.

I am learning what I can about it as and when things happen, and am thinking that doing the whole escape the city to a farm routine you sometimes see on TV will be a good idea ten years from now.

Looks like those Y2K Survivalists should keep the canned beans after all.

Ive read the second article it seemed a bit more...selective in its information.

yay for people power! Throw your citizens into the reactor core, watch as it grinds them into pulp and converts them into power!

Looks like those Y2K Survivalists should keep the canned beans after all.

Ive read the second article it seemed a bit more...selective in its information.

Selective? Confusion reigns . . .

The information on the second link. IT seemed more selective and wanting. Like it only gave one example instead of broad assesments. That would be better if it wasnt the first thing you ever read about it. Which is good because i didnt.
If one were to scrutinise it, Twould be less convincing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3182575.stm

What do you think about Nuclear power TG?

You have a point, there is some bias there, but then there is bias everywhere, and there are a lot of sites which just approach the whole thing from a nutcase survivalist perspective. I respect those sites which give a lot of accurate information without dwelling on the "Oh my GAWD, we're all gonna die!" stuff. There used to be one called runningonempty.org which was like that, and die-off.com used to be a lot worse than it is now.

Nuclear power has problems, effectively its implementation would require a government to over-rule the wishes of the people. It could only be pushed through using dictatorial powers. In the UK, the government and the nuclear industry have given up - the old nuclear power stations are being decommissioned one by one over the next 15 years. The first few, from the late 1950s, have already been switched off. By 2020, only one, Sizewell B, will remain in operation. These nuclear power stations make up a quarter of the UK's electricity consumption, and with 90% of our gas coming from Russia by then (the North Sea will have been exhausted), this poses a serious problem to the British energy infrastructure. No-one has addressed it yet. The UK government's Energy White Paper (a policy document) basically hopes it will all somehow go away.

In the US, a second nuclear build is more likely, but it might be more sensible to build more coal-fired capacity.

There is a theory that space is not a vacuum but a dense field of energy fluctuations. This energy is known as Zero Point Energy, named after the phenomenon of atoms vibrating at absolute zero. The energy density of the Zero Point Energy field has been estimated to be 10^93 grams/cm^3. Even if we could find a way to tap a tiny percentage of the energy in the field we would then have an infinite supply of energy to satisfy our needs.

I think i need to learn more about thenature of energy.

I went out and bought a solar powered lamp, im gonna take it apart tonight.

*Shock Horror

The last link you posted is offline

You mean this? http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/ It should work.

Nuclear power, when done right, is perfectly safe.

Looking over the past, say, fifty years since the first nuclear powerplant aboard a US Naval vessel was brought to criticality, there have been absolutely zero] nuclear accidents. Look at the number of running nuclear powerplants in the US - over 100 civilian plants, with a...questionable...safety record, and nearly as many naval plants...with an imppecable safety record. Granted, this is just within the US itself - Russian Navy needs not apply. ¬¬

It's not a matter of the technology being inherently safe or unsafe, it's a matter of the training, procedures, and funding one is willing to apply to safely operating the plant. And remember that most of these reactors are sixties and seventies designs. There are newer, more modern designs out there - take a glance at http://gen-iv.ne.doe.gov/ for some of them.

But thats just it They dont do it right.
It certainly shouldnt be trusted to private companies.

And the site is up, but the specific page is down

Umm we are people, so we are bound to f*ck up. The more nuclear plants with more probability we will do something stupid, it is just a matter of time 50 years isn't very much.. still plenty of time to mess about.

But what about Fusion power, at some point atleast they were going on about, how they might have that working in 2050, I guess the date just seems to drag on further and further..

I disagree. There are dozens of nuclear reactors in the US which have big holes in their pressure vessels. One rupture - criticality - bad news. There is an ongoing crash problem to make repairs, but they are finding new ones all the time.

An example is the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio. They found a football-sized hole in the pressure vessel, only a centimetre of steel was holding it all in, rated at 6 days (or was it hours?) of operation, but it was like that for 6 years before they found it. A criminal investigation was launched while they made repairs. Towards the end of July, the Union of Concerned Scientists begged the US nuclear authorities not to restart it. And yet, with the heatwave stretching the grid to capacity, it looks like they did. They probably thought they were making a smart move in doing a restart with all the safety systems set to trip on a hair-trigger, (just to be on the safe side!) but a little something like a toasting power line probably activated all the self-protection stuff and we all know happened next. My informed guess says that that is what happened with the blackout, none of this tree, lighting or damn Canadians business.

If you are going to license the AP1000 and build a hundred of them while you have dozens of existing plants in that condition, good luck. Only the UK has refused. All you would be doing is increasing your workload and chances of an accident further down the line. Everything I have seen suggests that the difficulty in keeping nuclear power plants safe and then decommissioning them is not worth the trouble. For baseload, coal or wind power is the only sensible way to go.

But thats just it They dont do it right.
It certainly shouldnt be trusted to private companies.

And the site is up, but the specific page is down

Try this, then - http://gen-iv.ne.doe.gov/text-only.html

And as to private companies...maybe require them to hire personnel qualified to the same standards as say, the Navy, and to keep them up to that standard stringently. Other than that, though, allow it to be come a relatively unregulated business.

Umm we are people, so we are bound to f*ck up. The more nuclear plants with more probability we will do something stupid, it is just a matter of time 50 years isn't very much.. still plenty of time to mess about.

I'll be sure to convey your regards over a hundred thousand nucs who've run the Navy's plants quietly and without error for fifty years, okay? People will screw up - that's what multiply-redundant procedures, multi-person verification, and controls are for.

[Note - yeah, I'm a nuc, and in the Navy. Slight bias towards nuclear power here. Eeeeeever so slight. :P ]

"Could be deployed commercially by 2030"?

That's not going to help us replace natural gas . . .

ITs not about personel, its about those that own them.
They tend to cut costs, and push it to how far they "think" they can get away with. And thats with regulations already in place. Deregulate and It'd be time for me to move away, from planet earth.

And who says that the Navy has had no accidents?
The American military has always had a policy of "strictly controlling" information. Its just a good thing that none of those nuclear powered vehicles were ever in an actual war.

But thats just it They dont do it right.
It certainly shouldnt be trusted to private companies.

What makes you think the government will do a better job?

And who says that the Navy has had no accidents?
The American military has always had a policy of "strictly controlling" information. Its just a good thing that none of those nuclear powered vehicles were ever in an actual war.

Examples?

I disagree. There are dozens of nuclear reactors in the US which have big holes in their pressure vessels. One rupture - criticality - bad news. There is an ongoing crash problem to make repairs, but they are finding new ones all the time.

Heh...again, I note - civilian nuclear powerplants. Looser standards will result in such...potential disasters. Remember that most of these plants are at least twenty years old, with some almost forty years old. They're old, and beginning to approach the time they need major overhauls.

Incidentally...USS Enterprise, CVN-65, has been operating for the last 42 years, running eight nuclear reactors, all of which have been accident-free. It's possible to run reactors for long times without hazards, so long as you do it safely.

If you are going to license the AP1000 and build a hundred of them while you have dozens of existing plants in that condition, good luck. Only the UK has refused. All you would be doing is increasing your workload and chances of an accident further down the line. Everything I have seen suggests that the difficulty in keeping nuclear power plants safe and then decommissioning them is not worth the trouble. For baseload, coal or wind power is the only sensible way to go.

The AP1000 is a pressurized water reactor, which is an older design - based off the same designs that we've built nuclear reactors with since day one. It's a good design, but there are newer, better ones being certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commision and other agencies.

And who says that the Navy has had no accidents?
The American military has always had a policy of "strictly controlling" information. Its just a good thing that none of those nuclear powered vehicles were ever in an actual war.

Pretty much everyone I've talked to in the nuclear power community in the navy? People with careers spanning over twenty years?

Not even rumors of nuclear accidents. And trust me, in a community as small as the nuclear one, there'd be rumors if there was an incident.

And who says that the Navy has had no accidents?
The American military has always had a policy of "strictly controlling" information.

Examples?

Uh . . . that's the point (s)he is making. The absence of examples does not mean that there are no examples. And if that sounds silly, that argument has recently been made in all seriousness in the UN regarding a different matter.

If you built lots of Navy nuclear power plants on shore, they would have to be staffed by Navy personnel, as civilians get complacent very quickly. Then all you would have is a different design being run the same way. And earlier you said the business should be relatively unregulated. I don't know how you can reconcile the military running the nuclear base-load, and having subsidy-free free-market publicly-owned companies responsible.

bump

Wasn't Enron one of those private energy companies that can be safely trusted?

If you built lots of Navy nuclear power plants on shore, they would have to be staffed by Navy personnel, as civilians get complacent very quickly. Then all you would have is a different design being run the same way. And earlier you said the business should be relatively unregulated. I don't know how you can reconcile the military running the nuclear base-load, and having subsidy-free free-market publicly-owned companies responsible.

I never said having the military run anything, I just said for the operators of the plant to be held to the same standards and consequences as military operators, up to and including capital sentances for dereliction of duty.

Other than that, it can still be pretty free-market.

Other than that, it can still be pretty free-market.

Free-market nuclear does not work, and almost certainly never will. Some projects can simply not be made to make a profit in the private sector over the course of their working life. I honestly do not understand why so many people think that any function of government or bit of national infrastructure can be run as a profit-making enterprise. It is delusion, plain and simple. Some things simply do not work that way. Nuclear, in any form, will always have to receive huge state subsidies in the private sector. There is no reason for it to be private. I say if you are going to do nuclear seriously, it is best to nationalise it.

Yes after all its such a risk to make it private. If its under government control its more likely to be safe because if the people think its not then politicians wont be re-elected. So they have a vested interest in making sure they are. Corporations on the other hand, arent democratic. And if they are doing worse in the stockmarket then the plants are even more likely to be unsafe.

When you're all done figuring out the technological solution to the energy problem, maybe you can figure out how new technologies will get us out of food shortages, water shortages, global warming, and the disappearing ozone layer?

In case none of you have noticed, the reason why we're screwed isn't technological; it's political. We're exhausting our energy resources so quickly because we're consuming them at an ever-increasing rate. We're doing that because capitalism prefers rapid growth over common-sense.

The problem is getting worse. Even water is now commodified in much of the world, which is bad news for those organisms that need it to live.

Rather than being built to resolve problems of depletion and scarcity, corporate capitalism is the system which creates such problems, profits off them, and distributes an ever-diminishing pool of resources to an ever-shrinking number of people. If it seems like wealth is increasing, that's only because more and more of the things necessary for survival on this planet are having price tags affixed to them.

Actually, as the author of one of the articles suggests, look at Cuba if you want to find a society making the most of few energy resources.

Sustainable, organic, local agriculture greatly reduces the role of petroleum in feeding large populations. Hitchhiking is such a common form of transportation that the government operates public hitchhiking stations on major highways, with free coffee. Certain government vehicles are required to stop and pick up hitchhikers.

We certainly can make changes in our society to avoid impending catastrophe, as Cuba did after the fall of the Soviet Union. And luckily, our society will be much the better for these changes, like erasing urban sprawl, planning for sustainable growth, using organic methods, and adopting self-sufficiency in our lives and as a national strategy.

Our consumption habits are something that we do have the power to control. We don't need to bank on fusion power or interstellar rocketships to do it.

The salvation of this planet will be the bicycle.

When you're all done figuring out the technological solution to the energy problem, maybe you can figure out how new technologies will get us out of food shortages, water shortages, global warming, and the disappearing ozone layer?

Food shortages: I think you mean starvation. There's a very BIG difference. Zimbawbwe has had food production go down 40% in the 90s and is constantly having food shortages... but there's no starvation... on the other hand, there's more than enough food in Somalia to feed the people of Somalia, but there's lots of starving children... there has NEVER been a famine in a democratic or even nondemocratic capitalist country. The solution is free trade to increase government responsiblity.

Water shortages: Ditto.

Global Warming: 98% of greenhouse gases are released naturally. Global warming is exaggerated. Article: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/michaels.pdf.

Ozone Layer: If you really want to not get skin cancer, you can wear sunscreen like the rest of us.

In case none of you have noticed, the reason why we're screwed isn't technological; it's political.

Yep, when something defies physical law, 9 times out of 10 politics is involved.

We're exhausting our energy resources so quickly because we're consuming them at an ever-increasing rate.

We're also producing stuff at an ever-increasing rate... what's your point?

We're doing that because capitalism prefers rapid growth over common-sense.

Tell the impoverished Chinese farmer who can barely feed his family that... For 75% of the people in the world rapid growth and capitalism is their only way out of poverty.

The problem is getting worse. Even water is now commodified in much of the world, which is bad news for those organisms that need it to live.

But I like Aquafina... It tastes better than the water at my local koi pond.

Rather than being built to resolve problems of depletion and scarcity, corporate capitalism is the system which creates such problems, profits off them, and distributes an ever-diminishing pool of resources to an ever-shrinking number of people.

Actually we have more known untapped oil, zinc, and iron, as well as many other resources, in the world than ever before... we're developing and discovering new resources than we are using them.

If it seems like wealth is increasing, that's only because more and more of the things necessary for survival on this planet are having price tags affixed to them.

Well, duh, unless you want to stop paying farmers for growing food for you to eat...

Actually, as the author of one of the articles suggests, look at Cuba if you want to find a society making the most of few energy resources.

And half teh population is living on money sent back by their relatives in Miami :roll:.

Sustainable, organic, local agriculture greatly reduces the role of petroleum in feeding large populations.

This is actually America's fault. We should stop the embargo.

Hitchhiking is such a common form of transportation that the government operates public hitchhiking stations on major highways, with free coffee.

Because no one can afford cars.

Certain government vehicles are required to stop and pick up hitchhikers.

We have these too, they're called "taxis".

We certainly can make changes in our society to avoid impending catastrophe, as Cuba did after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Where most of the population boils stones for soup or lives off of Miami-handouts.

And luckily, our society will be much the better for these changes, like erasing urban sprawl, planning for sustainable growth, using organic methods, and adopting self-sufficiency in our lives and as a national strategy.

If Cuba really is so great, how come you always hear about Cuban refugees taking shoddy boats to Florida, but not vice versa? Because no one wants to live in Cuba because its quality of life is trash. Cuba has a very fair and loose immigration policy... go move there.

Our consumption habits are something that we do have the power to control. We don't need to bank on fusion power or interstellar rocketships to do it.

Why not? It'll be a century at the current exponential population growth at least before we run out of oil. Remember there's more known untapped oil NOW than in 1970 and everyone was worried that we'd be running out in 1970. Dead things are constantly turning into oil. All the things that died 19,999,999 years ago will be available next year just as the things that died 20 million years ago became available this year.

The salvation of this planet will be the bicycle.

No, it will be the New Growth Theory.

New Growth Theory? Yeah. :lol:

It should be obvious that no oil or natural gas means no food. Without those things, you can't produce fertiliser in sufficient quantities or lay on enough transport.

A British newspaper once ran a long photo-article photographing an average family in several different countries with their weekly food. In most of the countries featured, you had families with locally-grown stuff, and without much processing - ie bread, sausage, etc. The US family had everything from all over the world (think transport) and packaged in cardboard and several different types of plastic (think oil).

Someone once pointed out that it takes ten times as much fossil fuel energy to feed an American family than it does to feed an equivalent one in Turkey or Mongolia. Same calorific content, but the distances the stuff has travelled, the warehouse power supplies, etc all adds up. A lot of places will make it through the discontinuity in a far better state than the US, which will most likely simply suffer a total collapse.

I trust the Cato institute about as much as trust....

http://home.1asphost.com/aussietv/Spyforce/spyfor47.jpg

Col. Cato!!!

TGM you dont seem to have read the links, or payed attention to anything generally accepted in this thread. The main being above all That even if the New growth theory is correct it doesnt save us, because we wont be able to get to those resources.

And please, dont post your corporate Propaganda here.

Economics can never hope to circumvent the physical laws of the Universe. That says it all, really.

I trust the Cato institute about as much as trust....

http://home.1asphost.com/aussietv/Spyforce/spyfor47.jpg

Col. Cato!!!

TGM you dont seem to have read the links, or payed attention to anything generally accepted in this thread. The main being above all That even if the New growth theory is correct it doesnt save us, because we wont be able to get to those resources.

And please, dont post your corporate Propaganda here.

LoL! Actually Cato the Younger (who the Cato Institute is named after) WAS a soldier, but he was mainly a senator. He fought to oppose Caesar and ended up losing and killing himself at Utica in BC 46. The only book he wrote that survives is the Letters, or Essays on Liberty and Important Matters, which was one of the key books that inspired the Founding Fathers. The American Revolution was largely based on distinctly Cato-ish and Lockean ideals.

And the Cato Link I posted... uses United Nations statistics...

Also there might be energy differences between the US and Turkey... but I like to have a well-balanced diet... and some things don't grow too well in the United States... There is more than enough oil and natural gas, more is being produced (from things that died millions of years ago) every day, (it's not like everything stopped dying 20,000,000 years ago) and there are also ways of creating synthetic oils.

Economics can never hope to circumvent the physical laws of the Universe. That says it all, really.

The new growth theroy doesn't circumvent physical law. It says technological growth is infinite. Find a physical law that contradicts.

As for you Astrolia, generally accepted on this single thread doesn't mean anything .... like maybe 10 people post here and most are liberal.

We're doing that because capitalism prefers rapid growth over common-sense.

Tell the impoverished Chinese farmer who can barely feed his family that... For 75% of the people in the world rapid growth and capitalism is their only way out of poverty.

How much would we have to raise the world's production of steel in order to make an automobile for every family in China?>

There is more than enough oil and natural gas, more is being produced (from things that died millions of years ago) every day, (it's not like everything stopped dying 20,000,000 years ago) and there are also ways of creating synthetic oils.

Man, you really need to read a beginner's book on petroleum geology. The creation of oil is not an ongoing process, it is an occasional process. You need a warm tropical sea with circulation currents just right, etc. There in no ongoing oil production. Maybe there will be, in a few tens of millions of years, who knows? But not now. What there is is all there is.

Plus, production of synthetic oils cannot be scaled up to the quantities in question. It is pure fantasy to think otherwise.

Economics can never hope to circumvent the physical laws of the Universe. That says it all, really.

The new growth theroy doesn't circumvent physical law. It says technological growth is infinite. Find a physical law that contradicts.

Technological growth is limited by energy considerations. Concentrated energy sources run out, technology to produce new technology has no fuel on which to run.

There is more than enough oil and natural gas, more is being produced (from things that died millions of years ago) every day, (it's not like everything stopped dying 20,000,000 years ago) and there are also ways of creating synthetic oils.

Man, you really need to read a beginner's book on petroleum geology. The creation of oil is not an ongoing process, it is an occasional process. You need a warm tropical sea with circulation currents just right, etc. There in no ongoing oil production. Maybe there will be, in a few tens of millions of years, who knows? But not now. What there is is all there is.

Plus, production of synthetic oils cannot be scaled up to the quantities in question. It is pure fantasy to think otherwise.

Firstly, how do you know at the time period in question (20 MYA or whatever the oil isn't currently being more created?)

It's not fantasy, it's called "technology"

Current steel output is plenty enough to make 300 million cars for every family in China.

As for you Astrolia, generally accepted on this single thread doesn't mean anything .... like maybe 10 people post here and most are liberal.

Being liberal does not mean being wrong. Matthew R Simmons is an energy adviser to Bush. He has been saying the same stuff for years. You might want to actually take the time to read some of the links.

Firstly, how do you know at the time period in question (20 MYA or whatever the oil isn't currently being more created?)

Because the petroleum geologist Kenneth Deffeyes says so. He says the same stuff by the way, has been doing for decades. He is a man of standing, knows his stuff, the sort you should take seriously. Look up his book.

It's not fantasy, it's called "technology"

Well, you're an economist and I'm an engineer. Who is more likely to know better?

Current steel output is plenty enough to make 300 million cars for every family in China.

And fuelling them for the next couple of decades will require twice as much oil as there actually is, and all that oil being discovered round about now. And what do we see, all the petroleum geologists retiring and the oil companies shutting their exploration divisions. Job done, they say, as they switch the lights off on the way out.

Technology will deliver the human race again, like it has so through so many problems.

Sure there may be a shortage of gas and fossil fuels in the near future (20 years i recall one post stating) but high technology will save us!!!!! :!: :!: :!:

You and I may not have the insight to invent some revolutionary new technology but I have blind faith (!!) that some genius (or group of geniuses) out there will invent some thing to save industrial civilization. Just because Malthus himself wasn't able to invent anesthetics, antibiotics, fertilizers, and other cool things did not mean that someone would come along and invent them and thus postpone for another 200 years the Malthusian outcome. Barring nuclear war or a biblical plague the human race will make it through okay, even if oil runs out. Human ingenuity will solve the energy sink problem and find new technologies. To you pessimists out there, Sim City 2000 promises that Fusion power and Microwave power will be available in 50 years. :x :x :x

It is not unreasonable to expect that competition for dwindling natural resources could lead to a nuclear war. We are not that clever.

Current steel output is plenty enough to make 300 million cars for every family in China.

Huh? If we make 300 million more cars than we are now, then don't we need more steel? Or are you planning on giving up your car for someone in China?

It is not unreasonable to expect that competition for dwindling natural resources could lead to a nuclear war. We are not that clever.

Just because you and I are not that clever does not mean that there doesn't exist people of immense cleverness who could bail us out of the current 'energy crisis.' You vastly underestimate human ingenuity. Malthus could talk all he wanted about how the world is doomed but was he clever enough to preserve humanity and give us a higher standard of living? No. He wasn't clever enough, but tell Fleming, Salk, Pasteur, Watt, Curie, Edison, and Maxwell that they weren't clever enough. Mankind will produce more great men and women like these. I have faith. No, wait, even better, from seeing that thousands of brilliant revolutionaries have walked on this earth I have posteriori judgment. :evil: :evil: :evil:

It is of course very probable that if oil reserves became extremely depleted there would be a nuclear war. The whole idea is to rely on high technology to save us from such energy shortages and other catastrophes. It would be infinitely more likely that nuclear war happens not because of some crisis in industrial civilization but because of a matter of pride, like in the Mideast or Korean peninsula. Sure, mankind can be quite destructive. But these catastrophes can be easily prevented by diplomacy.

Current steel output is plenty enough to make 300 million cars for every family in China.

Huh? If we make 300 million more cars than we are now, then don't we need more steel? Or are you planning on giving up your car for someone in China?

FIrst of all urban Chinese don't have much need for cars... most New Yorkers don't own cars even if they could afford it... and 300 million more cars isn't an insurmountable obstacle... there are almost that many registered cars in North America.

The point is this : in the Early 1900s people were worried about running out of coal. We did two things:

- Switch Everything (well not everything but alot of things) to Oil
- And we never did run out of coal anyways

Humanity as a species has always been able to overcome percieved resource shortages...your arguments are no better than paranoia.

This is somewhat compelling. http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html

Bump

Current steel output is plenty enough to make 300 million cars for every family in China.

Huh? If we make 300 million more cars than we are now, then don't we need more steel? Or are you planning on giving up your car for someone in China?

FIrst of all urban Chinese don't have much need for cars... most New Yorkers don't own cars even if they could afford it... and 300 million more cars isn't an insurmountable obstacle... there are almost that many registered cars in North America.

The point is this : in the Early 1900s people were worried about running out of coal. We did two things:

- Switch Everything (well not everything but alot of things) to Oil
- And we never did run out of coal anyways

Humanity as a species has always been able to overcome percieved resource shortages...your arguments are no better than paranoia.
And as we are running out of oil, we are turning to hydrogen fuel cells. GM says it can mass produce fuel cell cars by 2010. NEC says it'll release a laptop in two years running on a hydrogen battery. Lasts up to forty hours.
Hydrogen is very plentiful: 90% of all matter in the universe is hydrogen. It is simple: just one proton and an electron. It is also very clean: fuel cell cars will release nothing more than water vapor.

... and some things don't grow too well in the United States... There is more than enough oil and natural gas, more is being produced (from things that died millions of years ago) every day, (it's not like everything stopped dying 20,000,000 years ago) and there are also ways of creating synthetic oils.
The United States is a big place, and I can't offhand think ogf a crop that can't be grown well somwhere in it, and that's not even discussing greenhouses or the like.
Ethanol runs a significant net energy loss. Even if it did not, there will not even be enough productive farmland to prevent global famine, let alone grow an energy crop. I would definitely like to see numbrs for the the "not enough farmland to prevent famine" point, and also, IIRC, the potentials for vegetable-based oils are significantly higher than those of ethanol, including synthetics(rayon, anyone?). I am, however, not suggesting this as an excuse to continue current energy-use patterns, but I think it should be taken under consideration.(unleses someone has the numbers that say otherwise, of course)

I would definitely like to see numbrs for the the "not enough farmland to prevent famine" point, and also, IIRC, the potentials for vegetable-based oils are significantly higher than those of ethanol, including synthetics(rayon, anyone?). I am, however, not suggesting this as an excuse to continue current energy-use patterns, but I think it should be taken under consideration.(unleses someone has the numbers that say otherwise, of course)

It's pretty damn easy to convert a standard diesel engine to run on biodiesel (after all, rudolf diesel himself had the french navy running their ships on peanut oil). Go to chinese restaurants and ask them for their used cooking oil, then cook up all the biodiesel you want in your own blender. No engine modifications necessary. Yup, free fuel, great milage, and the exhaust smells like french fries.

But convert every American's SUV to biodiesel, and you're gonna have major problems getting enough veggie oil. A whole lot more farms would have to grow soy beans, and there would be major resource costs associated with that.

Similarly, there are major resource costs associated with refining hydrogen. So, Fiune, you're right -- alternative fuel technologies are /not/ an excuse to continue current energy-use patterns.

http://www.ratserv.com/microcosm/bikefist.gif

Simple as that.

You need to generate electricity in order to produce hydrogen for the fuel cells. The process is an energy sink and needs an energy subsidy. Such as coal or nuclear power plants, which take a long time to approve and build. The number required, we are talking decades which we do not have. No-one has bothered, and it is obvious now it will be left far too late.

Alternative hydrocarbon fuels are utterly useless without conservation. America is not exactly leading the world in this respect.

We switched from wood, to charcoal, to coal, to oil, natural gas and nuclear. Now what? There does not seem to be anything else within reach. Fusion power stations generating hydrogen for fuel cells? Some of you have faith is human ingenuity. I do not. That is the sole cause of any differences here. The information at the heart of the matter remains the same. Those of you in the US might also want to check out how much natural gas you have left, field depletion rates and the last few winter storage cycles.

Ok time for a long drawn out post Mainly Aimed at TGM

Firstley that link you posted doesnt seem to be working

Secondly I dont really know anything about This speaking from a scientific viewpoint, in fact most people here dont. In Fact, the only person who even comes close is TG Who works in the industry.
All I have to go on is The Links, TG's opinion and common sense.

As for you Astrolia, generally accepted on this single thread doesn't mean anything .... like maybe 10 people post here and most are liberal.
Thinking in partisan terms will get you nowhere. What has being "liberal" got to do with this.

First post
Well being Men of Science, of Logic and reason. Belief has no place in reason. Its certainly not Comforting to sit around thinking "Let someone else worry about it". Disussin it now cant hurt. But in the end your right, some new technology will have to come along. And it probably will, But not with current Angles of approach. Actual, Serious Action needs to be taken.
(And please dont try to tell me any different)

TGM You really oughtta read the links, and if you have read em again. Because you've obviously missed the points.
The links, even this (http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html) one that Demagouges posted. For a start they say that oil formed in the Mezoic era which was a time when (apparently)
Most crude oil comes from one-celled plants and animals that die, settle to ocean floors, decompose, and are mashed by sliding tectonic plates, a process geologists call subduction. Under pressure and heat, the dead creatures' long chains of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon-bearing molecules, known as polymers, decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons. Was an abundant happening. Fact is its taken (a realtively small amount of time By the apparent Scientific reckoning, (or around 2 billion years by yours) To Chew through all that oil in 100 years.
Which gives you an idea of the situation.

Even before technologies like
This (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1553) were invented it was totally possible to make oil synthetically. just like it was possible to make diamonds and coal and other stuff. And If we had some Free source of energy like Cold fusion or something, We could. But Of all the energy it took to make the parts and resources to create the technology on a large scale its not really justifed
All that aside we need to move away from oil fuelled cars. It warms the atmosphere and its poisonous.

Also Hydrogen may "supposedly" be the most common element, in reality who knows. But extracting it from water isnt easy at all. Havnt you seen Chain reaction? Thats the entire point of the movie.

They've also made a car that runs on liguid nitrogen, Itll solve all our problems, just assuming we can get it all back from uranaus.

Basically your pointing to all these sources of energy, and numerous they are but most ultimatley derived from the same source. And TGM, If you really are a good capitalist youd be familiar with the phrase "[Blank]? [Blank]!!. Your Not looking at the big Picture!"
So maybe you oughtta widen your scope of view.

Capitalism is a glorified system of nature. Capitalism is the Speicies and the world is the Environment. It needs to spread, but if it cant be supported and runs out of resources then Things (Regress) until life becomes viable again. Its great for competition, and so are the laws and strategys which all DNA uses to survive. But its also not conducive to ultimate survival. Something sustainable needs to be found. And i think we all agree that Ultimate survival is a worthy goal for the human race, (If you dont then why havnt you killed yourself in a manner that takes out as many people as possible with you?) :D


TG you said something about NICAD rechargers not being viable cuz theyd crash grids. Whats the deal with that, how do they even work?

Also check out these Somewhat relevant links 1 (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1123) and
2 (http://underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=988)

just like it was possible to make diamonds and coal and other stuff. And If we had some Free source of energy like Cold fusion or something, We could. But Of all the energy it took to make the parts and resources to create the technology on a large scale its not really justifed

Yes, there is a concept called "energy returned on energy invested". You have to have an energy gain somewhere. You cannot run an energy system at a loss. Once you are using more energy than you are obtaining, it all becomes a bit pointless. The reason we can get away with it now is we extract more energy from fossil fuels than we put in to the exploration, extraction, refinement and distribution processes. And efficiency gains can only be pushed so far. Once the system can no longer be run at an energy profit, its days are numbered. The limits it would face are not economical, but physical. Economics, government policy and human ingenuity cannot influence the laws of nature, regardless of the incentives, even in the case of the fundamental one of survival.

Also Hydrogen may "supposedly" be the most common element, in reality who knows. But extracting it from water isnt easy at all.

It is the most common one, but to get it here on Earth, as you say, we have to go to great lengths to extract it from water. It is far easier to extract it from natural gas, but that would be pointless, as natural gas can be burnt as it is - you would be throwing away energy.

They've also made a car that runs on liguid nitrogen, Itll solve all our problems, just assuming we can get it all back from uranaus.

A colourful illustration of my gripe with the stepping stones to the riches of outer space bullsh*t.

Capitalism is a glorified system of nature. Capitalism is the Speicies and the world is the Environment. It needs to spread, but if it cant be supported and runs out of resources then Things (Regress) until life becomes viable again. Its great for competition, and so are the laws and strategys which all DNA uses to survive. But its also not conducive to ultimate survival. Something sustainable needs to be found. And i think we all agree that Ultimate survival is a worthy goal for the human race

I am sure that unless some fool starts a nuclear war, the human race will survive OK, there will just be a lot less of us, and we will have to concentrate on agriculture and regional trade. Globalisation is a temporary phenomenon, as you say ultimately it consumes all the resources needed to support it. Regression is inevitable, but it will pass. Something else will follow, just a lot less technologically advanced, without the same global scope we see today. It may not be a bad thing, but the intervening decades will be crap, and they are the ones we have to live through.

TG you said something about NICAD rechargers not being viable cuz theyd crash grids. Whats the deal with that, how do they even work?

An electricity grid is for the most part a one-way system. Power is generated at whatever the voltage the generator uses. For transmission, it is stepped up to 400kV or thereabouts, depending on the country. At grid substations, it is transformed down to lower voltage levels and sent branching out again, and at even more places it is stepped down again, and again, and again. . . until you have your domestic supply of a couple of hundred volts or so. Now imagine reversing the flow of all that energy, forcing it up the pyramid. It cannot be done.

Also check out these Somewhat relevant links 1 (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1123) and
2 (http://underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=988)

Thanks, I like the last line of the first one - "a brave new world". A nasty one, more like. And the second one I read about in the newspapers, things aren't looking good in that direction, with all the sabotage.

just like it was possible to make diamonds and coal and other stuff. And If we had some Free source of energy like Cold fusion or something, We could. But Of all the energy it took to make the parts and resources to create the technology on a large scale its not really justifed

Yes, there is a concept called "energy returned on energy invested". You have to have an energy gain somewhere. You cannot run an energy system at a loss. Once you are using more energy than you are obtaining, it all becomes a bit pointless. The reason we can get away with it now is we extract more energy from fossil fuels than we put in to the exploration, extraction, refinement and distribution processes. And efficiency gains can only be pushed so far. Once the system can no longer be run at an energy profit, its days are numbered. The limits it would face are not economical, but physical. Economics, government policy and human ingenuity cannot influence the laws of nature, regardless of the incentives, even in the case of the fundamental one of survival.

Also Hydrogen may "supposedly" be the most common element, in reality who knows. But extracting it from water isnt easy at all.

It is the most common one, but to get it here on Earth, as you say, we have to go to great lengths to extract it from water. It is far easier to extract it from natural gas, but that would be pointless, as natural gas can be burnt as it is - you would be throwing away energy.

They've also made a car that runs on liguid nitrogen, Itll solve all our problems, just assuming we can get it all back from uranaus.

A colourful illustration of my gripe with the stepping stones to the riches of outer space bullsh*t.

Capitalism is a glorified system of nature. Capitalism is the Speicies and the world is the Environment. It needs to spread, but if it cant be supported and runs out of resources then Things (Regress) until life becomes viable again. Its great for competition, and so are the laws and strategys which all DNA uses to survive. But its also not conducive to ultimate survival. Something sustainable needs to be found. And i think we all agree that Ultimate survival is a worthy goal for the human race

I am sure that unless some fool starts a nuclear war, the human race will survive OK, there will just be a lot less of us, and we will have to concentrate on agriculture and regional trade. Globalisation is a temporary phenomenon, as you say ultimately it consumes all the resources needed to support it. Regression is inevitable, but it will pass. Something else will follow, just a lot less technologically advanced, without the same global scope we see today. It may not be a bad thing, but the intervening decades will be crap, and they are the ones we have to live through.

TG you said something about NICAD rechargers not being viable cuz theyd crash grids. Whats the deal with that, how do they even work?

An electricity grid is for the most part a one-way system. Power is generated at whatever the voltage the generator uses. For transmission, it is stepped up to 400kV or thereabouts, depending on the country. At grid substations, it is transformed down to lower voltage levels and sent branching out again, and at even more places it is stepped down again, and again, and again. . . until you have your domestic supply of a couple of hundred volts or so. Now imagine reversing the flow of all that energy, forcing it up the pyramid. It cannot be done.

Also check out these Somewhat relevant links 1 (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1123) and
2 (http://underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=988)

Thanks, I like the last line of the first one - "a brave new world". A nasty one, more like. And the second one I read about in the newspapers, things aren't looking good in that direction, with all the sabotage.
About hydrogen, I have read that they have discovered a process to extract it from organtic material. It seems to make sense. Also, I've heard they have found an easy way to extract hydrogen from whichever substance. They would use electrolosis, the same process used to remove your hairs for good.
The thinking is that any substance containing hydrogen, including water, with electrolysis. They must find a continous power source for this. As you said, fossil fuels defeat the purpose. So, they'd use wind and solar energy. It's continous, and will provide just enough power to complete this process.
Perhaps, I'm thinking, we can use dams. Have them provide the power, and the water to extract the hydrogen from. It'll be an economic windfall to the usually small towns in dam areas. There'd be another probelm, though, and that would be shipment. For one, we could build the pipelines to transport hydrogen across the country. For another, should we need to ship it overseas, it could be liquified. We have the technology to freeze it at condensation.
So the biggest problem is not technology, but infrastructure. When it comes to energy, there is a continuing battle between economists and engineers. Hydrogen research has come much farther than was hoped for fourty years ago. I believe most of what could be researched has already. What we need is to build the infrastructure. It'd be a tremendously huge investment. But as oil has shown, it is worth it. It's fairly economical, powers much of the world, and you got to admit it's cleaner than coal was.
The industrial geniuses may be coming. They always turn out to be auto industries when it comes to new energy everyone depends on. Ford had its turn with oil. Now, GM is stepping up to the plate with hydrogen.

just like it was possible to make diamonds and coal and other stuff. And If we had some Free source of energy like Cold fusion or something, We could. But Of all the energy it took to make the parts and resources to create the technology on a large scale its not really justifed

Yes, there is a concept called "energy returned on energy invested". You have to have an energy gain somewhere. You cannot run an energy system at a loss. Once you are using more energy than you are obtaining, it all becomes a bit pointless. The reason we can get away with it now is we extract more energy from fossil fuels than we put in to the exploration, extraction, refinement and distribution processes. And efficiency gains can only be pushed so far. Once the system can no longer be run at an energy profit, its days are numbered. The limits it would face are not economical, but physical. Economics, government policy and human ingenuity cannot influence the laws of nature, regardless of the incentives, even in the case of the fundamental one of survival.

Also Hydrogen may "supposedly" be the most common element, in reality who knows. But extracting it from water isnt easy at all.

It is the most common one, but to get it here on Earth, as you say, we have to go to great lengths to extract it from water. It is far easier to extract it from natural gas, but that would be pointless, as natural gas can be burnt as it is - you would be throwing away energy.

They've also made a car that runs on liguid nitrogen, Itll solve all our problems, just assuming we can get it all back from uranaus.

A colourful illustration of my gripe with the stepping stones to the riches of outer space bullsh*t.

Capitalism is a glorified system of nature. Capitalism is the Speicies and the world is the Environment. It needs to spread, but if it cant be supported and runs out of resources then Things (Regress) until life becomes viable again. Its great for competition, and so are the laws and strategys which all DNA uses to survive. But its also not conducive to ultimate survival. Something sustainable needs to be found. And i think we all agree that Ultimate survival is a worthy goal for the human race

I am sure that unless some fool starts a nuclear war, the human race will survive OK, there will just be a lot less of us, and we will have to concentrate on agriculture and regional trade. Globalisation is a temporary phenomenon, as you say ultimately it consumes all the resources needed to support it. Regression is inevitable, but it will pass. Something else will follow, just a lot less technologically advanced, without the same global scope we see today. It may not be a bad thing, but the intervening decades will be crap, and they are the ones we have to live through.

TG you said something about NICAD rechargers not being viable cuz theyd crash grids. Whats the deal with that, how do they even work?

An electricity grid is for the most part a one-way system. Power is generated at whatever the voltage the generator uses. For transmission, it is stepped up to 400kV or thereabouts, depending on the country. At grid substations, it is transformed down to lower voltage levels and sent branching out again, and at even more places it is stepped down again, and again, and again. . . until you have your domestic supply of a couple of hundred volts or so. Now imagine reversing the flow of all that energy, forcing it up the pyramid. It cannot be done.

Also check out these Somewhat relevant links 1 (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1123) and
2 (http://underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=988)

Thanks, I like the last line of the first one - "a brave new world". A nasty one, more like. And the second one I read about in the newspapers, things aren't looking good in that direction, with all the sabotage.
About hydrogen, I have read that they have discovered a process to extract it from organtic material. It seems to make sense. Also, I've heard they have found an easy way to extract hydrogen from whichever substance. They would use electrolosis, the same process used to remove your hairs for good.
The thinking is that any substance containing hydrogen, including water, with electrolysis. They must find a continous power source for this. As you said, fossil fuels defeat the purpose. So, they'd use wind and solar energy. It's continous, and will provide just enough power to complete this process.
Perhaps, I'm thinking, we can use dams. Have them provide the power, and the water to extract the hydrogen from. It'll be an economic windfall to the usually small towns in dam areas. There'd be another probelm, though, and that would be shipment. For one, we could build the pipelines to transport hydrogen across the country. For another, should we need to ship it overseas, it could be liquified. We have the technology to freeze it at condensation.
So the biggest problem is not technology, but infrastructure. When it comes to energy, there is a continuing battle between economists and engineers. Hydrogen research has come much farther than was hoped for fourty years ago. I believe most of what could be researched has already. What we need is to build the infrastructure. It'd be a tremendously huge investment. But as oil has shown, it is worth it. It's fairly economical, powers much of the world, and you got to admit it's cleaner than coal was.
The industrial geniuses may be coming. They always turn out to be auto industries when it comes to new energy everyone depends on. Ford had its turn with oil. Now, GM is stepping up to the plate with hydrogen.

Well id certainly like to Learn more about this new way of extracting hydrogen. Can you post a link.
I dont know about solar, But i heard from someone (A conservative Jackass, so it was probably from an Extremely selective source) Anyway, that wou would have to cover around 60% of the earths surface. I'm sure its not true, But anyway can someone tell me about this. Even if it is ture its irreleivant. It assumes that We need to make Large sacrifices just to feed the neer ending maw that is capitalism. Business oughtta be forced into making concessions for a change.

Heres a new development

Clicky (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1727)

Knowing the capacity of the human mind for avoiding new and unwelcome issues, I doubt this thread will generate much of a response, and what response there will be is likely to be hopelessly Utopian. Anyway, here's hoping . . .


so, are five pages enough? :wink:

what about the rumors i have heard that the oil companies have bought out the patents for alternative energies in order to keep people from using them? just curious.

Well its not unkown that companies have bought out technologies to protect their business. But Still there are mny potential energy sources that have been imagined but not invented. The likelyhood of of one being invented and no'one having even theorised about it, are remote at best.

Theres this really interesting story, but i cant find links to it now.
I'll post em tomorrow.

From Astrolia's link: "You can harvest enough electricity to power a cell phone battery for about four days from a sugar cube," Lovley says. "A cup of sugar contains enough power to light a 60-watt light bulb for about 17 hours."

I think the catch here is power. Not energy, but power. The guy saying it should have been careful with his terminology. See, a cell phone is a low power device. You don't have to force energy into it for it to work, just a little steady flow will do. Much of the circuitry runs on small fractions of a watt. So I suppose the bacteria thing might work, though mass-market implementation is very different to a test stand. But a lightbulb is a comparatively high power device, 60W being the smallest practical size. The bacteria would have to spend ages charging a big enough battery, before it can be discharged into the lightbulb. The battery needed for household applications would have to be more like a car battery than stuff you can buy in a general store. You will incur significant efficiency losses, that cannot be helped. And can you imagine running an American house with air conditioning on sugar? That's kilowatts, a lot of sugar. And what about disposing of the waste products? There are many problems to solve with this.

so, are five pages enough? :wink:

what about the rumors i have heard that the oil companies have bought out the patents for alternative energies in order to keep people from using them? just curious.

It's a nice surprise, having people making sensible comments.

The rumours are a bit exaggerated and have the wrong end in mind, but have some truth in them. Oil companies have stacks of money they can't spend on exploration because they have explored and found everything, and all the extraction and refinement technologies are at a zenith. Billions of dollars for R&D. With that amount of cash, they can commission a lot of energy research, whatever they want, and get the best cut of the rights to it. But what does work will not simply be kept secret. That would be stupid. No, they will diversify wherever possible. With the amount of money they have, and the political favour they command, if an oil company can make money out of putting up a hundred 3MW rated offshore wind turbines, the national government in question will be bending over backwards to approve the project. Oil companies will defend the oil business to the death, but wherever there is money to be made in the energy business, even the clean stuff, they will make the most of their research and cash mountain advantage. They're not in it for pollution, they're in it for the money. I think in future a lot of the little green energy companies doing it out of idealism will find themselves pushed out of the market by renewable energy divisions run by less green enterprises. It still won't be enough to ease the transition, they will just profit a bit more on the down slope.

Well id certainly like to Learn more about this new way of extracting hydrogen. Can you post a link.
I dont know about solar, But i heard from someone (A conservative Jackass, so it was probably from an Extremely selective source) Anyway, that wou would have to cover around 60% of the earths surface. I'm sure its not true, But anyway can someone tell me about this. Even if it is ture its irreleivant. It assumes that We need to make Large sacrifices just to feed the neer ending maw that is capitalism. Business oughtta be forced into making concessions for a change.

Heres a new development

Clicky (http://www.hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1727)
I expect he's(she's?) talking about a form of blue-green algae which will extract H2 from water given sunlight and the right nutrient mix. However, last time I checked, it was not practical on the kind of scale we would be needing. Also, as far as biodeisel or H2 goes, we also definitely would need to focus on reduced consumtion, by retrofitting buildings for greater het efficiency, improving mass transit and bicycle infrastructure, relying more on locally-produced goods, etc.

It was just a link. Theres this Skeptic association you ahould all check out called PHACT (http://phact.org/) They talk a lot about energy.

The story of Dennis Lee is in the links Next to the first article. Lee (http://befreetech.com/free_electricity_message.htm)
He "invented" a Low temprature Phase-change electric generator.
It supposedly uses Substances that boil at very low tempratures. He's had a bunch of law suits brought against him. Mainly because he's done so well. He's a millionaire now. He has grown rich from investments and donations Due to his promises of free energy.

Now comes PHACT. PHACT seems to have taken Lee on as a pet case. 1 (http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html)

........


Hmmmm. Come to think of it, This isnt really going anywhere.
Basically PHACT has given Lee every opportunity to prove his machines work, And he refuses to acknoledge them. Instead With all the Law suits that have been brought against him, He has been able to claim there is a conspiracy against him to try and suppress his Work. Which has made him very popular with Gullible types who love an underdog.
Some of the guys from PHACT have been accused of being Govertnment Agents, Although the have offered proof to the contrary, and some Have even been accused of being Aliens, To give you an idea of what sort of people are stupid enough to give this man $1000.

Man that pisses me off, I could Make something of myself with just a thousand and here stupid people Have enough of it to throw it away at this conman.

Also, TG, Still How much energy is Solar capable of generating?

Astrolia your so smart.....and sexy.

Please take me now!!!!!

:shock: Umm, guys, you are disturbing me . . . do you know each other in real life? Are you the same person? I'm confused. You seem so similar.

Solar: I would have to dig out the exact numbers, will post tomorrow. I believe 25 square metres will give 4kW or thereabouts, enough for a well-designed house. But I will dig out my stuff soon.

LOL, I can neither confirm or deny any such allegations.....ooops

Sorry TG, It looks like you have one less friend than you thought you had.


I've heard about solar pools, they can generate around 50kw.

Clicky (http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/newstuff/archive/2003Mar.htm)

just something i found while looking for info on anti-gravity.

Havnt even read it.

As with most of the world, we will not change until we are forced too. The only way to stop people from using their gas guzzling cars (By that I mean, a single person who drives a giant SUV, not a mother of 5 who MUST use a van) is to use laws to force them to switch over to more efficient vehicles.

As with most of the world, we will not change until we are forced too. The only way to stop people from using their gas guzzling cars (By that I mean, a single person who drives a giant SUV, not a mother of 5 who MUST use a van) is to use laws to force them to switch over to more efficient vehicles.

Agreed. The well-being of the environment must outweigh human rights.

Werent you the one who started the capitalist thread. By your reasoning, and its perfectly logical by the way (I just think its sucks, Sucks like a White house intern :D ). Those with vested interest in selling all that petrol and SUV's would block the devolpment of those technologies because they can.
Because its easier and more profitable to keep things the way they are.
Afterall, When the time comes to account for the actions of the past. Those that caused the problem would be dead in a very expensive burial plot.

What TG is saying in this thread, is when the time comes that even those with influence are forced to change, We wont have enough energy to sustain our society and Society (as we know it) Will cease to exist.

We need to force change NOW!

Werent you the one who started the capitalist thread. By your reasoning, and its perfectly logical by the way (I just think its sucks, Sucks like a White house intern :D ). Those with vested interest in selling all that petrol and SUV's would block the devolpment of those technologies because they can.
Because its easier and more profitable to keep things the way they are.
Afterall, When the time comes to account for the actions of the past. Those that caused the problem would be dead in a very expensive burial plot.

What TG is saying in this thread, is when the time comes that even those with influence are forced to change, We wont have enough energy to sustain our society and Society (as we know it) Will cease to exist.

We need to force change NOW!

It's obvious that the logical thing, that "when alternative energies become cheaper adn more efficient the petrol will go out of business... the same way Standard Oil drove alot of coal companies out of business back in the late 1800s when people thought we would have a goal shortage", could never happen, because it is all capitalist trash adn propaganda.

When the mainstream of society belives that there is an oil crisis, in other words when an oil crisis actualyl exists or comes close to existing, than alternative energies will become profitable because of increased demand.

When the mainstream of society belives that there is an oil crisis, in other words when an oil crisis actualyl exists or comes close to existing, than alternative energies will become profitable because of increased demand.

Not in terms of energy. You are thinking of money. You do not know about energy, and have shown no willingness to learn. Energy works differently.

Astrolia / New Astrolia, sorry about the delay with the solar info, had unexpected stuff. Stay tuned.

When the mainstream of society belives that there is an oil crisis, in other words when an oil crisis actualyl exists or comes close to existing, than alternative energies will become profitable because of increased demand.

Not in terms of energy. You are thinking of money. You do not know about energy, and have shown no willingness to learn. Energy works differently.

Astrolia / New Astrolia, sorry about the delay with the solar info, had unexpected stuff. Stay tuned.
For one thing, solar panels are used in new objects to power things like road signs, or calculators. For another, what happened to hydrogen, and my arguements about it?

For one thing, solar panels are used in new objects to power things like road signs, or calculators. For another, what happened to hydrogen, and my arguements about it?

Solar power is good for embedded applications, but not for electrical grid baseload. There are capacity problems in manufacture, problems in cleaning the damn stuff, and so on. And it's all DC, you would need DC/AC converters, not off the shelf stuff either, but designed with this purpose in mind. You also have to find a way of storing energy for the night. Flow batteries are good, but are still in development. It's almost like building a new electricity grid from scratch.

Hydrogen production in sufficient volume needs an infrastructure project of staggering proportions. You need nuclear or coal-fired power plants dedicated to extracting hydrogen from seawater by electrolysis and driving compression equipment. And I'm talking dozens just to get the ball rolling. Also a whole new hydrogen distribution system, and mass production of actual hydrogen fuel cell cars, not prototypes. Had we started this at the time of one of the oil shocks (1973 or 1980), we might have had enough time. Not now. We still have not begun anything serious, and time is running out. Serious problems are inevitable.

Some solutions are not feasible for energetic reasons. Others because of the time remaining and scale of the solution. We really have left it too late, and it is too big.

For one thing, solar panels are used in new objects to power things like road signs, or calculators. For another, what happened to hydrogen, and my arguements about it?

Solar power is good for embedded applications, but not for electrical grid baseload. There are capacity problems in manufacture, problems in cleaning the damn stuff, and so on. And it's all DC, you would need DC/AC converters, not off the shelf stuff either, but designed with this purpose in mind. You also have to find a way of storing energy for the night. Flow batteries are good, but are still in development. It's almost like building a new electricity grid from scratch.

Hydrogen production in sufficient volume needs an infrastructure project of staggering proportions. You need nuclear or coal-fired power plants dedicated to extracting hydrogen from seawater by electrolysis and driving compression equipment. And I'm talking dozens just to get the ball rolling. Also a whole new hydrogen distribution system, and mass production of actual hydrogen fuel cell cars, not prototypes. Had we started this at the time of one of the oil shocks (1973 or 1980), we might have had enough time. Not now. We still have not begun anything serious, and time is running out. Serious problems are inevitable.

Some solutions are not feasible for energetic reasons. Others because of the time remaining and scale of the solution. We really have left it too late, and it is too big.
I knew solar panels could never be used for grids. Then again, some power anylists are saying we may move away from centralized power, and produce our own.
Also, a.) we have plenty of oil at the moment, and b.) in two years, NEC plans to release a laptop with a hydrogen battery. It's a start. I also think that work is being done in the field of hydrogen infrastructure. Our blackout has made sure of that.

I knew solar panels could never be used for grids. Then again, some power anylists are saying we may move away from centralized power, and produce our own.

A solar panel on every roof. Nice idea, but the semiconductor industry would have a hard time expanding fast enough.

Also, a.) we have plenty of oil at the moment,

Not for long.

b.) in two years, NEC plans to release a laptop with a hydrogen battery. It's a start. I also think that work is being done in the field of hydrogen infrastructure. Our blackout has made sure of that.

Too late. Really. Take Texas. Something like 40% of installed capacity natural gas fired, compared to 20% for the country as a whole. Most gas gone, decline rates of wells up from a few percent per year in 1990 to over 30% per year today. No inter-connection. You're almost burning the stuff in real time. The way the numbers stack up, it'll be a miracle if Texas has electricity after the end of this decade, unless air conditioning gets banned or something. The 1973 and 1980 oil shocks were the signals we needed for oil, now it's too late. Natural gas gives less warning. Starting to build more coal and nuclear a decade ago would have helped. But now, the only thing that can be done is lessening the impact of the inevitable dislocation. Conservation, for example.

I knew solar panels could never be used for grids. Then again, some power anylists are saying we may move away from centralized power, and produce our own.

A solar panel on every roof. Nice idea, but the semiconductor industry would have a hard time expanding fast enough.

Also, a.) we have plenty of oil at the moment,

Not for long.

b.) in two years, NEC plans to release a laptop with a hydrogen battery. It's a start. I also think that work is being done in the field of hydrogen infrastructure. Our blackout has made sure of that.

Too late. Really. Take Texas. Something like 40% of installed capacity natural gas fired, compared to 20% for the country as a whole. Most gas gone, decline rates of wells up from a few percent per year in 1990 to over 30% per year today. No inter-connection. You're almost burning the stuff in real time. The way the numbers stack up, it'll be a miracle if Texas has electricity after the end of this decade, unless air conditioning gets banned or something. The 1973 and 1980 oil shocks were the signals we needed for oil, now it's too late. Natural gas gives less warning. Starting to build more coal and nuclear a decade ago would have helped. But now, the only thing that can be done is lessening the impact of the inevitable dislocation. Conservation, for example.
You know, there are other energy experts who disagree with you. You may be right. I hope you're not, though.

Well actually how do we know there isnt oil on mars?
Theres water. And so there probably was organic matter. Which means there could be oil. But its irrelivant. There wouldnt be very much and besides if we could get the equipment and man power to mars, we would be so advanced that you not be in need of it and have progressed past it.


Planets are useless we will mine asteroids.

There are two types of asteroid. Metallic asteroids that are made purely of metals and rocks and the other type. The other types of asteroids are made of hydrocarbons and ice which are the basic building blocks of all our chemical forms of energy. A space-facility could fly to one of these asteroids, mine the hydrocarbons and produce its own rocket fuel in greater quantity than which it used to get there. It could use solar panels to generate energy as awell as a hydrogen burner turbine or even a hydrogen cell thingo. The metalic asteroids could then be mined and processed to make more facilites that are fueled with the fuel from the hydrocarbon asteroids. Remember, hydrogen is the most abundant form of matter in the universe.

Psytropia, if this wasn't in General, I would say you were godmoding. :lol:

Psytropia, if this wasn't in General, I would say you were godmoding. :lol:

:D Laugh if you will, but we have all the technology we need to accomplish what I just described. All we need is someone with enough money and the balls to see it through...

All we need is someone with enough money and the balls to see it through...

And suppose they can't be bothered? Or are too busy doing something else? I know it's silly, but one thing I have learnt is not underestimating inertia.

All we need is someone with enough money and the balls to see it through...

And suppose they can't be bothered? Or are too busy doing something else? I know it's silly, but one thing I have learnt is not underestimating inertia.

Aye, durning the 1960's the US government spent billions to get men to the moon and they didn't even make a profit from it. Now the US government spends billions dropping bombs on Arabs. What went wrong?

I think the main reason why we aren't mining stuff in space is because potential investors are a bit too cautious, a bit too unwilling to risk their money. The potential returns from being a shareholder in the company that has a monopoly on asteroid mining vastly outweighs the risk of the outlay. By returning a single asteroid to Earth, the entire world economy will be changed and you will be wealthier then the gods. The second main problem is the US airforces unwillingness to give up control over space. The USAF has shot down the space-plane idea and will probably stop any venture coming out of the US at least. They just don't want to share space. :?

They just don't want to share space. :?

Yep. That's people for you.

They just don't want to share space. :?

Yep. That's people for you.

It's not like Space is an airplane and USAF is a fat man!

A solar panel on every roof. Nice idea, but the semiconductor industry would have a hard time expanding fast enough.
I was reding recently about a new kind of solar generator being developed which involves a small array of parabolic mirrors focusing on a point at which a Sterling cycle engine has been placed. The designers plan to sell for $250 US and has an average generating capacity of 250 watts iirc.
However I can't seem to find the place that makes them. I read about it in Discover or Pop Science magazine a month or two ago.

Well actually how do we know there isnt oil on mars?
Theres water. And so there probably was organic matter. Which means there could be oil. But its irrelivant. There wouldnt be very much and besides if we could get the equipment and man power to mars, we would be so advanced that you not be in need of it and have progressed past it.


Planets are useless we will mine asteroids.

There are two types of asteroid. Metallic asteroids that are made purely of metals and rocks and the other type. The other types of asteroids are made of hydrocarbons and ice which are the basic building blocks of all our chemical forms of energy. A space-facility could fly to one of these asteroids, mine the hydrocarbons and produce its own rocket fuel in greater quantity than which it used to get there. It could use solar panels to generate energy as awell as a hydrogen burner turbine or even a hydrogen cell thingo. The metalic asteroids could then be mined and processed to make more facilites that are fueled with the fuel from the hydrocarbon asteroids. Remember, hydrogen is the most abundant form of matter in the universe.
We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.
Tactical Grace will agree that there are definitly easier alternatives. Also, I want to know, Tactical Grace, what you think about our energy policy floating in Congress. New life was breathed into it since that blackout. And what effects did that blackout have on the UK?

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

Actually further space exploration is inevitable... costs decrease... it won't cost several trillion to send someone into space.

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

Actually further space exploration is inevitable... costs decrease... it won't cost several trillion to send someone into space.
I realize that. In fact, I have bought three acres on the moon in anticipation (yes, you can buy them). However, Psytropia, I think, meant now. We don't have the means or resources to explore space on the scale he was talking about.
Besides, they've been talking about moon colonies by now since the 1960s. Not that they won't happen, but I bet we won't be up there in my lifetime.

Today's nuclear reactors are only prone to melt down because the zirconium rods that encase the uranium fuel catch fire when reactor coolant leaks onto them...

The U.S. government is currently funding research for a safer reactor model that uses uranium pellets encased in graphite, other improvements are being made as well. The nuclear plants will also double as production centers for hydrogen fuels, according to government specifications. From what I know the technology will be used in a new U.S. nuclear reactor by 2005.

Oh yeah, if you want to get lots of hydrocarbon fuels, make a stop to Saturn's moon, titan...there are lakes of liquid methane on that moon...

pardon the "unranium" typos, I'm tired

Today's nuclear reactors are only prone to melt down because the zirconium rods that encase the unranium fuel catch fire when reactor coolant leaks onto them...

The U.S. government is currently funding research for a safer reactor model that uses unranium pellets encased in graphite, other improvements are being made as well. The nuclear plants will also double as production centers for hydrogen fuels, according to government specifications. From what I know the technology will be used in a new U.S.
nuclear reactor by 2005.

Oh yeah, if you want to get lots of hydrocarbon fuels, make a stop to Saturn's moon, titan...there are lakes of liquid methane on that moon...
Wait, the nuke plants can produce hydrogen fuels? I mean, what for?

Today's nuclear reactors are only prone to melt down because the zirconium rods that encase the unranium fuel catch fire when reactor coolant leaks onto them...

The U.S. government is currently funding research for a safer reactor model that uses unranium pellets encased in graphite, other improvements are being made as well. The nuclear plants will also double as production centers for hydrogen fuels, according to government specifications. From what I know the technology will be used in a new U.S.
nuclear reactor by 2005.

Oh yeah, if you want to get lots of hydrocarbon fuels, make a stop to Saturn's moon, titan...there are lakes of liquid methane on that moon...
Wait, the nuke plants can produce hydrogen fuels? I mean, what for?
To make hydrogen fuel cars more practical... hydrogen fuel technology should become a lot more feasable within the next decade

Today's nuclear reactors are only prone to melt down because the zirconium rods that encase the unranium fuel catch fire when reactor coolant leaks onto them...

The U.S. government is currently funding research for a safer reactor model that uses unranium pellets encased in graphite, other improvements are being made as well. The nuclear plants will also double as production centers for hydrogen fuels, according to government specifications. From what I know the technology will be used in a new U.S.
nuclear reactor by 2005.

Oh yeah, if you want to get lots of hydrocarbon fuels, make a stop to Saturn's moon, titan...there are lakes of liquid methane on that moon...
Wait, the nuke plants can produce hydrogen fuels? I mean, what for?
To make hydrogen fuel cars more practical...
YES!!!!! TAKE THAT, TACTICAL GRACE! They can be produced at nuke plants! You, my friend, have made my day. I will see them everywhere in my lifetime. Thank you so much.

Source: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,477255,00.html

cool

Source: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,477255,00.html
I believe hydrogen cars will roll off soon. Why, they have plans already for hydrogen batteries. This will save on us relying on electrolysis to remove hydrogen. The rest of the infrastructure may be expensive. Indeed, a fair amount of hydrogen will escape transport containers due to the fact that the atoms are so tiny. But I think a.) it's almost limitless, therefore cheap to replace, and b.) we can store helium, nearly as small. We could do hydrogen, too. Also, I'm more worried that hydrogen may produce more Hindenburg style accidents than being impractical. I'm also interested if it can be modified somehow for jet fuel. It'll be a new age of rocket science, I believe.

Accidental posting. Sorry to interrupt the flow.

bump :o

bump :o

VHTR
http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/vhtr.shtml

gah, someone talk about this :)

VHTR
http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/vhtr.shtml
Right, when I see the construction begin on a hundred of these, I will believe it.

VHTR
http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/vhtr.shtml
Right, when I see the construction begin on a hundred of these, I will believe it.
Well, don't forget that energy policy has new life in it.

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

Bah! Oil is for people stuck in the 20th century! There are HYDROCARBONS people. Easilly acessible HYDROGEN, the primary component of ROCKET FUEL. Bugger sending it back to Earth! We'll just use it to properl further expansion.

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

Bah! Oil is for people stuck in the 20th century! There are HYDROCARBONS people. Easilly acessible HYDROGEN, the primary component of ROCKET FUEL. Bugger sending it back to Earth! We'll just use it to properl further expansion.
You sure are planning way ahead.

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

Bah! Oil is for people stuck in the 20th century! There are HYDROCARBONS people. Easilly acessible HYDROGEN, the primary component of ROCKET FUEL. Bugger sending it back to Earth! We'll just use it to properl further expansion.
You sure are planning way ahead.

Once you're off planet why go back? Earth represents a tiny fraction of the solar-system and an infitesimally small portion of our galaxy, let alone our galactic cluster. In a very real sense, human history hasn't begun yet. The first humans originally lived in a part of the Earth that was only a small fraction of the whole but eventually spread out, and with that expansion, we accomplished new things and created our history. Until we lose our Earth-centric view of the universe, our history will never begin and we will never achieve our potential.

We can hardly send men into space anymore. This would require a very, very, very big investment no one is willing to pay. It may cost a few trillion at least.


Fiscal cowardice of the highest order!
A coward I am. But no one would dare spend that type of money. Besides, it wouldn't be economical yet. And what oil is on an asteroid?

Bah! Oil is for people stuck in the 20th century! There are HYDROCARBONS people. Easilly acessible HYDROGEN, the primary component of ROCKET FUEL. Bugger sending it back to Earth! We'll just use it to properl further expansion.
You sure are planning way ahead.

Once you're off planet why go back? Earth represents a tiny fraction of the solar-system and an infitesimally small portion of our galaxy, let alone our galactic cluster. In a very real sense, human history hasn't begun yet. The first humans originally lived in a part of the Earth that was only a small fraction of the whole but eventually spread out, and with that expansion, we accomplished new things and created our history. Until we lose our Earth-centric view of the universe, our history will never begin and we will never achieve our potential.
Think Kennedy. He got the space program moving ahead, and without him, we wouldn't even be on the moon.

Everyone prepare for a really long post, Plus there more to come tomorrow.

Agreed. The well-being of the environment must outweigh human rights.

Your damn right!

Are you implying Capitalism is a Human right?
Also
It's obvious that the logical thing, that "when alternative energies become cheaper adn more efficient the petrol will go out of business... the same way Standard Oil drove alot of coal companies out of business back in the late 1800s when people thought we would have a goal shortage", could never happen, because it is all capitalist trash adn propaganda.

Im confused, is that the contradictory response or are you serious?


Planets are useless we will mine asteroids.

There are two types of asteroid. Metallic asteroids that are made purely of metals and rocks and the other type. The other types of asteroids are made of hydrocarbons and ice which are the basic building blocks of all our chemical forms of energy. A space-facility could fly to one of these asteroids, mine the hydrocarbons and produce its own rocket fuel in greater quantity than which it used to get there. It could use solar panels to generate energy as awell as a hydrogen burner turbine or even a hydrogen cell thingo. The metalic asteroids could then be mined and processed to make more facilites that are fueled with the fuel from the hydrocarbon asteroids. Remember, hydrogen is the most abundant form of matter in the universe.

Well I dont know about these Hydrocarbons. Whazza deal with them. I do know about the theory of accretion.

Accretion says that in the beggining a star dies. It blows off Clouds of hydrogen and other stuff that it formed over the course of it life. All these gas clouds eventually meet up and hang together. Then gravity disturbances from other exploding stars or whatever cause ripples in the cloud which mixes things up.
The thickest part has the most gravity, so all the other matter diffuses around the thickness and thus is created a protoplanetary disc.

Now, in the Centre of the disc It starts to spin and spin, and it goes faster and faster growing larger and larger and attracting more and more matter and friction becomes a factor. And in the end there is so much matter and it gets so hot that it becomes hot enough for nuclear reactions to take place and So a Star is born and blows all the matter of the Disc away. Although still within its gravitys grasp. To the point where the shockwave weakend beyond a certain point is where all the Clumps end up so thats where the Asteroid belt is set at.

In the mean time all the matter that was orbiting to mass hasnt just been siting there. No. They start Clumping together into little clumps of dirt. The faster one grows, the more gravity it has and thus it can grow faster still and attract slower growing Clumps.
And eventually they grow large enough to be called planetismals.

Now you have a whole lotta objects the size of the moon orbiting round the sun, attracting larger and larger clouds of stuff like minerals and atmosphere into them. But anyway what with all of these large objects all going around at different speeds and levels relative to the disc. Sooner or later collisions are gonna happen. First collisions are rare, instead all the object move close to each other and tug each other onto different courses with thier gravity. Much of the stuff is simply put on an unstable course so it collides with planetismals further in or is propelled out of the system but most just hits the sun. but in the end lots of planets run into other planets, Its just another case of natural selection, only the strong survive.

So afterwards there are so few planets that they cant really run into each other anymore but there is still the matter of all the debris from the planets that were blown apart in collisions. Both large and small.
And thus the final baptism of fire. All over the system there are meteors, parts of other planets that were blown out when other collisions happened.
And so these contain minerals which give the remaining planets one last dose of good stuff before the party is over. There are still really large chunks of planetismals which can destroy other planets and cause more debris to go out and run into others, and some setteled into the orbit of where we now call the asteroid belt.

But most in the asteroid belt are actually remaiders of those clumps.
Research and calculations from the Militaries of the world and NASA indicate that these asteroids are a lot like Rocky Sponges, Pumice stone.
They are positivley riddled with litte holes So if you were to detonate a nuke on one (Which was why they conducted the research, apart from the fact that Nukes arent nearly as effective in space as on earth) The explosion would be absorbed by the Asteroids and wouldnt really damage it much.

Now tell me, do you think that something like that would have much worth mining, You probably couldnt stand on it without falling in.

Some asteroids are Chunks of planetismals, They are the big ones, the small ones are asteroids. So really im confused about what specifically your talking bout, symantics perhaps but still.
Comets on the other hand, They are watery, except the large supply is around a lightyear away So no mater what you say we cant get at those easilly. Are those the hydrocarbons your talking about?

If someone could tell me what these hydrocarbons are i could tell you your wrong and we could get on with it.

Linky (http://www.ebtx.com/theory/accrete.htm)

Besides, they've been talking about moon colonies by now since the 1960s. Not that they won't happen, but I bet we won't be up there in my lifetime.

Well in other peoples lifetimes they bet that there would be, and if the future is good at anything its surprising you. They were suprised, so maybe you will be.


Oh yeah, if you want to get lots of hydrocarbon fuels, make a stop to Saturn's moon, titan...there are lakes of liquid methane on that moon...

I was unaware that cassini had gotten to saturn yet to confirm this.
That is nothing more than speculation. Titan could just as well be dry as a bone. Im just saying that you shouldnt say unless you know.
But i wont hassle you like psytropia, i know you arent suggesting this as a realistic source.

Think Kennedy. He got the space program moving ahead, and without him, we wouldn't even be on the moon.

Your posting from the Moon???

WOW!!!

The moon missions were really more a political Coup than had scientific value, Although some would disagree with you that Man has even been.
It was a gamble, the technology wasnt really safe, and Not all that much was learned apart from Rocket expertise. The moon is a big dull rock.
Im not quite sure when. But I think china is sending a man to the moon next year to explore resource opportunitys. If theres one thing you can trust the chinese to do (Apart form being oppressive and Hypocritical) Its think ahead.....Centuries ahead.

Aerospace Defense Research finds Free Energy and Antigravity Possible (http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1835)

Wow I do declare that is one of the longest posts ever written. And So inspired. Astrolia, Your a Genious :D

Everyone prepare for a really long post, Plus there more to come tomorrow.

Agreed. The well-being of the environment must outweigh human rights.

Your damn right!

Are you implying Capitalism is a Human right?
Also
It's obvious that the logical thing, that "when alternative energies become cheaper adn more efficient the petrol will go out of business... the same way Standard Oil drove alot of coal companies out of business back in the late 1800s when people thought we would have a goal shortage", could never happen, because it is all capitalist trash adn propaganda.

Im confused, is that the contradictory response or are you serious?


Planets are useless we will mine asteroids.

There are two types of asteroid. Metallic asteroids that are made purely of metals and rocks and the other type. The other types of asteroids are made of hydrocarbons and ice which are the basic building blocks of all our chemical forms of energy. A space-facility could fly to one of these asteroids, mine the hydrocarbons and produce its own rocket fuel in greater quantity than which it used to get there. It could use solar panels to generate energy as awell as a hydrogen burner turbine or even a hydrogen cell thingo. The metalic asteroids could then be mined and processed to make more facilites that are fueled with the fuel from the hydrocarbon asteroids. Remember, hydrogen is the most abundant form of matter in the universe.

Well I dont know about these Hydrocarbons. Whazza deal with them. I do know about the theory of accretion.

Accretion says that in the beggining a star dies. It blows off Clouds of hydrogen and other stuff that it formed over the course of it life. All these gas clouds eventually meet up and hang together. Then gravity disturbances from other exploding stars or whatever cause ripples in the cloud which mixes things up.
The thickest part has the most gravity, so all the other matter diffuses around the thickness and thus is created a protoplanetary disc.

Now, in the Centre of the disc It starts to spin and spin, and it goes faster and faster growing larger and larger and attracting more and more matter and friction becomes a factor. And in the end there is so much matter and it gets so hot that it becomes hot enough for nuclear reactions to take place and So a Star is born and blows all the matter of the Disc away. Although still within its gravitys grasp. To the point where the shockwave weakend beyond a certain point is where all the Clumps end up so thats where the Asteroid belt is set at.

In the mean time all the matter that was orbiting to mass hasnt just been siting there. No. They start Clumping together into little clumps of dirt. The faster one grows, the more gravity it has and thus it can grow faster still and attract slower growing Clumps.
And eventually they grow large enough to be called planetismals.

Now you have a whole lotta objects the size of the moon orbiting round the sun, attracting larger and larger clouds of stuff like minerals and atmosphere into them. But anyway what with all of these large objects all going around at different speeds and levels relative to the disc. Sooner or later collisions are gonna happen. First collisions are rare, instead all the object move close to each other and tug each other onto different courses with thier gravity. Much of the stuff is simply put on an unstable course so it collides with planetismals further in or is propelled out of the system but most just hits the sun. but in the end lots of planets run into other planets, Its just another case of natural selection, only the strong survive.

So afterwards there are so few planets that they cant really run into each other anymore but there is still the matter of all the debris from the planets that were blown apart in collisions. Both large and small.
And thus the final baptism of fire. All over the system there are meteors, parts of other planets that were blown out when other collisions happened.
And so these contain minerals which give the remaining planets one last dose of good stuff before the party is over. There are still really large chunks of planetismals which can destroy other planets and cause more debris to go out and run into others, and some setteled into the orbit of where we now call the asteroid belt.

But most in the asteroid belt are actually remaiders of those clumps.
Research and calculations from the Militaries of the world and NASA indicate that these asteroids are a lot like Rocky Sponges, Pumice stone.
They are positivley riddled with litte holes So if you were to detonate a nuke on one (Which was why they conducted the research, apart from the fact that Nukes arent nearly as effective in space as on earth) The explosion would be absorbed by the Asteroids and wouldnt really damage it much.

Now tell me, do you think that something like that would have much worth mining, You probably couldnt stand on it without falling in.

Some asteroids are Chunks of planetismals, They are the big ones, the small ones are asteroids. So really im confused about what specifically your talking bout, symantics perhaps but still.
Comets on the other hand, They are watery, except the large supply is around a lightyear away So no mater what you say we cant get at those easilly. Are those the hydrocarbons your talking about?

If someone could tell me what these hydrocarbons are i could tell you your wrong and we could get on with it.

Linky (http://www.ebtx.com/theory/accrete.htm)

Besides, they've been talking about moon colonies by now since the 1960s. Not that they won't happen, but I bet we won't be up there in my lifetime.

Well in other peoples lifetimes they bet that there would be, and if the future is good at anything its surprising you. They were suprised, so maybe you will be.


Oh yeah, if you want to get lots of hydrocarbon fuels, make a stop to Saturn's moon, titan...there are lakes of liquid methane on that moon...

I was unaware that cassini had gotten to saturn yet to confirm this.
That is nothing more than speculation. Titan could just as well be dry as a bone. Im just saying that you shouldnt say unless you know.
But i wont hassle you like psytropia, i know you arent suggesting this as a realistic source.

Think Kennedy. He got the space program moving ahead, and without him, we wouldn't even be on the moon.

Your posting from the Moon???

WOW!!!

The moon missions were really more a political Coup than had scientific value, Although some would disagree with you that Man has even been.
It was a gamble, the technology wasnt really safe, and Not all that much was learned apart from Rocket expertise. The moon is a big dull rock.
Im not quite sure when. But I think china is sending a man to the moon next year to explore resource opportunitys. If theres one thing you can trust the chinese to do (Apart form being oppressive and Hypocritical) Its think ahead.....Centuries ahead.

Aerospace Defense Research finds Free Energy and Antigravity Possible (http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1835)
You're wrong. They may send someone to the moon by 2020. Right now, they are sending a man in space on a knockoff of the Soyuz crafts. And the Apollo missions did happen. There's plenty of proof. I honestly think you must be some conspiracy theorist. Man never landed on the moon, the WTC was hit by missles, what's next?

I wasnt saying I buy into the Moon conspiracys, Frankly i dont care about those.

And as for 11/9 They reckon it was the pentagon that was struck by a missile, get your facts straight.

I cant belive you think that the Mainstream story is the true one. Its just not credible. So many aspects of it. They still havnt had an independant investigation into it. What do they have to hide. The people who's Loved ones died even want it.

Its just Ochams Razor, common sense. Believe it or not, The simplest isnt the story that came out in the first few days of the event happening.
Thats Another unlikely coincidence.
Thats your problem You seem to go more on belief than logical processes.

I wasnt saying I buy into the Moon conspiracys, Frankly i dont care about those.

And as for 11/9 They reckon it was the pentagon that was struck by a missile, get your facts straight.

I cant belive you think that the Mainstream story is the true one. Its just not credible. So many aspects of it. They still havnt had an independant investigation into it. What do they have to hide. The people who's Loved ones died even want it.

Its just Ochams Razor, common sense. Believe it or not, The simplest isnt the story that came out in the first few days of the event happening.
Thats Another unlikely coincidence.
Thats your problem You seem to go more on belief than logical processes.
The Pentagon crash wasn't a missle. Ted Owen's wife was on that plane. He's the solicitor general of the White House, and I highly doubt he'd sacrifice his own wife for his political gain.

I also heard that the creators of frasier was too. I've always been meaning to look into that and confirm it. But its tough finding info on it.

Just (http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/57/bushEnergyPolicy.htm) looking for info on bush's policy now. If i recall it does involve the contruction of lots of Nuclear power plants.

Dont you need a masters degree to work in one of those?

If your going to have so many each employing a thousand people. How are they all gonna be educated?

Just (http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/57/bushEnergyPolicy.htm) looking for info on bush's policy now. If i recall it does involve the contruction of lots of Nuclear power plants.

Dont you need a masters degree to work in one of those?

If your going to have so many each employing a thousand people. How are they all gonna be educated?
Contrary to what liberals like to think, educated workers are out there.

Astrolia, the main problem with the accretion theory is that it doesnt take into account angular momentum. There's too much of it.

Hydrocarbons are molecules made of hydrogen and carbon, we use them for everything. The Ice in asteroids and comets can be used to make hydroghen and hydrocarbons by mixing the Ice with he naturally occuring carbon on asteroids

Class C Carbonaceous (asteroids) Includes about 75% of all asteroids. Consist of very dark material, mostly carbon, but contains organic matter, water soluable salts, magnetite and clay.

from: http://www.iinc.com/~obwan/htc/technogy/compastd.htm

Well i Tried to read the whole thing, but I quit because i have to go to bed. So if I am discussing anything previously discussed please forgive me. Although we have a problem with energy in the future, I do not beleive that it is that bad. Although it will be destructive, it will not mean the end of Civilization. Anyway, in my opinion, the replacement for oil in the next few years are the following.

Hydrogen power. This will most likely be seen in cars. This works good, but the problem is (damn you thermodynamics) that hydrogen power is not a source of power, but more of a storage. The energy needed to make water into usable hydrogen means that another source is necesary.

Wind power. THis is in my opinion the best alternative right now. Wind power is infinite. It will never be exausted. In the near future, wind generators will be able to power most of my area, Long Island. These are just the beginning. Wind power has the potential to provide all necesary power in my area. However this has problesm. You need to be in a high wind area (my area, has the winds of the Atlantic ocean). However wind can be very sucessful in coastal areas, and has been a sucess in europe, especially the netherlands.

Solar Power. the only problem here is that it only works in high sun areas (perfect for middle east and africa), and the technology isnt 100%

Nuclear power. Potential for disaster but is a good source of energy.

BioFuels. Corn, soy, or other farm products can be made into ethanol or other biofuels.

Hydroelectric. Although clean, the environmental impacts of a dam can be devastating. The damns in Rivers in the US have meant less water for people in mexico. This is perhaps the worst alternative in my opinon.

Comments?

It seems that link you posted doesnt really vindicate you at all.
It says that there is mostly carbon there and maybe some water.
i still dont really get hydrocarbons, or how its worth getting them. How can you make them into energy?

There plenty of carbon Dioxide and water on mars ya know.
And itd be easier to colonise them, but no'one really takes it seriously.

Is that link where youre getting all tis asteroid colonisation stuff from?

Contrary to what liberals like to think, educated workers are out there.

Yeah but whose gonna support those educated workers?


And as for the Hydrocarbons, how do they translate into such a great source of energy?

Comments?
That's pretty much it. The possible solutions are not going to be anything utopian, just a matter of racing to replace bits of our energy system with this or that. I am very much in favour of wind power. It would be nice if we could make it in time without destroying each other for the last of the good stuff.

Contrary to what liberals like to think, educated workers are out there.

Yeah but whose gonna support those educated workers?


And as for the Hydrocarbons, how do they translate into such a great source of energy?

Firstly, hydrogen in itself is an immense source of energy, it can be burned with oxygen to make water. It is the primary constituent of Rocket Fuel. Hydrocarbons are what our society is based on. Everything is made from hydrocarbons: plastic, oil, fuel, food, even us and our DNA is made from hydrocarbons.

It seems that link you posted doesnt really vindicate you at all.
It says that there is mostly carbon there and maybe some water.
i still dont really get hydrocarbons, or how its worth getting them. How can you make them into energy?

There plenty of carbon Dioxide and water on mars ya know.
And itd be easier to colonise them, but no'one really takes it seriously.

Is that link where youre getting all tis asteroid colonisation stuff from?

The important thing about asteroids is that they are BIG. Even a small amount of water will be plenty. An asteroid facility will be a closed economy, so whatever we take with won't leave. The Mars idea is a good one, it will take some time to terraform it properly but it can be done. Asteroids are better though because they are easier to reach and exploit(no immense gravity sinks).

Solar Power. the only problem here is that it only works in high sun areas (perfect for middle east and africa), and the technology isnt 100%
http://www.energyinnovations.com/

Hydroelectric. Although clean, the environmental impacts of a dam can be devastating. The damns in Rivers in the US have meant less water for people in mexico. This is perhaps the worst alternative in my opinon.

Comments?
http://www.eeca.govt.nz/content/EW_news/75Mar02/Renewable.htm
Just a couple of links I found, the first one goes to a new kind of solar generator, the second to a non dam-based hydroelectric generator.

But to get back to my original point however many pages that was ago, the problem with most of our current Energy theories is that they're doomed to failure. The Earth is currently a closed economy. Nothing leaves and only sunlight and debris come in. Eventually we will expend our resources and have to live purely off of what's here and what the sun puts in, which is not enough to allow growth and a maintinece of our standard of living. already there are world-wide shortages in food, water and energy. If we are to plan for the long-term, then we need to bring in extra energy from elsewhere, such as asteroids and other planets. To do any less is to condemn the world to stagnation.

Unless we do away with capitalism.

BEHoLD! (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/tech/now.html)
The Mighty Whale, go to the link at the bottom the the scroll box.

But to get back to my original point however many pages that was ago, the problem with most of our current Energy theories is that they're doomed to failure. The Earth is currently a closed economy. Nothing leaves and only sunlight and debris come in. Eventually we will expend our resources and have to live purely off of what's here and what the sun puts in, which is not enough to allow growth and a maintinece of our standard of living. already there are world-wide shortages in food, water and energy. If we are to plan for the long-term, then we need to bring in extra energy from elsewhere, such as asteroids and other planets. To do any less is to condemn the world to stagnation.
There's no shortage of any resources. In fact, there is way to many. However, it may appear that there is a shortage, due to the fact of distribution. Northern Canada has few people in it, yet it has some of the largest fresh water reserves on the planet. Sub Sahara Africa, however, has many people, and limited fresh water. So the problem isn't that a true shortage exists. It's distribution. The former USSR produces more grain than the US does, yet they still import grain from the US.

Were you in a Feotal position when you wrote that?

HAHA, Ive finally found something that will hopefully Shut you up on this whole Hydrocarbon Trip.

Being Australian, You should know Dr Karl (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s745806.htm) and his great moments in science and other interesting Topics.

Fuel cells have another big advantage. They burn hydrogen. When you burn hydrogen and oxygen, you get water. But when you burn hydrocarbons, the “hydro” part gives you water (that’s mostly OK), but the “carbon” part gives you all kinds of nasties, including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and even small particles of carbon that can get deep into your lungs.


It promotes global warming, plus bringing lots of water onto earth probably isnt a good idea since Oceans are big enough as they are.
Plus who knows what krazzy microbes are in them.


And i mention this because there is an alternative sollution.
That tidal generator i posted, and there are plenty of others, Like Perhaps this one. Clicky (http://www.energetech.com.au/)

The suggestion is a clever yet obvious one. To Put the generators straight into the source for making hydrogen and use the energy to fuel onboard electroylsis. To jumpstart a hydrogen economy.

Hmmm yes

And again, the lease prices were quite horrendous. But in the case of the petrol-powered car, the cost of the health and environmental pollution is subsidised by the community. Fuel cell electric cars dump only water and heat as waste products.

We have long been used to counting the cost, or value, of the environment as zero. So a river that is clean enough to drink from, swim in and eat the fish from has, under our current accounting system, the same value as a poisoned polluted river. But in the case of the polluted river, the local community has to import its drinking water, build a swmming pool for the community and import its fish - and these costs are carried by the local community. Maybe fuel cell electric cars won't be so expensive if we start counting the true cost of petrol-powered cars.

HAHA, Ive finally found something that will hopefully Shut you up on this whole Hydrocarbon Trip.

Being Australian, You should know Dr Karl (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s745806.htm) and his great moments in science and other interesting Topics.

Fuel cells have another big advantage. They burn hydrogen. When you burn hydrogen and oxygen, you get water. But when you burn hydrocarbons, the “hydro” part gives you water (that’s mostly OK), but the “carbon” part gives you all kinds of nasties, including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and even small particles of carbon that can get deep into your lungs.


It promotes global warming, plus bringing lots of water onto earth probably isnt a good idea since Oceans are big enough as they are.
Plus who knows what krazzy microbes are in them.


And i mention this because there is an alternative sollution.
That tidal generator i posted, and there are plenty of others, Like Perhaps this one. Clicky (http://www.energetech.com.au/)

The suggestion is a clever yet obvious one. To Put the generators straight into the source for making hydrogen and use the energy to fuel onboard electroylsis. To jumpstart a hydrogen economy.

My plan costs more and is ultimately sustainable. The Earth is going to go to shit eventually, no matter what we do, whether we cause it or not. I just figured that if we get off soon, we won't have to deal with that eventuality.

Your plan of mining Asteroids is cheaper? :shock:

I admit I haven't read but half of the posts in this thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but here's one point:

Fuel cells. They're at a stage where they can be manifactured at the moment, and in around 10 years, it's going to actually become profitable to manifacture them. We're not going to run out of hydrogen, and in order to produce it more from, say, water, there's always things like nuclear power. So when it comes to energy, the only problem is that some stupid governments don't want to spend money to research the options well enough, and that the oil companies are doing everything they can to slow the process.

I'd say lack of food, pollution, and overpopulation are much bigger problems for this planet.

Aha, so I obviously didn't read the last page...


It promotes global warming, plus bringing lots of water onto earth probably isnt a good idea since Oceans are big enough as they are.
Plus who knows what krazzy microbes are in them.


I don't think the water is a problem. :) As for global warming, yeah, but it's still a lot more ecological than fossile fuels.

Just (http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/57/bushEnergyPolicy.htm) looking for info on bush's policy now. If i recall it does involve the contruction of lots of Nuclear power plants.

Dont you need a masters degree to work in one of those?

If your going to have so many each employing a thousand people. How are they all gonna be educated?

What the...? At least where I live, there is unemployment amont highly educated. If you don't have that, then maybe lower the costs for university or make them free for all. That maximizes the society's use of skills / brain capacity.

Nuclear power plants don't even employ a thousand people. Maybe twenty to fifty. It's all pretty much automatic. There's a nuclear reactor at my university which is largely operated by the students themselves, and it's mainly pushing buttons. A pretty good summer job.

Dude technological growth is infinite and the universe is infinite therefore resources are limited. Go look up the NEW GROWTH THEORY. It's actually been supported by decades of empirical facts instead of some "energy crisis" that people have began worrying about since the 1800s and has never happened because THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS.

heh, thank you mister cato institute.

hint hint, the universe isn't infinite, and technological growth isn't either. you are going to run into the laws of thermodynamics at some point.

whos cato?

Some jerk (http://cato.org/) roman guy that republicans make a big deal over.

Just (http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/57/bushEnergyPolicy.htm) looking for info on bush's policy now. If i recall it does involve the contruction of lots of Nuclear power plants.

Dont you need a masters degree to work in one of those?

If your going to have so many each employing a thousand people. How are they all gonna be educated?

What the...? At least where I live, there is unemployment amont highly educated. If you don't have that, then maybe lower the costs for university or make them free for all. That maximizes the society's use of skills / brain capacity.

Nuclear power plants don't even employ a thousand people. Maybe twenty to fifty. It's all pretty much automatic. There's a nuclear reactor at my university which is largely operated by the students themselves, and it's mainly pushing buttons. A pretty good summer job.

Reactors that actually generate eletricity need many hundereds of people.

Bush wants to build hundereds of reactors. if you build a hundered reactors thats what a hundered thousand employees, each with a masters degree?

Plus its not as if theres unlimited uranium.

Reactors that actually generate eletricity need many hundereds of people.


I guess this depends on what kind of power plant you're building, but for example Chernobyl had 150 people working there at the time of the accident, and that was an old plant with not as much automatics. 150 is not "many hundreds", and modern power plants need less than that. I'm not completely sure on how much less, but seeing as a company that runs two power plants has 500 people working there overall (including management, board, technical repairs, and all those little secretaries)...

Moon Brings Novel Green Power to Arctic Homes (http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1967&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
Sun Sep 21


By Alister Doyle

OSLO (Reuters) - Homes on the Arctic tip of Norway started getting power from the moon on Saturday via a unique subsea power station driven by the rise and fall of the tide.



A tidal current in a sea channel near the town of Hammerfest, caused by the gravitational tug of the moon on the earth, started turning the 33-foot blades of a turbine bolted to the seabed to generate electricity for the local grid.


The prototype looks like an underwater windmill and is expected to generate about 700,000 kilowatt hours of non-polluting energy a year, or enough to light and heat about 30 homes.


"This is the first time in the world that electricity from a tidal current has been fed into a power grid," Harald Johansen, managing director of Hammerfest Stroem which has led the project, told Reuters.


The plant in the Kvalsund channel, which had cost about $11 million by Saturday's launch, is a tiny contributor to help cut dependence on fossil fuels like oil and gas blamed for global warming (news - web sites).


The water flows at about 8 feet per second for about 12 hours when the tide is rising through the Kvalsund channel, pauses at high tide and then reverses direction. The blades on the turbine automatically turn to face the current.


If successful, the project could herald far wider use of predictable tides in green energy and generate millions of dollars in orders. Windmills, by contrast, are useless in calm weather and have to be built to withstand hurricane-force winds.


ARTIFICIAL LAGOONS


Tides have previously been tapped for power plants in France, Canada and Russia in barrages that trap water in artificial lagoons at high tide. When the tide goes out, gravity sucks the water through turbines to generate electricity.


But such barrages can disrupt the habitats of animals and plants in river estuaries and along the coasts.


Proponents of turbines turned by tidal currents say that they cause less impact -- they are silent and invisible from the surface and fish, whales and seals can probably swim round them without the risk of being sliced up.


Drawbacks are that costs are high. Hammerfest Stroem has estimated that electricity will cost about 0.30-0.35 crowns a Kilowatt hour to generate, three times that of typical hydro-generated electricity in Norway.


And maintenance -- with divers having to go down to the seabed -- could be tricky. Other subsea experiments to generate power from tidal currents from Australia to Britain have not got to the stage of feeding power into the grid.


Norwegian oil group Statoil, Swiss-Swedish engineering group ABB and local Norwegian utilities are partners in the Hammerfest Stroem scheme. "We want to get experience from this and see that we can also be a producer of green electricity," said Hanne Lekva at Statoil.


($1=7.223 Norwegian Crown)

I think tidal interests me the most.

A power station only needs a hundred employees or so, often fewer, not all of them possessing an advanced engineering degree. The degree of automation allowed by modern technology is quite impressive. Electricity grids are the same - in a country such as the UK, only a hundred people are manning the controls.

Well we had a good shot at civilization but it looks like we're gonna collapse two feet before the finish line. We should at least go out with a bang instead of frittering ourselves to death. I've been waiting my whole life for nuclear war and if I don't see one before I die I'm gonna be pretty damn dissapointed,

I know how you feel, but don't worry, it should all unravel well within your lifetime. :twisted:

Well Tact, It certainly does seem odd with all these power outages. Maybe its happening sooner than we thought.

First a war for oil, now power outages all over major countries.

Your plan of mining Asteroids is cheaper? :shock:

In the long run it would be more economical, as mining ventures would provide a new level for further operations. In the short term it is quicker to switch to hydrogen but still very costly. The long-term gains from asteroid minig would be quite literally astronomical, but then, governments and businesses aren't known for long-term thought.

You know If you threw all the Asteroids out there together theyd be lucky to form a body the size of Venus.

Well Tact, It certainly does seem odd with all these power outages.
In a word, deregulation. You see, governments are surprisingly good at planning ahead, and do not mind "wasting" money on back-ups. Profit-making enterprises do not care. Why spend colossal quantities of money having 25% more capacity than you need lying idle "just in case", if you are trying to make a profit, and not get taken over? Why plan infrastructure a couple of decades into the future when the markets only need capital expenditure plans a few years ahead?

What we are seeing is the start of a whole new trend resulting from the widespread privatisation of utilities throughout the Western world, with energy availability limitation issues thrown in, and it confirms my long-standing belief that national infrastructure should be exclusively in the hands of the state. Bring back the CEGB, I say. Sometimes, the smoke-filled room elite really does know best.

You know If you threw all the Asteroids out there together theyd be lucky to form a body the size of Venus.

Venus is around about the size of the Earth, that is still very large on human scales.

The Hydrogen Economy and utility deregulation utterly annihilated! And no, these guys are not liberals!

http://www.energiekrise.de/e/news/aspo/Newsletter034.pdf

You know If you threw all the Asteroids out there together theyd be lucky to form a body the size of Venus.

Venus is around about the size of the Earth, that is still very large on human scales.

Venus is about 3/4, MArs is about 1/2

Keep in mind most of what planets are made of is rock.
And No'one can say How much Stuff is in them, or of what sort.

Clicky (http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/top/ts_multi/documents/03049361.asp)

Q: The first commercial, unmanned mission to the moon was launched on December 20, 2002, by a company called Transorbital. What’s your position on commercial space exploration?

A: All this commercial stuff with the moon and ultimately Mars and some of the asteroids is all about mining operations. They say that there is helium-3 and water on the moon, there is gold on the asteroids and cobalt and uranium on Mars. And part of the space command’s job is not only to control and dominate the earth to benefit the US multinational corporate globalization of the planet, but they also want to create a parallel military highway between the earth and the planetary bodies in order to preserve them, or control the shipping lanes. Think of it like the British Empire with their ships that ruled the seven seas; their military navy was really all about protecting the global empire of the British all over the world. It’s the same way now, as technology allows for the going out and the mining of the heavens.

What are you people talking about? The world is not going to be depleted of rescources overnight. They will be consummed over time and as they become scarcer prices will go up and it will become necessary for the private sector to develop alternative ways to use and allocate rescources. Market correction.

What are you people talking about? The world is not going to be depleted of rescources overnight. They will be consummed over time and as they become scarcer prices will go up and it will become necessary for the private sector to develop alternative ways to use and allocate rescources. Market correction.
Yes, I am well aware it is not an overnight thing. If you read any of the links on the first page, you will see that resource extraction tends to follow a bell-curve. In other words, exponential growth, plateau, exponential decline. No instantaneous cessation of production, unless instituted by human agency.

The scope for market correction, is however limited by resource limitations and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The market's ability to impose "corrections" is finite, and the boundaries approaching.

Read part of some of the links in first post, and don't feel like reading 9 and a half other pages...

Oil as it relates to energy (electricity and heat) production is totally unnessary.

My question is, how much oil goes to things other then manufactoring, electricity, heating, and cars?

My question is, how much oil goes to things other then manufactoring, electricity, heating, and cars?
I hope this answers your question:

1 barrel = 42 gallons. Of this, after processing:

Gasoline: 19.5 gallons
Diesel and heating oil: 9.2 gallons
Jet fuel: 4.1 gallons
Fuel oil: 2.3 gallons

The rest is liquified/non-liquified gases, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, non-aviation grade kerosene, etc.

Note that this is the US refinery average, and in practice it is often possible to tune refineries to produce a different mix, though at a cost to efficency.

My question is, how much oil goes to things other then manufactoring, electricity, heating, and cars?
I hope this answers your question:

1 barrel = 42 gallons. Of this, after processing:

Gasoline: 19.5 gallons
Diesel and heating oil: 9.2 gallons
Jet fuel: 4.1 gallons
Fuel oil: 2.3 gallons

The rest is liquified/non-liquified gases, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, non-aviation grade kerosene, etc.

Note that this is the US refinery average, and in practice it is often possible to tune refineries to produce a different mix, though at a cost to efficency.

What's "fuel oil" used for? And where can I find a 'global refinery average'?

My question is, how much oil goes to things other then manufactoring, electricity, heating, and cars?
I hope this answers your question:

1 barrel = 42 gallons. Of this, after processing:

Gasoline: 19.5 gallons
Diesel and heating oil: 9.2 gallons
Jet fuel: 4.1 gallons
Fuel oil: 2.3 gallons

The rest is liquified/non-liquified gases, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, non-aviation grade kerosene, etc.

Note that this is the US refinery average, and in practice it is often possible to tune refineries to produce a different mix, though at a cost to efficency.

This brings up a good point. Although many people on here have discussed alternative forms of energy which can be harvested when all our oil runs out, nobody's considered the other product of oil--synthesis of organic chemicals. Once we're out of oil, where are we going to get our pharmaceuticals and plastics?

Oil can be synthesised.

I still dont get why a hydrogen economy cant work.

What's "fuel oil" used for? And where can I find a 'global refinery average'?
Fuel oil is the fuel most commonly used by marine engines. That fraction fuels international shipping. A global refinery average is going to be much more tricky to find, as few countries keep as good records as does the US. I would imagine BP might have some approximate numbers in some inaccessible form on one of their websites. It would, however, be broadly similar. The proportions would vary relatively little.

Just to put a new spin on this topic : http://www.discover.com/aug_03/featfire.html

Our current method of harnessing the sun's energy is usingphotovoltiac cells(expensive) to convert light into electricity, but It isn't very efficient.
This method, however, uses : a few parabolic mirrors, a black stainless steel cup, and a stirling engine to convert heat into energy. This method costs a dollar for every watt.

This brings up a good point. Although many people on here have discussed alternative forms of energy which can be harvested when all our oil runs out, nobody's considered the other product of oil--synthesis of organic chemicals. Once we're out of oil, where are we going to get our pharmaceuticals and plastics?
I had considered that. Oil and natural gas are the feedstocks or sources of feedstocks for many of the chemicals used in all areas of manufacturing. Even helium faces decline in parallel with natural gas, and without that, the superconductivity required for fusion reactors becomes that little bit more impossible. This is a fine example of the interconnectedness of all things. These rapidly depleting sources of energy provide our civilisation with much more than just energy, and the search for substitues is therefore wider, and far more difficult, than most people can imagine.

Just to put a new spin on this topic : http://www.discover.com/aug_03/featfire.html

Our current method of harnessing the sun's energy is using photovoltiac cells(expensive) to convert light into electricity, but it isn't very efficient. This method, however, uses : a few parabolic mirrors, a black stainless steel cup, and a stirling engine to convert heat into energy. This method costs a dollar for every watt. Who said solar energy isn't feasable?

Our current method of harnessing the sun's energy is usingphotovoltiac cells(expensive) to convert light into electricity, but It isn't very efficient.
This method, however, uses : a few parabolic mirrors, a black stainless steel cup, and a stirling engine to convert heat into energy.
Yes, I had heard of those quite recently. It does strike me as being far more sensible. Of course, one would have to solve the problems of energy storage (batteries which would reduce efficiency and increase the costs), but all in all, for personal home electricity, especially as part of a wider system of distributed generation, it is likely to be a more sensible choice than solar.

Oil can be synthesised.

I still dont get why a hydrogen economy cant work.
Not in anywhere near the quantities we need, and the problem with a hydrogen economy is that we are in the early R&D stages of a project to rebuild the world's energy and transportation infrastructure, with a 15-20 year deadline. Feasible? Starting in 1980 might have been good.

Fusion power is a waste of money!

Zero point energy is going to be the world's future energy source; there is no power grid necassary, so power companies get the short end of the stick (greedy bastards can rot in hell!). It is completely de-centralized, meaning you can have 'sustainable living' virtually anywhere on Earth.

The reason you don't see ZPE generators in production is because of the power industry and the oil industry. ZPE/free energy inventors are frequently sued by power and oil companies for being 'fraudulent' (and yet it took until a few years ago to find fraudulent auditing going on at power corporations themselves!), had their patent rights bought from them in return for financial investment, marketing, and production that never came, had themselves and/or their families physically attacked, and had their inventions/labs trashed, vandalized, stolen, and destroyed.

"The Coming Energy Revolution" by Jeane Manning is a good book to read, and for more information on ZPE, type in 'zero point energy' into a meta-search engine and peruse the search results.

Oil can be synthesised.

I still dont get why a hydrogen economy cant work.
Not in anywhere near the quantities we need, and the problem with a hydrogen economy is that we are in the early R&D stages of a project to rebuild the world's energy and transportation infrastructure, with a 15-20 year deadline. Feasible? Starting in 1980 might have been good.

I meant as in using it in products, not as energy.

And what about those Tidal sources i suggested

Uh, are you being satirical? Only, the Laws of Thermodynamics would seem to suggest . . .

Tidal sources don't produce a whole lot of energy for the area they take up. BUT. They are a better alternative then fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

I meant as in using it in products, not as energy.

And what about those Tidal sources i suggested
As feedstock, that would be more realistic, provided you were able to energetically subsidize the process, ie have the necessary plants run on another, ideally renewable energy source.

Tidal, we are seeing the first test-beds in the megawatt range being constructed. It is a far cry from the tens of gigawatts and eventually terawatts we would need for a sustainable future, for example any serious attempt at making the hydrogen economy a reality.

The hydrogen economy is/was actually fairly easy to switch to, using the current infrastructure of the oil industry.

The thing is, the longer the oil/power industries put off and delay alternative energy resources from becoming mainstream, the harder that fact is going to bite them in the ass as time goes on.

The thing is, the longer the oil/power industries put off and delay alternative energy resources from becoming mainstream, the harder that fact is going to bite them in the ass as time goes on.
Which is the source of a lot of my frustration with the failure of many Western governments to embrace wind. How long will they heisitate over stupid planning regulations when they can just say "We are the State, this is how it will be."? If I was in power, that's what I would do, but no . . . damn lawyers.

The damned people who have to live with them say they are ugly.
Id gladly have one if i had a property. I think they are pretty, in an artifical Sort of way.

As for tidal, is there anything capable of generating Terrawatts?

And didnt i already post info on the Sunflower?

Clicky (http://www.energyinnovations.com/technology/what.html)

The Sunflower looks like a variation on the solar-powered Stirling engine discussed further up the page. It could work. Mass take-up of the technology would be the next hurdle if it proves its worth.

Tidal in Terrawatts, now that would be one hell of a civil engineering project. That's a lot of concrete that would have to survive the sea for decades.

Wind turbines, part of the problem is government half-measures. They stick a dozen 500kW rated units on a hill somewhere, and all the farmers complain it's an eyesore. But put up a forest of hundreds of 3MW rated units, using the water off coasts as well, and suddenly they look beautiful. And if people still don't accept them, governments should be ready to impose the solution from above. In this case, I fear the people may not know what is good for them.

Just one problem with this form of solar tho. It only works in the sun.
I still dont know what there is that has ever generated terrawatts.

What is probably the future is actual windfarming. It happens on some small farms. They pay to have the Windfarms installed on their own private property.

Windfarming on the ocean crtainly does seem like a good idea doesnt it?
Just a few problems in construction and how to get that energy to the shore.

Just one problem with this form of solar tho. It only works in the sun.
I still dont know what there is that has ever generated terrawatts.
Yes, one of the problems with electrical energy is that there is currently no method of efficient storage. There are many ways such as batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, etc but they all have problems. Right now, flow batteries are in development which will store electrical energy in huge vats of electrolyte, so the flow battery has no fixed capacity, you can store as much energy as you want provided you have enough storage vats. And then you just reverse the flow of the electrolyte to extract the energy. But obviously there are losses associated with that, and the technology is very complex, it is still at the prototype stage.

Terrawatts, that's just a sensible unit to use when talking about the world's installed electrical generating capacity, as there is so much of it. Coal certainly fits into that category. I don't see tidal power replacing it any time soon, give the scales involved.

What is probably the future is actual windfarming. It happens on some small farms. They pay to have the Windfarms installed on their own private property.

Windfarming on the ocean crtainly does seem like a good idea doesnt it?
Just a few problems in construction and how to get that energy to the shore.
Heh, if the neighbours don't object. :tantrum:

Carrying the energy to shore is not much of a problem. It just gets sent down a sea-bed cable at 11kV-25kV to an on-shore transformer, and from there into the grid. Sinking the foundations and putting up the tower is not too much of a problem either, as the off-shore oil and gas industry has been doing that sort of thing in water up to 2000m deep for a while now. The technology is pretty well worked out. Heh, the 3MW rated sets even have helicopter pads at the top of their nacelles, to allow maintenance. Wave power though, implementing that is definitely going to be more tricky.

Still we're talkin about Hundereds of thousands.
Not a few Isolated oilrigs in (Realativly) shallow water.
Plus what about the environmental effects. I wonder if Pontoons could be a possibility.

Also wheres Psytropia, I thought thaty Space article would be of interest. And not just that one about resources.

Oil rigs can be fixed to the seabed even in water several hundreds of metres deep.

And as for large offshore wind-farms, arrays of hundreds are not a problem. A couple of years is all it takes. With the oil industry having so much equipment (currently fully committed, but not forever), they would be perfectly placed to put up wind turbines by the hundred. All they and the electricity companies contracting them need is a government ruling cutting through the annoying bureaucracy.

Regarding environmental effects, the alternative is far more coal-fired power, pure and simple.

Oil rigs can be fixed to the seabed even in water several hundreds of metres deep.

And as for large offshore wind-farms, arrays of hundreds are not a problem. A couple of years is all it takes. With the oil industry having so much equipment (currently fully committed, but not forever), they would be perfectly placed to put up wind turbines by the hundred. All they and the electricity companies contracting them need is a government ruling cutting through the annoying bureaucracy.

Regarding environmental effects, the alternative is far more coal-fired power, pure and simple.
You know, I read in a National Geographic issue that there is a balloon out there. It is extremely huge, and extremely strong. It is so big, it needs a special hanger that could hold 30 747s.
How is this relevant? The vision is to use it to construct oil rigs. It's passed tests to lift the parts needed, and it'll be easier and cheaper than modern construction techniques. I think that instead of wasting about $200 million, all you need is a $100 million investment. There are definitly proponets of wind technology that rich. In the long run, I still hold onto my belief of hydrogen. While a hydrogen economy may not be feasible, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles instead of internal combustable engines are. And don't give me Hindenburg as an example. The flammable paint is now blamed.

[quote]http://www.hydrogenus.org/mem-profiles.asp]GMAC/FORD & Hydrogen{/url]

This I believe is great news... let's see if either one can pull it off.

Ford Motor Company

Ford is developing PEM fuel cell propulsion systems for passenger vehicle transportation. Both hydrogen stored on-board the vehicle and hydrogen generated in-vehicle are being pursued as fueling options.

General Motors Corporation

Subsidiary GMAC provides financing, insurance, and real estate services. e-GM shows the Company’s commitment to innovation
in the e-commerce world, whether via its OnStar system, or web sites GM BuyPower and GMAC B2B Credit, or its participation
in the industry-wide supplier exchange, Covisint. GM is actively pursuing fuel cell-based transportation system research and
development at its Global Alternative Propulsion Center (GAPC), which has facilities in Warren, MI, Rochester, NY, and Mainz-Kastel, Germany.

[quote]http://www.hydrogenus.org/mem-profiles.asp]GMAC/FORD & Hydrogen{/url]

Hahaha.
Worst Tagging, Ever!

Theres always talk of making better Vehicles. They simply talk about it to get environmentalists of thier back. They know that when alls said and done, They wont be able to sell them to consumers. Petrol is easier.

Yeah. Frankly consumers are just lazy. And are very conservative when it comes to fuel.

[quote="Tactical Grace"][quote=Anarchist Communities]My question is, how much oil goes to things other then manufactoring, This brings up a good point. Although many people on here have discussed alternative forms of energy which can be harvested when all our oil runs out, nobody's considered the other product of oil--synthesis of organic chemicals. Once we're out of oil, where are we going to get our pharmaceuticals and plastics?
Plasticscan be synthesized from alcohol. I don't know about pharmaceuticals. Which ones specifically require petorchemicals?

Anthrus is very fond of quoting that Garbage oil link.

Is it possible to just come up with something better than oil?

Anthrus is very fond of quoting that Garbage oil link.

Is it possible to just come up with something better than oil?
What garbage oil link? I'm not really a strong proponet of oil. In fact, I'm an extremely strong supporter of hydrogen.

Remember that Link to the story about the machine that refines garbage into oil?

Remember that Link to the story about the machine that refines garbage into oil?
No. I never even knew that garbage could be turned to oil. You must be confusing me with someone else.

However, Astrolia, you've brought me onto another point. I want hydrogen to be a reality soon. But in the mean time, we still have plenty of coal. We're basically filled with coal. Yet who wants to use it? Coal's dirty, sooty, and obviously not ideal.
I've heard of a way to create synthetic oil from coal. That'll help us in the near future, should we ever run out of natural oil. There's just one problem that comes in the form of a tax break. The IRS defines synthetic fuels as coal with its chemical composition changed. That qualifies as spraying on pine tar, limestone pebbles, or deisel fuel. It burns like coal, it feels like coal, but the IRS says its oil. All you need are a few million dollars to set up a large scale syn fuel project, or at least what is defined by the IRS.
Canada has made a sucessful synthetic fuel industry with tighter rules. We need to follow in their footsteps.

However, Astrolia, you've brought me onto another point. I want hydrogen to be a reality soon. But in the mean time, we still have plenty of coal. We're basically filled with coal. Yet who wants to use it? Coal's dirty, sooty, and obviously not ideal.
I've heard of a way to create synthetic oil from coal. That'll help us in the near future, should we ever run out of natural oil. There's just one problem that comes in the form of a tax break. The IRS defines synthetic fuels as coal with its chemical composition changed. That qualifies as spraying on pine tar, limestone pebbles, or deisel fuel. It burns like coal, it feels like coal, but the IRS says its oil. All you need are a few million dollars to set up a large scale syn fuel project, or at least what is defined by the IRS.
Canada has made a sucessful synthetic fuel industry with tighter rules. We need to follow in their footsteps.

Theeres a way to make anythig from anything. As long as you have enough energy. Thats the key.

ITs not as if they could sythesise oil or coal before.

GAAAAAH

The way the golbal/trans-national oil industry is set up, a switch to hydrogen would be *relatively* painless. BUT.

IT STILL KEEPS YOU DEPENDENT ON THOSE GREEDY MO-FO'S, THIER GRID, AND THIER INFRASTRUCTURE.

Zero-point energy, on the other hand, is DE-CENTRALIZED. Sustainable living is - read my lips - possible almost ANYWHERE with ZPE!!!

Unfortunatly, the oil and power industry (like many other large corporations *cough cough*) does not play by the rules, it plays by the 'meta-rules', if you will. They can afford to sue, buy out, or physically harm 'free-energy' inventors at no more then a small dent in thier finances!

However, Astrolia, you've brought me onto another point. I want hydrogen to be a reality soon. But in the mean time, we still have plenty of coal. We're basically filled with coal. Yet who wants to use it? Coal's dirty, sooty, and obviously not ideal.
I've heard of a way to create synthetic oil from coal. That'll help us in the near future, should we ever run out of natural oil. There's just one problem that comes in the form of a tax break. The IRS defines synthetic fuels as coal with its chemical composition changed. That qualifies as spraying on pine tar, limestone pebbles, or deisel fuel. It burns like coal, it feels like coal, but the IRS says its oil. All you need are a few million dollars to set up a large scale syn fuel project, or at least what is defined by the IRS.
Canada has made a sucessful synthetic fuel industry with tighter rules. We need to follow in their footsteps.
That's true. But coal is the best natural source since it has hydrocarbons. The difference is that oil is liquid, and coal is a powdery solid, and much dirtier than oil.

Theeres a way to make anythig from anything. As long as you have enough energy. Thats the key.

ITs not as if they could sythesise oil or coal before.

Zero-point energy, on the other hand, is DE-CENTRALIZED. Sustainable living is - read my lips - possible almost ANYWHERE with ZPE!!!

Ok first I'd like to direct you to this page

Click (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s61729.htm)

And then this

Click (http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/quantum.htm)

Frankly. I still dont get ZPE.

The oil and power industry does not make the rules as far as physical reality is concerned, it is rigidly bound by them. Free energy is a load of crap, and everyone knows it.

The oil and power industry does not make the rules as far as physical reality is concerned, it is rigidly bound by them. Free energy is a load of crap, and everyone knows it.
Who even suggested free energy before? I never even thought of free energy.

Anarchist Communities seems to think (either that or it is just taking the p*ss) that all our energy problems can be solved if only we would listen to some Internet quacks. Compared to that, the vision of hemp powering our civilisation looks sane.

Anarchist Communities seems to think (either that or it is just taking the p*ss) that all our energy problems can be solved if only we would listen to some Internet quacks. Compared to that, the vision of hemp powering our civilisation looks sane.
The only way we'd get free energy is if we somehow figured out how to get fusion power directly from the sun. I wouldn't expect that for the next few millenia or so.

Anarchist Communities seems to think (either that or it is just taking the p*ss) that all our energy problems can be solved if only we would listen to some Internet quacks. Compared to that, the vision of hemp powering our civilisation looks sane.
The only way we'd get free energy is if we somehow figured out how to get fusion power directly from the sun. I wouldn't expect that for the next few millenia or so.

There is a corona burst on it's way to earth today, 250 miles per second, maybe if we could catch it with some solar panels..... nah..

Just thought I'd toss that in there. :lol: :lol:

meh

The oil and power industry does not make the rules as far as physical reality is concerned, it is rigidly bound by them. Free energy is a load of crap, and everyone knows it.

And who the FUCK are you to say that? Are you a physicist? An inventor? Or some greedy corporate jack-ass who knows that ZPE would make him and his empire absolutely and totally worthless and literally power-less?!?!?

The oil and power industry does not make the rules as far as physical reality is concerned, it is rigidly bound by them. Free energy is a load of crap, and everyone knows it.

And who the f--- are you to say that? Are you a physicist? An inventor? Or some greedy corporate jack-ass who knows that ZPE would make him and his empire absolutely and totally worthless and literally power-less?!?!?
He's an energy company intern. While his views are rather pessimistic, he has some very good points.

The oil and power industry does not make the rules as far as physical reality is concerned, it is rigidly bound by them. Free energy is a load of crap, and everyone knows it.

And who the f--- are you to say that? Are you a physicist? An inventor? Or some greedy corporate jack-ass who knows that ZPE would make him and his empire absolutely and totally worthless and literally power-less?!?!?
He's an energy company intern. While his views are rather pessimistic, he has some very good points.
Malthus had some good points. What Malthus didnt have was the foresight to correct his era's problems and shortages.

Anarchist Communities seems to think (either that or it is just taking the p*ss) that all our energy problems can be solved if only we would listen to some Internet quacks. Compared to that, the vision of hemp powering our civilisation looks sane.

"Internet quacks"?!?!?

Excuse me?

First of all, how or where the hell would "internet quacks" get this? I am willing to post a list of books on the topic of free-energy that will explain anything from it's beginings and roots to the actual working physics of it or from how free-energy inventors have been oppressed by greedy corporations who see inventors as threats (which they are) to their mega-buck profits instead of the global solution they are to how Japan (which has nothing to lose from ZPE and everything to gain) is funding ZPE projects while the US government continues to squander billions on 'hot fusion' while 'cold fusion' could take place on a tabletop for less time, effort, and money, BUT. But corporate lobbyists have Congress in thier pocket (at least in regards to anything that pertains to making a profit.)

The oil and power industry does not make the rules as far as physical reality is concerned, it is rigidly bound by them. Free energy is a load of crap, and everyone knows it.

And who the f--- are you to say that? Are you a physicist? An inventor? Or some greedy corporate jack-ass who knows that ZPE would make him and his empire absolutely and totally worthless and literally power-less?!?!?
He's an energy company intern. While his views are rather pessimistic, he has some very good points.

In regards to ZPE, he's a babe-in-the-woods.

Anarchist Communities seems to think (either that or it is just taking the p*ss) that all our energy problems can be solved if only we would listen to some Internet quacks. Compared to that, the vision of hemp powering our civilisation looks sane.

"Internet quacks"?!?!?

Excuse me?

First of all, how or where the hell would "internet quacks" get this? I am willing to post a list of books on the topic of free-energy that will explain anything from it's beginings and roots to the actual working physics of it or from how free-energy inventors have been oppressed by greedy corporations who see inventors as threats (which they are) to their mega-buck profits instead of the global solution they are to how Japan (which has nothing to lose from ZPE and everything to gain) is funding ZPE projects while the US government continues to squander billions on 'hot fusion' while 'cold fusion' could take place on a tabletop for less time, effort, and money, BUT. But corporate lobbyists have Congress in thier pocket (at least in regards to anything that pertains to making a profit.)
Why would hot fusion be more profitable? Cold fusion, if invented, could be marketed rapidly, and make the company who perfected it very wealthy.