Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hellstryker on March 18, 2009, 06:55:56 pm
-
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Thoughts? I'm honestly very pissed off about this. I don't want to be using oil 200 years from now. Or 100. Or hell, even 50.
-
North Dakota and Montana... Well, it's not like anybody lives there.
-
There is ton's of technically recoverable oil everywhere, whether or not that oil is profitable is another story.
-
technically recoverable
Aha, the catch. Until you guys can figure out a way to get power without oil my province is going to do just fine. :drevil:
-
Ignore the oil. Get us on something better.
But most importantly...
Leave Montana alone.
-
Ignore the oil. Get us on something better.
But most importantly...
Leave Montana alone.
My thoughts exactly.
-
How long would 3.65*10^9 barrels last at the current rate?
-
about a day.
-
According to wikipedia, world consuption in 2006 was 86 million barrels per day. So 3 or 4 billion would barely cover a month. Sad, really.
-
The sad part is, after the apocalypse, when we start rebuilding, all readily available fossil fuels will have been used up with no means to produce more, thus dooming humanity to a pre-industrial civilization for at least a million years.
Why yes, I do read Orson Scott Card. Why do you ask?
-
Merde! I thougt that this is the after the apocalypse period :mad: I think i'll have to check this Orson Scott Card guy.
-
Merde! I thougt that this is the after the apocalypse period :mad: I think i'll have to check this Orson Scott Card guy.
meh, I am a optimist. :yes:
Just hope for the best.
-
Personally, I believe that if the government seriously cared about advancing us from fossil fuels (or at the least petroleum), they certainly have the power to do so. How? Through the use of tax credits and/ or tax breaks. Give fat tax breaks for car companies that develop natural-gas or electric cars. Offer tax breaks for people to buy and own them. Furthermore, the government could encourage (aka subsidize) the use of nuclear power. Environmentalist whining nonwithstanding, nuclear energy is the single best source of electrical energy we have. Yes, disposal of nuclear waste is a concern in the States, but that's due in large part to the fact that our nuclear capabilities are embarrassingly behind those of Canada and some members of the EU. France gets at least 50% of their power from nuclear, and they even have a reactor that can reprocess nuclear waste. Furthermore, I read in Popular Science about a type of "plasma incinerator"- it can take any fuel so long as it's not in elemental form, produces syngas (which actually fuels the electric generator) and a glassy, obsidian-like slag as a byproduct.
*Whew* In short, if people seriously wanted to move on from oil, we could. But we aren't. And in light of the way things are, I for one am pleased that such a large accumulation of oil is likely present.
-
The US has a ridiculous amount of untapped oil. It's called the Strategic Reserve.
Don't worry, resource exploitation in every other country won't be ending anytime soon. The US will conserve its own resources last. Which is precisely why the US isn't the country we should all be relying on for developing alternative energy sources - there's very little incentive for the R&D money required to do so when the large oil corporations are raking in billions a year in oil profits (and billions more in subsidiary companies that pick up lucrative DoD contracts).
/cynicism.
-
Anyone hear of the Air car?
IIRC www.aircar.com
-
Time to cover the Sahara and other global deserts with Solar cells and feed the power equally to each nation. :P
*Edit* What's the carbon footprint on a solar cell again? */Edit*
-
Not without superconducting cables it's not :D
What we need is big huge solar farms coverting water into hydrogen, and some kind of safe hydrogen storage system. Then there's maybe a place for desert based solar arrays (or dessert based for flavour).
Anyway, 4 billion barrels is nice, and worth having sure, but it's not really big news. The Saudi's have, what nearly 300 billion? Find an order of magnitude more than this (i.e. 30 - 40 billion) and you start affecting the oil debate in some small way. But with modern geophysical methods the way they are I'd be very surprised if there were too many more recoerable oil fields at that scale out there, particularly not onshore and definitely not in countries like the US (i.e. first world, long oil producing history etc.)
-
Don't the Saudi's, like, refuse to tell anyone how much oil they have?
Meh. I think the government should stop subsidizing fossil fuels, at the very least... Let gas prices be outrageous. Maybe people will get off their fat asses and walk to the store. Though, what with the size of suburbs these days, the ice cream might all be melted by the time they walk home.
Public transportation could do with some improvements, too.
My city doesn't allow you to put solar panels on your roof. They're ugly or something.
-
My city doesn't allow you to put solar panels on your roof. They're ugly or something.
:wtf:
Kill your public officials. Now.
-
The sad part is, after the apocalypse, when we start rebuilding, all readily available fossil fuels will have been used up with no means to produce more, thus dooming humanity to a pre-industrial civilization for at least a million years.
Why yes, I do read Orson Scott Card. Why do you ask?
We should just go straight nuclear, and use hydro as an intermediary step to power the research&dev site.
Not without superconducting cables it's not :D
What we need is big huge solar farms coverting water into hydrogen, and some kind of safe hydrogen storage system. Then there's maybe a place for desert based solar arrays (or dessert based for flavour).
Anyway, 4 billion barrels is nice, and worth having sure, but it's not really big news. The Saudi's have, what nearly 300 billion? Find an order of magnitude more than this (i.e. 30 - 40 billion) and you start affecting the oil debate in some small way. But with modern geophysical methods the way they are I'd be very surprised if there were too many more recoerable oil fields at that scale out there, particularly not onshore and definitely not in countries like the US (i.e. first world, long oil producing history etc.)
Actually hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as every man on the street likes to make it out. It's pretty safe in fact. Most people on the Hindenburg died from jumping out...the few survivors stayed on the ship until it landed (OK. drifted to the ground) and got off with minor injuries.
However hydrogen is *not* the answer, because its energy density is so low. It's way too bulky to haul around, it takes up too much space.
Personally, I believe that if the government seriously cared about advancing us from fossil fuels (or at the least petroleum), they certainly have the power to do so. How? Through the use of tax credits and/ or tax breaks. Give fat tax breaks for car companies that develop natural-gas or electric cars. Offer tax breaks for people to buy and own them. Furthermore, the government could encourage (aka subsidize) the use of nuclear power. Environmentalist whining nonwithstanding, nuclear energy is the single best source of electrical energy we have. Yes, disposal of nuclear waste is a concern in the States, but that's due in large part to the fact that our nuclear capabilities are embarrassingly behind those of Canada and some members of the EU. France gets at least 50% of their power from nuclear, and they even have a reactor that can reprocess nuclear waste. Furthermore, I read in Popular Science about a type of "plasma incinerator"- it can take any fuel so long as it's not in elemental form, produces syngas (which actually fuels the electric generator) and a glassy, obsidian-like slag as a byproduct.
*Whew* In short, if people seriously wanted to move on from oil, we could. But we aren't. And in light of the way things are, I for one am pleased that such a large accumulation of oil is likely present.
You *can't* burn fissionable like that. Reprocessing is a valid method, but it takes great caution and planning, especially since any reprocessing plant will be - by their nature - producing plutonium, the stuff that modern nukes are made of. They're a highly sensitive sites as far as nuclear proliferation and national security are concerned.
Still, I'm all for them, as they increase the lifespan and usability of fission fuel by several magnitudes. However if reprocessing *is* enacted, then the whole deal has to be handled with the care and respect it deserves.
-
heh Respect. That's another resource the world is low on.
Oil is stupid.... I don't think the Strategic "Reserve" will do **** for the US.
As a side note. We won't need to go to deserts, they'll be coming for us sooner or later. =/
-
[pulls out soap box]
Or, we could ditch this hopelessly outdated idea of pressurized boiler fission reactors and start really using the technology that was proven out in the 80's and 90's for liquid metal cooled reactors that can work in the fast neutron spectrum. Thus enabling us to "burn" most of the nuclear waste we produce and get more energy out of it in the process and, oh yeah, reduce the overall half-life of the final waste products. Pyrometallurgical reprocessing of uranium and waste products results in fuel and waste, neither of which are sufficiently refined to make a nuclear weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#Pyroprocessing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#Pyroprocessing)
You can thank the Clinton administration for canceling these projects. There have been attempts in private industry to make it work on a smaller scale with nuclear "batteries." See http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/). (It's the company website, so there really isn't that much useful info there, but it gives you the basic idea.)
-
Actually hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as every man on the street likes to make it out. It's pretty safe in fact. Most people on the Hindenburg died from jumping out...the few survivors stayed on the ship until it landed (OK. drifted to the ground) and got off with minor injuries.
However hydrogen is *not* the answer, because its energy density is so low. It's way too bulky to haul around, it takes up too much space.
Safe was the wrong word, kinda. I mean something that wont succumb to Hydrogen damage over time and become brittle and useless, though it looks like I misunderstood, and composite materials might solve the problem there.
Despite the enrgy density problems, I don't see an accesible alternative to hydrogen anywhere on the horizon, at least not for cars. Electricity takes too long to charge and leaves massive toxic batteries lying around everywhere. Hybrids and plug in hybrids still have the battery problem and are only going to prolong the fossil dependence., adittedly at lower consumption rates, but they're not solving anything. A disseminated hydrogen network, with people and businesses making their own at home via solar electrolysis and topping up from servos for long trips would largely solve the density problem because you'd not need that much at any one time. 90% of the time you'd only ever need to put enough in your car to go, at most, 50 kilometers or so, and very rarely more than, say, 200 kms. If we could get decently clean batteries, some kind of plug-in hydrogen hybrid might be able to extend that range without requiring a bigger fuel tank.
It wont solve electricity demand, of course. For that, we need to go nuclear.
[EDIT] Forgot about biofuels, which are kind of so-so. If you get them from sugar cane (or something equally high energy, just not corn), and you're not taking away agricultural land that's vital for food production or ecologically important maybe you'll be able to use them to help transition into hydrogen, but TBH I'd rather see the land kept open for food.
-
The sad part is, after the apocalypse, when we start rebuilding, all readily available fossil fuels will have been used up with no means to produce more, thus dooming humanity to a pre-industrial civilization for at least a million years.
Why yes, I do read Orson Scott Card. Why do you ask?
We should just go straight nuclear, and use hydro as an intermediary step to power the research&dev site.
Not without superconducting cables it's not :D
What we need is big huge solar farms coverting water into hydrogen, and some kind of safe hydrogen storage system. Then there's maybe a place for desert based solar arrays (or dessert based for flavour).
Anyway, 4 billion barrels is nice, and worth having sure, but it's not really big news. The Saudi's have, what nearly 300 billion? Find an order of magnitude more than this (i.e. 30 - 40 billion) and you start affecting the oil debate in some small way. But with modern geophysical methods the way they are I'd be very surprised if there were too many more recoerable oil fields at that scale out there, particularly not onshore and definitely not in countries like the US (i.e. first world, long oil producing history etc.)
Actually hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as every man on the street likes to make it out. It's pretty safe in fact. Most people on the Hindenburg died from jumping out...the few survivors stayed on the ship until it landed (OK. drifted to the ground) and got off with minor injuries.
However hydrogen is *not* the answer, because its energy density is so low. It's way too bulky to haul around, it takes up too much space.
Personally, I believe that if the government seriously cared about advancing us from fossil fuels (or at the least petroleum), they certainly have the power to do so. How? Through the use of tax credits and/ or tax breaks. Give fat tax breaks for car companies that develop natural-gas or electric cars. Offer tax breaks for people to buy and own them. Furthermore, the government could encourage (aka subsidize) the use of nuclear power. Environmentalist whining nonwithstanding, nuclear energy is the single best source of electrical energy we have. Yes, disposal of nuclear waste is a concern in the States, but that's due in large part to the fact that our nuclear capabilities are embarrassingly behind those of Canada and some members of the EU. France gets at least 50% of their power from nuclear, and they even have a reactor that can reprocess nuclear waste. Furthermore, I read in Popular Science about a type of "plasma incinerator"- it can take any fuel so long as it's not in elemental form, produces syngas (which actually fuels the electric generator) and a glassy, obsidian-like slag as a byproduct.
*Whew* In short, if people seriously wanted to move on from oil, we could. But we aren't. And in light of the way things are, I for one am pleased that such a large accumulation of oil is likely present.
You *can't* burn fissionable like that. Reprocessing is a valid method, but it takes great caution and planning, especially since any reprocessing plant will be - by their nature - producing plutonium, the stuff that modern nukes are made of. They're a highly sensitive sites as far as nuclear proliferation and national security are concerned.
Still, I'm all for them, as they increase the lifespan and usability of fission fuel by several magnitudes. However if reprocessing *is* enacted, then the whole deal has to be handled with the care and respect it deserves.
You're right. That ..let's just call it a "plasma incinerator" won't work on nuclear waste because it's too close to being in elemental form. Pretty much anything else is fair game, though.
-
You *can't* burn fissionable like that. Reprocessing is a valid method, but it takes great caution and planning, especially since any reprocessing plant will be - by their nature - producing plutonium, the stuff that modern nukes are made of. They're a highly sensitive sites as far as nuclear proliferation and national security are concerned.
You didn't actually read the articles at all, did you?
When IFR fuel rods reach their maximum burnup, the fuel will be reprocessed in the Fuel Cycle Facility (FCF) located next to the reactor. Fuel recycling at the reactor site is a key IFR feature. Completion of the FCF renovation will permit full demonstration of the IFR concept and is critical to future commercial development.
The IFR's fuel recycling recovers the fuel that is not burned in its first cycle in the reactor. That fuel is formed into new rods, placed in fuel cladding and returned to the reactor. This process is repeated until essentially all of the fuel is used to produce electricity.
Fuel recycling greatly reduces the amount of the radioactive wastes that must be buried in geologic repositories. After 300 to 400 years, IFR waste - the products of fissioning - are as safe as the natural ore the fuel came from.
Meaning nuclear waste lives for 300 instead of 10000 years. Also, plants like this would not produce plutonium. The reprocessing makes it impossible for any material, waste or otherwise, from being used for anything but what it was intended.
Huzzah for debate research!
-
I may be on the odd side of this debate, since I think fossil fuels are useful due to their insane energy density and easy transportability, which is why we have used them for so long. I also acknowledge the fact we need an alternative since our fossil fuel supplies are limited. I do think such an alternative will come about without the government needing to shoehorn money into research. Currently solar cells are too expensive to be of much use. If someone makes a cheaper, more efficient solar cell, just think how many people will want to buy them. I know I will due to the fact they will be able to provide cheap, clean electricity. Who wouldn't mind a car that doesn't need to be constantly refueled/recharged? A pure electric solar/plug-in hybrid would be a great method of efficient energy, especially if more fission power is utilized for electricity. I don't see wind farms being of much use. They require lots of wind and lots of space. They are far more limited in their application than solar cells, which can be placed anywhere that receives sunlight. Tidal generators on the other hand are much more viable due to the fact the Earth is 70% water, and tides have more energy in them than winds.
To be honest, if someone develops working fusion, I can see research into synthetic fossil fuels being undertaken as they are more energy-dense than batteries and with proper treatment of exhaust gases, can output very little pollution.
I think there is very little need for government funding of alternative energy supplies, as there is too much benefit for the private sector to not develop them. There are private energy businesses besides Big Oil after all. And anything government-related can quickly become politicized and full of corruption and waste. In the private sector, there is less waste as every dollar that is wasted is a dollar that won't be profit.
-
Bwhaha... im in Scotty's sig! Woot!
-
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Put that on a railroad locomotive. I guarantee a revolution in freight and passenger transport.