• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Oil and gas depletion to begin by 2035

gutharius

Golden Member
For those of you who argue oil is in infinite supply.

France Will Get Fusion Reactor To Seek a Future Energy Source

By CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: June 29, 2005
PARIS, June 28 - An international consortium announced Tuesday that France would be the site of the world's first large-scale, sustainable nuclear fusion reactor, an estimated $10 billion project that many scientists see as crucial to solving the world's future energy needs.

Comparing Fuels"It is a great success for France, for Europe and for all the partners in ITER," President Jacques Chirac said in a statement released after the six-member consortium of the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and the European Union chose the country as the site for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.

Japan, which had lobbied hard for the project, dropped out of the bidding in the last few days and ceded to France. The consortium agreed in Moscow to build the project at Cadarache in southern France.

Nuclear fusion is the process by which atomic nuclei are forced together, releasing huge amounts of energy, as with the sun or a hydrogen bomb. The process has long been studied as a potential energy source that would be far cleaner than burning fossil fuels or even nuclear fission, which is used in nuclear reactors today but produces dangerous radioactive waste.

While the physics of nuclear fusion have long been understood, the engineering required to control the process remains difficult.

The logistics of coordinating construction in a six-member consortium has presented an even bigger challenge. The project was started in 1988 but bogged down in bickering over where the reactor's design team would be based. A compromise split the team between Japan, Germany and the United States, but the consortium struggled over where the reactor would be built.

Canada, Spain, France and Japan were originally in contention for the reactor site, but a December 2003 ministerial meeting to pick a winner ended in a deadlock, with the United States, Japan and South Korea backing the Japanese site and the other three consortium members pushing for the site in France.

Recently, Japan agreed to relinquish its bid in return for the consortium's commitment to build a $1 billion materials testing center there.

The consortium also promised that any subsequent fusion reactor built by the consortium would be built in Japan. It is a significant concession, because the first reactor is only a demonstration plant meant to prove that fusion can be harnessed as an economically viable energy source. A second reactor would probably be a prototype meant for commercial power generation.

With the agreement, the consortium can now proceed with the drafting of a deal on the construction and operation of the reactor. ITER officials said they hoped that the accord would be signed by the end of the year, allowing work on the reactor to begin next year and ground to be broken at the Cadarache site in 2008. Current plans foresee the reactor operating in 2016.

Construction of the reactor is estimated to cost $5 billion, with its operation costing another estimated $5 billion over 20 years, according to ITER. The host country is expected to cover half of those costs, with the other five partners each paying 10 percent. Those numbers are based on current dollars, however, meaning the actual cost of the reactor will be much higher by the time it is completed.

Many experts also predict that construction could take much longer than now foreseen given the difficulty of coordinating multiple suppliers of costly and highly technical components in many countries. The agreement leaves open the possibility that still more countries may take part in the project. India, for example, has expressed interest.

The final agreement is expected to include provisions that would require consortium members that cause delays to pay compensation.

The fusion project has stirred controversy since it was first proposed in the 1980's, with many scientists arguing that such "big science" will rob financing from the "little science" of individual researchers who have often produced the world's most striking scientific breakthroughs.

But criticism has been drowned out by the growing recognition of fusion's potential as a solution to the world's looming energy crisis.

"We all know oil and gas depletion will start in 2030 or 2035," said Peter Haug, secretary general of the European Nuclear Society.
 
Gas depletion started the day we sucked the first barrel of oil out of the earth.

Now it just depends on whether or not we will deplete oil to the point we cant extract anymore.

 
Sigh...

I hate bad science and those who wish to exploit it for their own gain...

We can't infinitely consume oil at the rates we are currently comsuming it BUT as long as there are carbon based life forms on this planet there will be oil and coal and gas etc... Therefore there is an, if not infinite, (and I only concede that point because presumably the earth will be swallowed up by an inflated sun as it's supply of hydrogen runs out some billions of years from now) very long term supply of oil.

Come on... any time some government official starts a statement with "We all know..." it carries the same intellectual weight as your mom saying "because I said so."

 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

We can't infinitely consume oil at the rates we are currently comsuming it BUT as long as there are carbon based life forms on this planet there will be oil and coal and gas etc... Therefore there is an, if not infinite, (and I only concede that point because presumably the earth will be swallowed up by an inflated sun as it's supply of hydrogen runs out some billions of years from now) very long term supply of oil.

Do you know how long it takes for oil deposits to form?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

We can't infinitely consume oil at the rates we are currently comsuming it BUT as long as there are carbon based life forms on this planet there will be oil and coal and gas etc... Therefore there is an, if not infinite, (and I only concede that point because presumably the earth will be swallowed up by an inflated sun as it's supply of hydrogen runs out some billions of years from now) very long term supply of oil.

Do you know how long it takes for oil deposits to form?

About as long as it takes to get legislative approval to drill. 😛

 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Do you know how long it takes for oil deposits to form?

About as long as it takes to get legislative approval to drill. 😛

[/quote]

The resistance to drilling might have something to do with the amount of time takes oil reserves to form...

Come on... any time some government official starts a statement with "We all know..." it carries the same intellectual weight as your mom saying "because I said so."
Which is about the same as quipping instead of providing evidence for your statements.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Do you know how long it takes for oil deposits to form?

About as long as it takes to get legislative approval to drill. 😛

The resistance to drilling might have something to do with the amount of time takes oil reserves to form...

Come on... any time some government official starts a statement with "We all know..." it carries the same intellectual weight as your mom saying "because I said so."
Which is about the same as quipping instead of providing evidence for your statements.[/quote]

Oh, so the logic is that legislators feel that we should hold off for a few million years, let the oil reserves build up and then take another look at drilling? Please.

The resistance is from a small but well financed and extremely vocal group of people who seek to impose their will on Alaskans at the expense of energy indpendence for the US.

And as far as evidence goes... what evidence have you provided other than some French buraucrat rolling his eyes and telling us all "what we all know"?

 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Oh, so the logic is that legislators feel that we should hold off for a few million years, let the oil reserves build up and then take another look at drilling? Please.

The resistance is from a small but well financed and extremely vocal group of people who seek to impose their will on Alaskans at the expense of energy indpendence for the US.

And as far as evidence goes... what evidence have you provided other than some French buraucrat rolling his eyes and telling us all "what we all know"?

The point is that we should preserve strategic resources if there's a risk of them running out and we don't have alternatives. Your statement that there will always be natural resources ignores the fact that we can't wait for the eons to pass to refill our gas tanks.

I never relied on some French bureaucrat. Focus.
 
Which is no worse than the OP's opening statement of "For those of you who argue oil is in infinite supply."

I certainly don't ready every thread in here, but I can't say I've ever seen that argument. Sounds a bit like a logical fallacy to me..
 
There was an article the other day discussing the bids that companies are now making for 5100 acre land grants from the US government to experiment with different techniques to extract oil from shale deposits. The conservative estimate is that in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming we have potential oil reserves of a trillion barrels, or the equivalent of the entire world's current proven oil reserves. I feel it is only a matter of time before an efficient method is discovered to extract the oil. That being said, the supply is finiite, and it would not be a bad idea to explore other options like a hydrogen based economy for example......
 
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Which is no worse than the OP's opening statement of "For those of you who argue oil is in infinite supply."

I certainly don't ready every thread in here, but I can't say I've ever seen that argument. Sounds a bit like a logical fallacy to me..

Therefore there is an, if not infinite, (and I only concede that point because presumably the earth will be swallowed up by an inflated sun as it's supply of hydrogen runs out some billions of years from now) very long term supply of oil.

Whoozyerdaddy sounds like he's awfully close to that position. He seems to think oil reserves replenish themselves at a similar rate to our extraction. It sounds he think it is infinite until the sun spurts out. You think there's an important distinction there?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Oh, so the logic is that legislators feel that we should hold off for a few million years, let the oil reserves build up and then take another look at drilling? Please.

The resistance is from a small but well financed and extremely vocal group of people who seek to impose their will on Alaskans at the expense of energy indpendence for the US.

And as far as evidence goes... what evidence have you provided other than some French buraucrat rolling his eyes and telling us all "what we all know"?

The point is that we should preserve strategic resources if there's a risk of them running out and we don't have alternatives. Your statement that there will always be natural resources ignores the fact that we can't wait for the eons to pass to refill our gas tanks.

I never relied on some French bureaucrat. Focus.

Well we sure as hell can't fill out gas tanks if we're not drilling for new oil and building new refineries.

Look... when I was in third grade "everybody knew" that there was only 25-30 years of oil left in the world. In Jr. High there was 25-30 years of oil left in the world. When I graduated high school (I know you have a hard time believing that one) there was 25-30 years of oil left in the world. Today we have a french guy (and you) and a few other whack-os out there telling us that "we all know" how there are only 25-30 years of oil left in the world. I'm sorry, i can only listen to so much scare-mongering BS before I begin to develop this theory that there are people out there who have other agendas beyond simply warning us that we are running out of oil.

As far as running out of oil goes... Two things.

One. I haven't seen or read anythin to make me believe that this 25-30 year warning is any more valid than the one I was first given 30 years ago.

Two. The free market is a wonderful thing if you just leave it alone and let it figure things out on its own. If oil were to vanish today, tomorrow some guy would have an answer, patent it, market it and make billions. (It's actually happening right now in a more realistic time frame) So your concept of strategic reserves doesn't hold up.

If it's there we should drill it. If history has taught us anything it's that we've been running out of oil for at least 30 years (probably longer) and every time we think the end is near we find more or we figure out how to get at the oil we couldn't touch previously.

 

Therefore there is an, if not infinite, (and I only concede that point because presumably the earth will be swallowed up by an inflated sun as it's supply of hydrogen runs out some billions of years from now) very long term supply of oil.

Whoozyerdaddy sounds like he's awfully close to that position. He seems to think oil reserves replenish themselves at a similar rate to our extraction. It sounds he think it is infinite until the sun spurts out. You think there's an important distinction there?[/quote]

I specifically said the exact opposite of that. I was just refuting your assertion that there was only a finite ammount of oil.

We can't infinitely consume oil at the rates we are currently comsuming it BUT as long as there are carbon based life forms on this planet there will be oil and coal and gas etc...

Next time use the whole quote.

 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
We can't infinitely consume oil at the rates we are currently comsuming it BUT as long as there are carbon based life forms on this planet there will be oil and coal and gas etc...

Next time use the whole quote.

[/quote]

What exactly do you mean when you say you only concede the fact that it's not an infinite supply only because eventually the sun will die? If that's not what you meant, what did you mean by that sentence?

If you are challenging the idea that there is a finite amount of oil, doesn't that suggest you think it's infiinite? How can it be both not finite and not infinite?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
We can't infinitely consume oil at the rates we are currently comsuming it BUT as long as there are carbon based life forms on this planet there will be oil and coal and gas etc...

Next time use the whole quote.

What exactly do you mean when you say you only concede the fact that it's not an infinite supply only because eventually the sun will die? If that's not what you meant, what did you mean by that sentence?

If you are challenging the idea that there is a finite amount of oil, doesn't that suggest you think it's infiinite? How can it be both not finite and not infinite?
[/quote]


Dude... Decaying organic material under extreme pressure creates hydrocarbon deposits. As long as there are carbon based life forms inhabiting this planet there will be oil. Maybe not (as I said earlier) enough to sustain our demand, but there none the less.

Until that is, the sun goes into it's red giant phase (or the earth is hit by a giant comet or is swallowed up by a black hole or.... you get the idea) Hence the second half of my comment... No planet = no oil.

It's not that confusing. And it's not contradictory. And I never said it was infinite.

 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
And I never said it was infinite.

Then why are you challenging the statement that it's finite? It seems to me something is finite or infinite.

Of course oil comes from old life. Stop acting like that's some top-secret info that supports your position. Deposits come about on a geological timescale. That doesn't mean we are not going to run out in the near future.
 
also, if you'd listen to pres. bush's speech a couple weeks ago about the energy bill. he mentioned that u.s. scientists have been playing around with soy as a means to produce combustible fuel.

as for the french building a fusion reactor, good for them. but i'd give it 5-1 odds that the u.s will beat them to it.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
And I never said it was infinite.

Then why are you challenging the statement that it's finite? It seems to me something is finite or infinite.

Of course oil comes from old life. Stop acting like that's some top-secret info that supports your position. Deposits come about on a geological timescale. That doesn't mean we are not going to run out in the near future.

It doesn't mean we will either.

And I'll settle the other issue by saying... again... It's infinite in the sense that as long as there are people on the planet, and for that matter there is a planet to have people, there will be oil. Maybe not enough for everyone... but there will be oil. If you want to make the argument that oil is finite because the planet is finite then I will accept that line of logic also.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Maybe not enough for everyone... but there will be oil.

I'm still curious how long you think it takes for oil to replenish. If we extracted all oil from the Earth, including in the hard-to-reach areas, there would be no oil for millennia at least. Right?

The bottom line is that many people think at some point there will be so little oil that we would have economic collapse if there were no alternative fuels. It seems like you don't think this is going to happen at all, or anytime soon. Am I right?
 
Originally posted by: johnnobts
also, if you'd listen to pres. bush's speech a couple weeks ago about the energy bill. he mentioned that u.s. scientists have been playing around with soy as a means to produce combustible fuel.

as for the french building a fusion reactor, good for them. but i'd give it 5-1 odds that the u.s will beat them to it.

Probably not. The US is helping them build it as it is primarily a Research facility.
 
Originally posted by: johnnobts
also, if you'd listen to pres. bush's speech a couple weeks ago about the energy bill. he mentioned that u.s. scientists have been playing around with soy as a means to produce combustible fuel.

Hey if you believe the god helmet can contact the dead, I'm not surprised you believe whatever Bush says.

as for the french building a fusion reactor, good for them. but i'd give it 5-1 odds that the u.s will beat them to it.

SOMEBODY REALLY NEEDS TAKE HIM UP ON THIS. I don't think he understands this is an international endeavor.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Maybe not enough for everyone... but there will be oil.


The bottom line is that many people think at some point there will be so little oil that we would have economic collapse if there were no alternative fuels. It seems like you don't think this is going to happen at all, or anytime soon. Am I right?


Yes! You get it. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Certainly not in our lifetime.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Maybe not enough for everyone... but there will be oil.


The bottom line is that many people think at some point there will be so little oil that we would have economic collapse if there were no alternative fuels. It seems like you don't think this is going to happen at all, or anytime soon. Am I right?


Yes! You get it. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Certainly not in our lifetime.

You forgot to respond to this part. 😉

I'm still curious how long you think it takes for oil to replenish. If we extracted all oil from the Earth, including in the hard-to-reach areas, there would be no oil for millennia at least. Right?
 
Originally posted by: johnnobts
also, if you'd listen to pres. bush's speech a couple weeks ago about the energy bill. he mentioned that u.s. scientists have been playing around with soy as a means to produce combustible fuel.

as for the french building a fusion reactor, good for them. but i'd give it 5-1 odds that the u.s will beat them to it.

We're working with them and other nations on that project. Hopefully we can all work it out.
 
Back
Top