World Energy

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: desy
Thats 109 coal plants every yr for 50 yrs or 6000 coal plants is there enough coal for 6000 new coal plants?

Poor assumption. That applies if we ONLY use coal plants to address the energy issue. The correct answer is that we'll build more coal plants, more nuclear plants, more hydroelectric plants, more solar farms, and more wind farms. We have more than enough time and fossil fuel to slowly transition to alternative solutions. It will be at least 100 years, if not many more, before we'll need to ween ourselves completely. imo, it'll happen faster than that though because economic factors will force it to happen.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: desy
Sadly living in suburbia with my manicured lawn, minivan's cars and kids I'm exactly the kind econuts hate.

American suburban planning is purposely wasteful. It makes pedestrianism impossible, forces you to use huge amounts of water for lawns by putting them in front of the house, and obviously being far from most of the jobs, requiring commuting. It's irresponsible, and it couldn't have been done without governments' aid. Here in Texas, the state is still expanding highways to let people live further and further out.

Whatever.. no skin off my back, I work in the oil industry. The less we do about the energy problem, the better off I'll be. Can't wait until we have you people by the balls.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: desy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
because the author knows the incredible difficulty of replacing oil and why substition is unlilkely to ever come on stream fast enough, as represented how much energy in one cubic mile of oil.

Allowing fifty years to develop each replacement, one cubic mile of oil could be replaced by any one of these developments:

* 4 Three Gorges Dams[7], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 52 nuclear power plants[8], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 104 coal-fired power plants[9], developed each year for 50 years, or
* 32,850 wind turbines, [10][11] developed each year for 50 years, or
* 91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[12] developed each year for 50 years

The energy produced is the power rating of the source multiplied by the duration it is operational. These comparisons take into account the variability of available power (solar panels work only during the day, turbines work only when the wind blows). To replace the current 3 CMO annual energy use would require three of these 50-year development projects.

I believe these may be off by a factor of more then 2. The reason being, most oil is used for transportation, where burning in an ICE is only ~20% efficient. Electric motors are near 90% efficient, and baseload electrical generation can be from 35-50% efficient.

Constructing 25 new nuclear plants a year world wide is totally reasonable. If fast reactors are used then the fuel reserves are practically unlimited.

 

[desy]

I'm onboard with conservation and alternatives probably being able to meet demand.

Problems being we have no viable battery/ultracapacitor for all electric vehicles and if oil depletion happens as fast as it has in Cantarrel and the North Sea or Prudhoe Bay at 9% a yr.
It also takes 10 yrs to get a nuclear reactor on-line, doesn't do us much if it happens in say 3-5
This is when it hits the fan ,cause it will happen faster than our ability to adjust without major socio/economic impact......

Pull out the crystal ball!

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: desy
I'm onboard with conservation and alternatives probably being able to meet demand.

Problems being we have no viable battery/ultracapacitor for all electric vehicles and if oil depletion happens as fast as it has in Cantarrel and the North Sea or Prudhoe Bay at 9% a yr.
It also takes 10 yrs to get a nuclear reactor on-line, doesn't do us much if it happens in say 3-5
This is when it hits the fan ,cause it will happen faster than our ability to adjust without major socio/economic impact......

Pull out the crystal ball!

It only takes 4ish years to get a nuclear reactor online. Those 10-year figures bandied about were unusual cases of particular plants that were held up due to environmentalist litigation or post-TMI issues, neither of which are factors today (with combined licensing).

And while some oil fields may deplete unusually fast, there are other oil fields that deplete less fast then expected, and even some fields thought to be depleted mysteriously refilling themselves. Not to mention the absolutely gargantuan shale-oil reserves available.

 

[Atheus]

I believe people will continue to use energy at an increasing rate, especially if most 3rd world nations make successful transition to modern economies in the next 50 years, which I think we can all agree would be a positive thing. Therefore we have two options - either we develop a new abundant source of energy (fusion, etc) or we simply continue to use natural resources until they are all gone. Regardless, in the meantime, something will have to be done about climate change. Probably some form of solar reflection combined with removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I believe people will continue to use energy at an increasing rate, especially if most 3rd world nations make successful transition to modern economies in the next 50 years, which I think we can all agree would be a positive thing. Therefore we have two options - either we develop a new abundant source of energy (fusion, etc) or we simply continue to use natural resources until they are all gone. Regardless, in the meantime, something will have to be done about climate change. Probably some form of solar reflection combined with removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

You're a global climate change denier!

 

[desy]

I don't care about C02
If its on, we are too late to do anything about it as its a world problem and you won't stop China or India from progressing.
Best we can do is mitigate any adverse effects by planning which is something we can control within our own country

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

cheap solar tech is the future.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I believe people will continue to use energy at an increasing rate, especially if most 3rd world nations make successful transition to modern economies in the next 50 years, which I think we can all agree would be a positive thing. Therefore we have two options - either we develop a new abundant source of energy (fusion, etc) or we simply continue to use natural resources until they are all gone. Regardless, in the meantime, something will have to be done about climate change. Probably some form of solar reflection combined with removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Mother nature has her own method of removing co2 from atmosphere. The 1st step is global warming.

 

[alien42]

the future is cellulosic ethanol and the first plant is scheduled to go online next year.

 

[Ozoned]

Killing and rendering fat people to produce bio-diesel, would increase fuel supplies, and reduce demand.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Killing and rendering fat people to produce bio-diesel, would increase fuel supplies, and reduce demand.

how about just farming the obese instead of killing them. you can be paid to have your fat sucked out at a local lipo joint/gas station.

 

[desy]

Solent Green is PEOPLE!