The Impending Energy Crisis

[Snook]

(I'm terribly sorry if this has been discussed to death already, I can't find the "search forum" function, if anyone could kindly point it out to me.)

This was inspired by a debate I had with some coworkers today.

What is your take on the topic of energy, namely in how quickly we as a society are using up our resources (oil, wood, coal, etc.) to provide ourselves with electricity to power our industries & lives? If you think we have more than enough natural resources to sustain us, why do you believe this? If you think we're going through our fuel supplies too quickly, again, explain your logic. What is the most likely substitute for our source of power IF our current fuel sources were to go bankrupt?

Personally, I subscribe to Jared Diamonds theory, explained in "Collapse", that our resources are much like an enormous bank account which we've inherited. It seems colossal to us, and so we run through it with glee, only to notice after going through over half of it that "oops", what we have is a very low interest account, which has been accumulating wealth for a very long time (many natural resources take eons to form) and we're burning through the account reserves faster than it's replenishing itself. It's difficult to stop ourselves from doing this by the point we realise our error, however, so we just continue spending like crazy. Eventually, I predict we're going to be forced to move to "alternative fuels" within the next 3 or 4 decades, at the earliest, and by the end of my lifetime at the latest.

What do I propose to do, then? Well, after some research and deliberation, and also common sense, we can't put all our energy-dependent eggs in one fuel-providing basket. To extend the bank metaphor, we need to disversify and invest our fuel needs into many different areas: hydro power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, solar power, etc, in the areas where they can best be put to use. If we have to, I'd even advocate nuclear power, but only if we can find an economic yet ecologically safe way to dispose of the waste. The problem is, which government is going to want to re-structure its energy grid based on a vague prediction of when the crisis will come to a head? It'd cost billions, if not trillions of dollars. And that is the problem. In our modern capitalistic society, no one wishes to invest in such a risky, high-cost endeavor which the hazy promise of returns in the distant future. Investors want profit now, and thus, I don't think that any change will happen with regards to our fuel sources until the **** hits the fan, so to speak.

[Althane]

First: We need to get off of gas. Mostly for the political reasons, but the sooner we get rid of the gas dependency, the sooner the gas resiviour lasts a few hundred years longer. I mean, even just for cars would prolong the life a while.

Second: We need to develop hydrogen technology. Not just for cars, but probably for home heating too. Or we could use better insulation, that'll save even more energy.

And, hey, there isn't exactly a firewood shortage (for huge amounts of homes, then yes that would be bad, but otherwise, for just a few homes, it's a great way to heat the house!)

Third: We really, really, REALLY, need to stop fighting and just pool our resources. Of course, that probably wouldn't ever happen, but that's a lot better use for uranium and plutonium, rather than bombs.

So, build up alternate energy sources (I propose hydrogen (yes, we really need to research that pathway more), and nuclear energy), and stop fighting, dammit. That's wasting way too much energy.

[P-Sleazy]

Hydrogen is good an all, but so far, from what I've seen mind you, The electric car GM came out with in the 90's is superior to the first hydrogen cars we'll be seeing in the not too distant future. The biggest problem with converting vehicles to hydrogen or electricity will be the fueling stations and building them/converting gas stations and such.

[Muffin Mage]

Nuclear freaking power plants. Get rid of all the restrictions it takes to build a nuclear power plant (I think the most recent estimate is ten years) and start building them in place of oil and coal plants. What do we do with the waste? Dump it on the moon. Launch it into the sun. Build bunkers in the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean. It really doesn't matter.

[Azisien]

Nuclear freaking power plants. Get rid of all the restrictions it takes to build a nuclear power plant (I think the most recent estimate is ten years) and start building them in place of oil and coal plants. What do we do with the waste? Dump it on the moon. Launch it into the sun. Build bunkers in the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean. It really doesn't matter.

Here's how it goes...We build the power plants to provide ample power for all. All well and good, but we will have a waste problem. Luckily, with all this power, we can either sell it out to other nations or use the surplus to make a Space Elevator. At that point, we'll have a cheap way to get the waste off the planet.

[ZAKtheGeek]

The reason people are wary to completely seal away nuclear waste is because it could be possible to reuse it in nuclear reactors.

[ArlanKels]

Space Elevator? Too much Mega Man for youuuuuu...

Or whatever else had that in it.


To defend the oil barons:
Exactly how long is it going to use up our current natural resources in terms of oil? Why, we don't know! It could be soon, it could be a hundred years from now, it could be millennia from now. We have no exact way of measuring all of the oil currently available to us, especially since numerous countries control the varying oil fields. Why, we might even find a new oil field somewhere like in the glorious sparkly rainforests of Peru(Does peru have rainforests?).

As Rattrap would say. We're all going to die.

[Azisien]

Our best estimates still give us like a hundred and fifty years of oil, and that's with the estimates of the oil we've found. I'd still rather rise above it in my lifetime. We need it for more than just cars, and I wouldn't mind removing some of the dependancy over a long period of time (doesn't have to be so sudden, everywhere, right now).

As for the space elevator, it's realistic technology that could work, once we can mass produce carbon nanotubes. PS: Don't like Mega Man.

[steve11]

The “energy crisis” is a bit of a misnomer it should be called “petroleum crisis”, and that’s not entirely related to energy.

The thing is we have plenty of viable ways to generate energy that don’t involve fossil fuels, gas, or petrochemicals (yes I know stating some of those is redundant). However currently the cost to change over is prohibitively expensive, or in some cases (such as nuclear power) people tend to be skittish about comitting to it.

The issue is that petroleum is used for far more then food. Plastics, manufacturing, various chemical products, just about everything is based off petrochemicals. So even if we had hydroelectric cars and nuclear power plants today, we’d still be hooked on oil.

This is also why there isn’t that much of a push to hop over, because transferring to other fuels does not solve the problem that we still can not maintain our industries, technology, or growth without a continued supply of petrochemicals.

However your average person doesn’t realize the amount of petroleum that went in to make just about everything he uses on daily basis, so we call it an energy crisis.

The solution to the petroleum crisis needs to have a two pronged approach. First we need to find away to reduce the amount we consume. Moving to alternate fuels does solve this, however it doesn’t quell the thirst of various industries, and moving to alternate fuels will just drop the cost of oil causing them to consume it all the faster… and removes any incentive they had to find more efficient ways to use them.

The issue is we need to find some way to help create petrochemicals, and this is trick. We don’t need everything in petroleum, just certain chemicals and compounds. There is a possibility we can create these on our own, but that’s the critical issue.

[Althane]

Actually, a new nuclear reactor is being created, called a FAST reactor, that will be able to use practically all the energy that we can suck from uranium, leaving very, very little enriched behind, and that wouldn't be of the quality needed tor dirty bombs. So, that's a good way to do power.

Of course, we could also bend our research towards perfecting fusion, because once we get that down, there's enough energy to power the world, and then some.

The main way of reducing the amount of petroleum that we use would be to stop using it in cars. Once that stops, we have a lot more time avaliable, and then we can come up with replacement products.

[ZERO.]

Actually, a new nuclear reactor is being created, called a FAST reactor, that will be able to use practically all the energy that we can suck from uranium, leaving very, very little enriched behind, and that wouldn't be of the quality needed tor dirty bombs. So, that's a good way to do power.

Of course, we could also bend our research towards perfecting fusion, because once we get that down, there's enough energy to power the world, and then some.

I always thought being able to create a mini-star to power a planet was a bad ass idea.

The only problem with it is in order to create a fusion reaction we need to compensate for the loss of gravity that would normally be present in a fusion reaction with more heat.

That means that we would need to produce more heat than what would normally occur in a star, which needless to say is a whole fucking shit ton.

I’m thinking that maybe because the star will be only a fraction of the size of our sun we would only need a fraction of the heat needed to make a star.

Once we get around that though it’s all good from there.

[Azisien]

Well, we've had thermonuclear bombs for 50+ years, creating a fusion reaction isn't the primary problem. The problem is creating and containing that massive fusion chain reaction (MUCH bigger than our nuclear ones). Check out the Wiki article on Tokamaks (sp?) for some good reading on what'll probably be future fusion reactors.

[steve11]

Well, we've had thermonuclear bombs for 50+ years, creating a fusion reaction isn't the primary problem. The problem is creating and containing that massive fusion chain reaction (MUCH bigger than our nuclear ones). Check out the Wiki article on Tokamaks (sp?) for some good reading on what'll probably be future fusion reactors.

Ummm speaking from somebody who worked with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the warheads on those are nothing close to a nuclear reactor.

But we can contain fision (fusion is old) we already have in plasma plants, it's just not cost effective now. And to make it so would require kicking the EPA in the nuts and forcing it. Our own policies prevent us from using it to break us from oil. Go Clinton, and go Bush, both had an equal hand in it and shock.......... both got money from oil.

The ability is there, problem is both parties have to much oil money in their pockets for us to use it, it's a shame.

[greed]

Uhh tokamak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokomak), not tomahawk Steve. You use that to contain a sustained fusion reaction (also called a star) and prevent it from just dispersing into the atmosphere(also called a fusion bomb). And what do you mean by fusion is old? It's a newer technology than fission both in explosives and power generation (still explerimental and theoretical in power generation as opposed to working fission reactors since the 70s).

[steve11]

doh my bad, need to work on not speed reading

[Sithdarth]

Ok the only Uranium Isotope that can really be used for fission applications is U-235 and naturally occuring uranium doesn't contain near a high enough percent to make a bomb. Heck it doesn't contain enough to even power a light water reactor. Now naturally occurring Uranium can be used in heavy water and graphite reactors. These are the ones that tend to worry military types by producing Plutonium 239. So while you have to use slightly enriched Uranium for a light water reactor, 3% which if I recall correctly still isn't enough for a bomb, it ends up better in the long run as its harder to make weapons grade Plutonium 239. (Read it'd take the resources of a country to refine it.)

As for any concern of bad people getting ahold of waste; its darn near a very large steaming pile of crap. When you properly dispose of it no one can ever get to it again. Now their could be concerns over foreign countries selling it but its not to hard to tell if highly raidoactive material is in the truck you are standing next to, even if its lined with lead. Not to mention its very easy to know how much fuel a plant is using and how much waste should be at the disposal site.

Now Tokamaks are neat my money is on Pulsed Laser Fusion (http://other.nrl.navy.mil/LaserFusionEnergy/lasercreation.htm). Its generally considered cheaper, easier, and more effiecient. Plus they've built a laser (http://www.llnl.gov/str/Petawatt.html) with enough power now they just need to make the pulse last longer. (That and really huge lasers are freaking cool.)

[Lockeownzj00]

However currently the cost to change over is prohibitively expensive, or in some cases (such as nuclear power) people tend to be skittish about comitting to it.

Basically, this is the same argument a horse-drawn carriage business would use against the large-scale implementation of cars. Perhaps it would be grating and difficult at first to create all them parts and wheels, but eventually, it's for the better.

[Mannix]

My money is on water powered cars that undo global warming. (http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm) That alone in the US would cut, what, 80% of our petrolium consumption? This could also be used to rig up generators for home power. Infrastructure conversion wouldn't really be all that hard anyway. Any tank that can hold gas can hold water I'd wager. It's an easy, cheap fix that could be implimented worldwide within a couple of years tops. It's too bad the most companies could charge for providing water would be cents on the gallon, thus cutting big time into profits and making it highly likely that corporate ninja lawers keep that shit on lockdown.

[ZERO.]

Ummm speaking from somebody who worked with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the warheads on those are nothing close to a nuclear reactor.

But we can contain fision (fusion is old) we already have in plasma plants, it's just not cost effective now. And to make it so would require kicking the EPA in the nuts and forcing it. Our own policies prevent us from using it to break us from oil. Go Clinton, and go Bush, both had an equal hand in it and shock.......... both got money from oil.

The ability is there, problem is both parties have to much oil money in their pockets for us to use it, it's a shame.

You know, I have always had some thoughts as to what would happen if all the smart people moved to some other part of the world separate from all the other countries.

For some reason I picture the animatrix where the machines all moved and made their own city, but with more people and the machines and the people coexisting.

[Magus]

If they could find petroleum on other planets we'd really be in the money. I assume that's the real reason GWB wants to go to Mars, after all. What with all the theories about Mars once having life (which I assume would include plant matter, perhaps), it MIGHT be possible, not to mention that Uranium and other minerals might be able to be harvested.

Other than that, all the other solutions are fine, as long as my car will go at least 65. I don't live near the Autobahn.

You know, I think it would be easier for people to commit to using hydrogen or electric or flex-fuel cars if they didn't look so inane. Why not just invent a hydrogen powered Corvette, after all? Do the cars HAVE to look silly? I'm sure there are few that don't look too bad (some of them look like those ones you see in sci-fi movies, usually with lamborghini doors and such), but most of them look like what the same old stereotypical mini-van meets Honda Civic goofy looking things.

[Mannix]

You know, I think it would be easier for people to commit to using hydrogen or electric or flex-fuel cars if they didn't look so inane. Why not just invent a hydrogen powered Corvette, after all? Do the cars HAVE to look silly? I'm sure there are few that don't look too bad (some of them look like those ones you see in sci-fi movies, usually with lamborghini doors and such), but most of them look like what the same old stereotypical mini-van meets Honda Civic goofy looking things.

Now that you've brought it up, I think that the cars are designed ugly on purpose. Nobody wants to drive an ugly car, which keeps forward thinking cars from becoming too popular, which means that oil companies don't have to worry about their profits getting cut into. Car companies can still say their trying to develope and get these cars out there which keeps the public from getting too mad and it keeps the oil firms happy because they can still swim around in money like Scrooge McDuck.

[Althane]

Hey, I kinda like how they look.

Especially the ones with the bubbletop, I think that'd be pretty cool to drive.

What? I get bored driving, it'd be nice to have a complete 360 degrees of vision.

[Muffin Mage]

Well, the auto industry is mired in its own problems. Most of the U.S. companies are too busy paying people to not work in big union states to work on doing new or interesting things.

I'm thinking it's startup company time.

[Evil Ted]

Have you ever noticed that when a revolutionary idea is proposed it is usually placed in a forgoton pile somewhere. So I urge you to search your files and ming for great ideas.

[nnzqs]

My guess is that most of the revolutionary energy technologies were abandoned because they turned out impractical. The water powered car isn't powered by water, it's powered by "Brown's Gas", the nature of which I am unclear. This is because I am too lazy to research.

Wind/solar power sucks because it's unpredictable. We can't store energy efficiently, we have to produce it to meet expected demands. Windpower is only useful as it fits into the error term of energy provision equations. I've heard of power companies having to pay to get rid of excess windpower production. Invent a revolutionary energy storage technology, and I will service you in unspeakable ways.

"moving to alternate fuels will just drop the cost of oil causing them to consume it all the faster…" Teh economic fallacy! Decrease in demand can't lead to an increase in quantity demanded, you econ kids know what I mean.
Yes, I just typed that to show how goddam smart I am.

If you disagree with me.... this wasn't me. It was a parasite that lives in my neck.

[Muffin Mage]

You forget that about 60% of the world's oil is controlled by OPEC, and they artificially raise prices by deciding how much oil will be sold to which countries. If someone creates a widespread and viable alternative to oil, you can bet that the amount sold to the U.S. will increase by a factor of ten.

[Kei-Kun]

As far as insulation goes, Areogel would be fine for most of it, but they gotta make a version that isn't so easy to break.

And OPEC would probably stamp out any attempt to take away from their strangle-hold on gas and such's energy. If your the little scientist group, your going to want a lot of that shinies, and you don't even have to MAKE anything. -.-

Also, I belive water is climbing up to the we're-running-out list (as far as underground resivoires, wells, and such)...I think the projected water crisis was like in 70 years or so if the current trend continues... >.>

[Althane]

Water, however, we can synthesize.

Heck, I've done it myself. One part Oxygen, two parts Hydrogen, and add some heat.

Or, you can just do the easier stuff, and do a neutralization reaction using HCl and NaOH.

Just be careful that it's perfectly neutralized. And get the salt out first. Mwehehe...

Hmmm, wood, water, quick make energy sources...

Yeah, we need to find alternatives fast. I mean, we really don't need wood to build houses, we can use otherthings, things that are actually a lot mroe effective at insulating. Like, metal. With.. uhm... foam insulation in between.

With brick siding. I mean, mud is one thing we're not short on.

[Kei-Kun]

Water, however, we can synthesize.

Heck, I've done it myself. One part Oxygen, two parts Hydrogen, and add some heat.

Or, you can just do the easier stuff, and do a neutralization reaction using HCl and NaOH.

Just be careful that it's perfectly neutralized. And get the salt out first. Mwehehe...

Hmmm, wood, water, quick make energy sources...

Yeah, we need to find alternatives fast. I mean, we really don't need wood to build houses, we can use otherthings, things that are actually a lot mroe effective at insulating. Like, metal. With.. uhm... foam insulation in between.

With brick siding. I mean, mud is one thing we're not short on.
Didn't you hear me? Aerogel is ALL you need for insulation. Except it's a tad brittle (last I checked)

You could heat a aerogel-surrounded house with a candle, and it would be to hot. It's THAT good. xD

[Althane]

No, I didn't hear you.

I also sorta skipped your post until I saw "OPEC" and figured that you might have something worth reading. ^_^;;

Areogel, huh? I'll look into that.

[Muffin Mage]

That's another thing. We've been building houses the same way since about the 16th century, with minor modifications for advances in technology (such as electricity) and cultural changes (such as attached garages). There are better ways to build houses. Hell, you could make a house out of certain varieties of ceramics that would be better insulated, more fire and weather resistant and cheaper than standard wood construction.