The Impending Energy Crisis

Snook · 10-07-2006, 07:24 PM

(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 · 10-09-2006, 12:24 PM

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 · 10-09-2006, 03:26 PM

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 · 10-09-2006, 04:11 PM

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 · 10-09-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10-09-2006, 04:16 PM

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

ArlanKels · 10-09-2006, 04:29 PM

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 · 10-09-2006, 04:34 PM

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 · 10-09-2006, 04:54 PM

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 · 10-10-2006, 10:01 AM

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.

10-07-2006, 07:24 PM	#1
Snook Goomba Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 7	The Impending Energy Crisis (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.

10-09-2006, 03:26 PM	#3
P-Sleazy Can Summon Sparkles by Posing! Join Date: May 2004 Location: Kinging it up! Posts: 2,339	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. __________________ The King is your new master now. Totally returning for the Summer: a mafia Game: Sign ups HERE!

10-09-2006, 04:16 PM	#6
ZAKtheGeek Worth every yenny Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: not my mind that's for sure! Posts: 1,299	The reason people are wary to completely seal away nuclear waste is because it could be possible to reuse it in nuclear reactors. __________________ Pyro Icon - It needs your love. I haven't looked at it in months.

10-09-2006, 04:29 PM	#7
ArlanKels <-- Pickle Eater Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,244	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.

10-09-2006, 04:34 PM	#8
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	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.

10-09-2006, 04:54 PM	#9
steve11 Troopa Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 91	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.