I recently had a discussion with some friends on this subject and thought I'd find what you all think.
We were discussing the current state of enrgy production and use through out the world and the consquences of this in the near future (say the next 50 years or so). We currently use ALOT of oil, a bit of nuclaer, bit of coal and some other minor bits to produce most of the enrgy we use. These reserves are going to run out, though the question as of when is somewhat debated. I hear that oil reserves have about 50 years left, but then they did say that back in the 1970's too.
My friend argues that man has always overcome, technology has advanced and we have always found new and better ways, and as such he is convinced we need not worry, in 50 years should the oil dry up we will have invented a alternative. As such he feels there is no reason to worry unduely now and introduce measures to curb the huge energy use we now enjoy (such as high fuel tax or tax incentives for hybrid cars and other such methods)
I am less optomistic, oil in particualr is so fanastically useful and we are totaly reliant on it, the issue of it running out before we are ready worries me.
What do ya'll think?
Is there an energy crisis? I don't think so, I think the problem is clean energy. Here in europe we are forced to make things burn cleaner and more efficiently, in the US they don't give a sheet as if they have a different air supply to the rest of us or something. That's why the buy up other countries CO2 quotas. The UK buys subsidised German coal rather than dig it's own, so I don't think there is a crisis as in a shortage, it's just what is the cheapest, and that'll be oil, Arab oil. So it's no suprise that the biggest burner of crude occupies the second largest oil reserve!!
The problem isn't that the oil is suddenly going to dry up, it's that it will gradually become more difficult to get. Combine this with the fact that world population is still rising, a growing portion of the world is developing oil consuming economies and we are fighting wars over oil already and you'll see what the real cause for concern is.
Hydrocarbons (oil, gas and coal) are such storehouses of valuable chemicals that future generations will be dumbfounded to think that we burnt them merely for its energy content!😛
It's like burning dollar bills to warm yourself.
Think of all plastics, many medicines, cosmetics and vitamins, nylon, paint, etc etc, all made from hydrocarbons.
Unfortunately, renewables like wind, solar and thermal can never replace more than about 10 - 25% of your energy mix. However, a very attractive alternative would be a hydrogen economy (hydrogen burns to form water vapour) with the H2 being generated at off-shore nuclear plants. (Nuclear has come a long way since Chernobyl!)
Originally posted by CalJustChernobyl came a long way too - the radioactive fallout reached Scotland...
Unfortunately, renewables like wind, solar and thermal can never replace more than about 10 - 25% of your energy mix. However, a very attractive alternative would be a hydrogen economy (hydrogen burns to form water vapour) with the H2 being generated at off-shore nuclear plants. (Nuclear has come a long way since Chernobyl!)
Originally posted by CalJustA very good point, when the oils all burnt up alot of other things we take for granted other than energy will be lost
Hydrocarbons (oil, gas and coal) are such storehouses of valuable chemicals that future generations will be dumbfounded to think that we burnt them merely for its energy content!😛
It's like burning dollar bills to warm yourself.
Think of all plastics, many medicines, cosmetics and vitamins, nylon, paint, etc etc, all made from hydrocarbons.
Unfort ...[text shortened]... H2 being generated at off-shore nuclear plants. (Nuclear has come a long way since Chernobyl!)
Originally posted by Simonmnot exactly - oil can be synthetically made and so can all of it's constituent parts. It already is in some areas, such as 'fully synthetic engine oils' where having a pure oil is worth the cost. But it's currently cheaper to dig teh stuffout of the ground, and when that's gone the other uses of oil will not disappear but become much more expensive.
A very good point, when the oils all burnt up alot of other things we take for granted other than energy will be lost
Originally posted by CalJust
(Nuclear has come a long way since Chernobyl!)
the issue of power plant safety may seem to have improved - but superimpose the new "war on terror" on top and you might rethink that observation.
but this is only a sideshow; the most serious issue of nuclear power is disposal of the waste - last time i looked this was to be solved by RESEARCH
Originally posted by belgianfreakReally? The name "Hydrocarbons" means made of Carbon and Hydrogen. All HCs contain long chain molecules, alkenes, alkanes, etc etc. And all HCs come from organic material, i.e. previously alive animals/plants.
[b]not exactly - oil can be synthetically made and so can all of it's constituent parts.
Crude oil is believed to come from the dinosaurs,and coal from buried forests.
Sure, you can make oils "synthetically". All that means is that you take pure alkanes or alkenes with a designated chain length and put them together according to a specific formula. But where did the raw materials come from in the first place? 😉
You cannot create matter, and you cannot create carbon and hydrogen, at least not chemically.
Take for example the SASOL oil-from-coal process (a world first.) Here coal is broken down first into its constituent basic building blocks (Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide.) These are then combined according to specific "recipes" to make petrol (gasoline for the US😉 ) and diesel and a whole range of raw materials for the chemical industry.
Oil can also be made from living plant matter, such as sunflower oil. It has been shown that sunflower oil can be an excellent fuel for diesel engines!
But "synthetic" as in making it from something else that was NOT previously a HC, is impossible.
i think the freak from belgium has a point: oil can be produced by other means - but this is meaningless ..... the special thing about oil is that it is so incredibly cheap. to produce long HC chains by awkward and expensive and slow means is of no use to us, except perhaps, to supply low consumption lubricants.
water is cheaper and more available than oil? is anythiing else?
Originally posted by flexmoreYour first comment, about the proliferation of nuclear material, is definitely NO sideshow. However, one cannot turnback the clock and what is done has been done. By shutting down ALL nuclear power plants overnight (even if it could be done) will not deminish the terrorist threat one iota. But this is something that I have been trying in vain to bring to Col Coast Guard's attention...:'(:'(
the issue of power plant safety may seem to have improved - but superimpose the new "war on terror" on top and you might rethink that observation.
but this is only a sideshow; the most serious issue of nuclear power is disposal of the waste - last time i looked this was to be solved by [b]RESEARCH[/b]
The disposal issue has, IMHO, been solved. The new reactors, like the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) can store 80 years of spent fuel in the equivalent of a normal suburban lounge. 😏
Originally posted by CalJustmmmm i am no nuclear pro but .... http://www.tmia.com/pebbles.html
The disposal issue has, IMHO, been solved. The new reactors, like the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) can store 80 years of spent fuel in the equivalent of a normal suburban lounge. 😏
What's Wrong With the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor?
The pebble bed reactor is being touted as nearly "accident proof." It is being hailed as the savior of the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island Alert opposes this reactor design because of its inherent dangerous safety defects.
1. It has no containment building.
2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator.
3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs.
4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles.
5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor.
6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems.
COMMENTS
1. The lack of a containment building is a necessity because cooling is by natural convection. Also, a containment building would hinder the modular design - that is - no additional reactors could be added onto the plant after initial construction. This modular capability is what is so appealing to utilities because it requires less investment from the beginning.
Frankly, this single point is enough to conclude that this reactor design is unsafe. The United States has criticized Soviet reactor designs for not having containment buildings. It is the last line of defense for containing a radiological release.
Furthermore, the lack of a containment building leaves the reactor(s) wide open to a terrorist attack.
2. The uranium is covered by a layer of graphite. The graphite is covered by several other layers of materials including a silicon carbide. The graphite could burn if defects in the fuel defeat the outer coverings. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers. There are approximately 370,000 pebbles in a pebble bed reactor. One tennis ball sized pebble comes out the bottom of the reactor every 30 seconds. It can be returned to the top of the reactor for additional use.
The 1957 Windscale accident and the 1986 Chernobyl accident both involved burning graphite. The burning graphite dispersed radioactivity. At Chernobyl, the burning graphite released radiation for ten days.
3. Although the volume by "configuration for long term storage" is lower than current design, the actual amount of high level waste by weight is higher. The pebbles are less radioactive than conventional fuel assemblies and more pebbles are required to produce the needed heat inside the reactor. There will be many more truck and railroad transports needed to remove the wastes. This will increase the numbers of vehicle accidents and the odds of another radiological accident involving these vehicles traveling across the country.
Creating even more nuclear waste without a final depository plan is unconscianable.
4. The industry acknowledges that "fuel pebble manufacturing defects are the most significant source of fission product release." Recent history shows that some companies have falsified fuel quality. In fact, there have been instances of fuel sabotage and tampering over the last few decades. Germany and Japan have shut down plants or refused fuel shipments once the problems were discovered. The industry can't produce "defect-free" fuel and therefore it is a certainty that a pebble bed reactor will experience an accident. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers.
Acutal photograph of defective fuel pebble cross-section
nuclear industry reports admit the US had been unable to manufacture satifactory pebbles
5. & 6. There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.
ECONOMICS
The nuclear industry has been subsidized an average of $3 billion dollars per year. The industry was also just bailed out nearly $100 billion dollars by rate payers . The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site is now approaching $100 billion dollars. If we use just a portion of that money for renewables (solar, wind, fuel cells etc.) we'd have plenty of electricity and very little wastes. Using the "yard stick" of economic feasibility, the nuclear industry is a complete failure.
Anyone whom recommends a "nuclear revival" has not reconciled the costs.
are you suggesting that is is impossible to react hydrogen with carbon to form a base hydrocarbon is impossible? Are you suggesting that polymerisation of that hydrocarbon is impossible? If so show me your degree papers and who accredited them! Both are fully possible but just not as cheap as digging the stuff from the ground.
But "synthetic" as in making it from something else that was NOT previously a HC, is impossible. [/b]
An exciting possibility (that'll be just as controvercial) is to genetically alter bacteria that already live off unrefined molecules to produce the base hydrocarbons that we want as waste. I'm no micro biologist or genetisist so I don't kow the feasability of this - anyone here know?
I'm not saying that the current use of oil is sensible, or that we will ever produce oil substitutes in large enough quantities to replace petrol or the current mass use of plastics, but to say that all oil products will never exist again once the oil runs out is not true.