IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Energy Problem
Toma B
post Sep 30 2005, 02:41 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



I recently found this site,

The webpage I found

,and I think this is BIG,BIG,BIG problem that needs some anwers verry soon!!!

I know it is not Astronomy (Astronautisc) site, but if this is truth (and it looks like it is) , than there will be no point to go to the Moon or anywhere before we clear this energy (civilisation) isue...

Please somebody tell me this isn't the truth because I'm realy scared!!!

I would realy like to see man on the Moon,Mars or anywhere...

Toma...


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 30 2005, 03:19 PM
Post #2


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



It's extremeist propaganda, nothign else.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Sep 30 2005, 03:50 PM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 30 2005, 06:19 PM)
It's extremeist propaganda, nothign else.

Doug
*


Have you actualy read it?
Over the past 2 weeks I checked these numbers (quantities of oil,uranium,coal,natural gas etc.) and they are just as writen, later I have checked consumption rates and gues what...THEY MATCH!!!

I'm trying to be serious here , and ask for anybody is there something wrong with "predictions" author of that site sugests will be horrible...

Why do you think that its "extremeist propaganda" ??? huh.gif
There is nothing extremistic said there...No call for overthrowing of governments or anything like it...no call for protests , riots or anything alike...


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfisher
post Sep 30 2005, 04:15 PM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 29-June 05
Member No.: 421



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 30 2005, 11:19 AM)
It's extremeist propaganda, nothign else.
*


I'd disagree somewhat. The page Toma cited certainly layered extremist speculation on top of the facts, but there still is an underlying truth. What is (essentially) undisputed is that there is a finite amount of oil, gas, coal, etc. The first of these to get noticably scarce is oil. Exactly how the curve of oil production will go is hotly disputed. Low numbers come from people like Princeton's Deffeyes and the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO). These estimates say within the next five years oil production will peak, after which there will be a slow decline in the amount of oil available each year. Higher estimates come from assuming OPEC countries have larger reserves, or guessing that with higher oil prices people will quickly develop hard-to-use resources like tar sands and oil shales. These high estimates put a peak of oil production out to 2030-2050 or even later.

As we've seen already this year, when oil (or refinery) capacity gets tight, any little thing can cause prices to jump through the roof. This is what we can expect, essentially from now until one of three things happens. (1) the economies of big consumer countries go into recession enough to curb demand for oil (2) oil prices force enough people to switch to alternative fuels to lessen demand (3) oil prices get high enough and technology advances rapidly enough for alternative sources of oil can take up the slack.

Let me throw in a graph produced by the ASPO using ExxonMobil data.

You can see that discovery of conventional oil sources peaked already, decades ago.
The technology to replace that conventional oil with other sources doesn't yet exist, and it will have to appear mighty rapidly to fill the breach.

This really is an issue we are going to have to face -- us, not our grandchildren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 30 2005, 04:19 PM
Post #5


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Peak oil has been a discussion for years and years and years - and the facts have been massaged time and again to scare monger.

Yes - we need to move from an oil based economy to something else ( hydrogen, ideally ) and we need to start doing it seriously..now.

But is it a problem in the next 5 yeras, 10 years, 20 years. No.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gallen_53
post Sep 30 2005, 04:23 PM
Post #6


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 11-February 04
Member No.: 24



QUOTE (Toma B @ Sep 30 2005, 03:50 PM)
Have you actualy read it?
Over the past 2 weeks I checked these numbers (quantities of oil,uranium,coal,natural gas etc.) and they are just as writen, later I have checked consumption rates and gues what...THEY MATCH!!!

I'm trying to be serious here , and ask for anybody is there something wrong with "predictions" author of that site sugests will be horrible...

Why do you think that its "extremeist propaganda" ??? huh.gif
There is nothing extremistic said there...No call for overthrowing of governments or anything like it...no call for protests , riots or anything alike...
*


If you want to get really frightened refer to:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

The era of cheap oil is almost over. We human beings have been phenomenally stupid. We've based our whole world economy upon the assumption of cheap petroleum.

Hello!! Petroleum is a fossil! There is only a finite amount of it in the ground.

People like to make soothing noises about Canadian tar sands, Australian shale and American coal. However the cost of extraction and processing is much greater for these other energy resources. The world is about to undergo a radical change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Sep 30 2005, 04:29 PM
Post #7


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 30 2005, 07:19 PM)
Yes - we need to move from an oil based economy to something else ( hydrogen, ideally ) and we need to start doing it seriously..now.

But is it a problem in the next 5 yeras, 10 years, 20 years.  No.

Doug
*


It is a problem our generation must solve in order to survive...(as civilisation...).

Maybe THERMONUCLEAR FUSION ??? huh.gif

Attached File  What_About_the_Hydrogen_Economy.doc ( 14K ) Number of downloads: 466


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Sep 30 2005, 04:49 PM
Post #8


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (gallen_53 @ Sep 30 2005, 05:23 PM)
The world is about to undergo a radical change.
*


Change yes but I wouldn't say radical. The global economy has been steadily reducing its critical dependance on oil since the early 1970's. The fact that the current major hikes in Oil price have not triggerred any measurable economic effect yet let alone an economic shock proves that.

The economic viability of potential resources like the Athabasca Oil sands, large scale use of Coal as a petroleum source, organic Petroleuml\Diesel substitutes will take a sustained oil price over $75-150 per barrel to bring on line. Technology per se isn't the problem, we could make use of them now (or within a few years without developing any new technologies) they just cost much more than Oil. None of them are sustainable _long_ term solutions but they are more than enough to sustain a healthy global economy in the medium term (100 years with global growth in line a long term 3-5% per annum).

Personally I'm much more worried about global warming and other polluting side effects of any organic fuel based energy economy, not in an "Oh my god - we're all going to die\starve\drown" sort of way but because we have measurably changed the atmosphere, continue to do so with abandon but we do not understand the effects of those changes on our extremely complex hydro\atmosphere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfisher
post Sep 30 2005, 05:21 PM
Post #9


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 29-June 05
Member No.: 421



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 30 2005, 12:19 PM)
Yes - we need to move from an oil based economy to something else ( hydrogen, ideally ) and we need to start doing it seriously..now.

But is it a problem in the next 5 yeras, 10 years, 20 years.  No.

Doug
*


The way I see it, these two statements are at odds. It is a problem in the next 5,10,20 years precisely because we need to make serious moves away from oil now. Anything that requires serious changes in how we go about our lives and business is a problem. A surmountable problem, hopefully, but a problem nevertheless.

Personally, I wouldn't bet so much on hydrogen. The reason we use fossil fuels is there are these great deposits with the energy already there in a concentrated form. Hydrogen doesn't come that way -- its only potential is for transporting energy from a power plant (nuclear? coal?) to a consuming engine or fuel cell. And as an energy transporter, it isn't so great. It tends to explode, and the hypothetical nano-tech answers to that problem are still science fiction. It requires entirely new systems to handle.

In the next 5,10,20 years we need to use technology that is at least in prototype production today. Things like flex-fuel vehicles that burn 85% ethanol/15% gasoline, or biodiesel trucks, or electric cars and their hybrids. These alternatives are available today, and within a decade could easily replace 10% of the fuel used per vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Sep 30 2005, 05:29 PM
Post #10


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



...and there is this little problem with human population....

" World population, currently 6.5 billion, is growing by another 76 million people per year. According to the UN the world will add another 2.6 billion people by 2050. Rapid population growth has placed incredible stress on Earth's resources. Global demand for water has tripled since the 1950s, but the supply of fresh drinking water has been declining because of over-pumping and contamination. Half a billion people live in water-stressed or water-scarce countries, and by 2025 that number will grow to three billion. In the last 50 years, cropland has been reduced by 13% and pasture by 4%. June , 2005 U.N."

World population reached:

1 billion in 1804,
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 (33 years)
4 billion in 1974 (13 years)
5 billion in 1987 (12 years)
6 billion in 1999 (12 years)
7 billion in 2013 (14 years - projected)
8 billion in 2028 (15 years - projected)
10.7 (high) or 8.9 (middle) or 7.3 (low) billion projected for 2050


In 1 second: 5 babies are born
2 people die
increase of 3 humans every second.

In the same second, 1.5 acres of rainforest get cut down.

This is 250,000 people per each day. Every four days a new Dallas or Detroit is added to the earth.


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Sep 30 2005, 05:35 PM
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



QUOTE (helvick @ Sep 30 2005, 07:49 PM)
Change yes but I wouldn't say radical. The global economy has been steadily reducing its critical dependance on oil since the early 1970's.

*


You should say radical...

35% of all the industry &
95% of all transportation are fueled by CRUDE OIL PRODUCTS ( gasoline , diesel , kerosine , etc. )

As I was saying.......problem is BIG..... sad.gif


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tty
post Sep 30 2005, 05:52 PM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 688
Joined: 20-April 05
From: Sweden
Member No.: 273



Actually producing fuel and petrochemicals on a large scale without crude oil does not require any new technology. It can be done fairly easily from coal. The Germans did it 1933-45 and the South Africans during the Apartheid years, it's just more expensive than using oil.
Coal deposits incidentally are several orders of magnitude larger than oil reserves.

Who was it that called Coal "The Once and Future King"?

tty
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Sep 30 2005, 06:34 PM
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



QUOTE (tty @ Sep 30 2005, 08:52 PM)
Actually producing fuel and petrochemicals on a large scale without crude oil does not require any new technology. It can be done fairly easily from coal. The Germans did it 1933-45 and the South Africans during the Apartheid years, it's just more expensive than using oil.
Coal deposits incidentally are several orders of magnitude larger than oil reserves.

Who was it that called Coal "The Once and Future King"?

tty
*


"No new technology" - that's true...but consider this:

Attached File  What_About_Synthetic_Oil_From_Coal.doc ( 12.5K ) Number of downloads: 429


By the way one of the reasons that Germany lost WW2 was its lack of oil....


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Sep 30 2005, 07:43 PM
Post #14





Guests






Solutions to the pending energy problem are many.

First of all, we must drastically reduce our dependency toward polluting or non-renewable energies: nuclear fission, oil, coal, which will arise accute problems or will be exhausted one day or another.

Only remain renewable energies and nuclear fusion.

Renewable energies will be available forever, but each in limited quantities
-large hydropower plants destroys landscapes and ecosystems
-photovoltaic energy still needs researches for better efficiency and lower price
-mill wind are now spreading fast, but the resource is limited.
-solar heat is working at an individual level
-Geothermic energy is limited to certain places
-Deep layers geothermy is an exhaustible resource, unless we do:
-storage of solar heat in underground layers (helio-geothermic) is feasible at reasonable costs
-Aerothermic plants are feasible (huge towers creating a kind of cyclone in, to move a wind mill)
-thermodynamic solar plants for producing electricity is feasible, but expensive
-huge oceanic floating platforms to bear large energy plants
-An original idea is to decompose water with solar heat, to produce hydrogen. The process uses a chemical cycle at 950°C and is patented by the french CEA.
-A speculative idea is to recover the energy of thunder and cyclones with huge electrostatic machines.
-In some countries like China there was worthy efforts to abandon traditionnal fireplaces for stoves consuming much less firewood.
-vegetal oil. Is already used as a paliative or additive. With my opinion, i is not a good solution, as oil is only a very small fraction of the total biomass, and these cultivation will require place, chemicals, etc... and will also remain expensive. So I think that true bio fuels should start only from cellulosis, which is by far the most abundant biomass and very easy to produce.
-In a general way saving energy is often much more easy and cheap than to produce it. (insulating houses, double-flux aircfaft engines, Atkinson cycle car engines...) So we may see a decrease of the energy consumption of developped countries (USA, Europe).

Transition energies are many, and they have the advantage of providing a smooth technical/economic transition toward pure renewable energy. Even oil industry has its dear interests untouched!
-stop burning the methane fraction of oil into oil wells.
-cracking of methane gaz or sour gaz (hydrogen sulfide) to produce hydrogen.
-reinject the CO2 fraction (or carbon fraction of the previous) into exhausted oil deposits. For once this idea is not from environmentalists, but from oil industry. It is now tested in Algeria.



Nuclear fusion is often presented as the absolute solution for free, non-polluting and inexhaustible source of energy. I must somewhat temperate this idyllic vision: machines like Iter are extremely expensive, and they produce much more neutrons than fission plants. So the whole thing will quickly turn into a gigantic heap of radioactive iron scrap, tens of years before tokamaks produce their first commercial kilowatts. And it could be the cheapest way for mass production of military plutonium.
But there are many nuclear fusion reactions which produce only some X-rays (brehmstrallung), with hydrogen, helium3, lithium hydride. There are also very interesting experiments going on with IEC tubes, a fascinating concept which allows to make fusion reactions on a kitchen table, with just a vacuum pump and a high voltage supply gathered from an old TV. (Please do not try!!)(and do not confuse with "cold fusion")
Shall we see one day cars powered by small fusion cells? More realistically I see fusion plants, large like former fission plants, or smarter to fit more isolated places. Anyway we have to first learn to save energy, otherwise the demand will be so huge that it will heat the planet without greenhouse effect.


But I think that the real domain of fusion energy will be... unmanned spaceflight(.com, a skilful way to recenter on topic smile.gif ) where fusion engines could power space probes and spaceships, allowing a complete freedom of moving into the solar system without any need of dangerous RTGs (dangerous to manufacture, even if not to use) and much more powefull. Beyond, it will allow for interstellar spaceships. Remember the Daedalus project, which was meaned to send a probe to the Barnard star in 50 years. More realistically, even if we need thousands of years it is better than impossible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Sep 30 2005, 08:53 PM
Post #15


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (Toma B @ Sep 30 2005, 07:34 PM)
"No new technology" - that's true...but consider this:

Attached File  What_About_Synthetic_Oil_From_Coal.doc ( 12.5K ) Number of downloads: 429


By the way one of the reasons that Germany lost WW2 was its lack of oil....
*


Some points worth investigating in that, in particular the energy profit ratio which is a neat idea but I'm always suspicious of simple ratios with no backup references. In any case the point I was making was that we have upwards of 100 years of fossil fuels available using current technology while sustaining current growth. Neither aspect is invalidated by anything referenced so far.

TTY's comments on the South African Oil from Coal industry is particularly relevant - when a society is forced to find an alternative to oil it can. The economics of it aren't necessarily great but they were able to do it without too much pain when oil was in the $10 a barrel range. Their petrochemical from coal industry is still going - they no longer produce much fuel because of the economics of the industry - plastics and waxes are much more profitable per ton (2.5-3x) than than fuel.

The hypermalthusian population crisis you described earlier has been debunked repeatedly ever since Malthus first made the assertions. A good contemporary summary of opinion and research on it is covered in Collapse - How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. The argument he repeats (and backs up pretty well in most cases) is that while it has been and can be an issue for individual societies it's highly unlikely to be a global issue for a number of reasons, some not very pleasant to be sure but mostly because richer economies reproduce less. There's plenty to dispute about Collapse but it's a thought provoking read and has plenty of references to aid further personal research.

We will run out of fossil fuels but the time scale will be on the order of 100-200 years if we don't find alternatives, not 5-20 years. Economies will change and adjust, there may be regional crises (most likely in oil producing states when they run out of their current reserrves) but it will not be global catastrophe that happens overnight.

If (and it's still an "if" in my book, albeit an increasingly likely "if") Global Warming is actually happening then the side effects of fossil fuel use could be a catastrophe. Unlike finding alternatives to oil as an energy resource finding a solution for Global Warming if it does turn out to be a crisis is not something that we currently have any solutions for. That is a much better reason to abandon oil (and other fossil fuel energy resources) than any concerns about them running out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 10:47 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.