BF2S Forums The Age of Cheap Oil is Over

Jaekus wrote:

Nuclear powered cars?

Battery powered cars fueled by nuclear energy.

Edit - But this isn't something that's dire anyway since most of the worlds energy comes from coal. We're not in any danger of running out of coal any time soon. Electric vehicles alone should tide us over for a few more centuries.

Last edited by Jay (2011-04-27 21:27:21)

War Man wrote:

I want USA to use only NA oil and natural gas. Why can't we drill our own shit? Fucking hate environmentalists

We are saving it until everyone else runs out.

thorium

No, just hoard it for ourselves. Question is, when are we going to start the next phase of the plan?

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

I wasn't bashing the article. I was bashing the path that these threads always take. I've read from multiple sources that we're on the wrong side of the peak. Exploration has been in decline for two decades now. They're just not finding new oil.

I just get annoyed when people overreact and run around like lemmings while mouthing the 'alternative energy' words without understanding. That's all. Wasn't meant as a poke at you Jake.

Oh. With you there I agree.

It's just such a huge issue. Whole economies depend on oil. Alternative energy is a great idea but the amount of effort and resources to get it off the ground en masse is enormous, and the cost of implementing and accessing these alternatives is prohibitive at the moment and will be for some time. From a personal standpoint it's nice to feel green about things if you're that way inclined but I'm not prepared to change from my 1993 year old small car to a brand new hybrid, or spend $2,500 to get it converted to LPG when my car was only $4,000 four years ago. But I guess at some point there will be a tipping point and some huge changes will need to be made, out of pure necessity.

The nuclear meltdown in Japan recently didn't help matters It really is the only alternative right now.

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors

No reason to worry about a meltdown if the fuel is already molten :p

batmanium

see i can make up fake substances too

unobtainium

Varegg wrote:

Funny thing is "we will be running out of oil in 25 years" for the last 25 years ...

Indeed...they be guesstimating the oil supply for very long now!

Also...I'd love to drive a Chrysler Chernobyl

Well for any decent solar cell you're still going to need (very) rare metals such as tellurium and indium. Those supposedly green energy sources rely on depletable materials just as much as any other alternative, and they're inefficient to boot; with the biggest problem being (imo) the inconsistency in your energy supply. It's completely dependant on external factors over which we have no influence. 

And apparently sand causes scratches on the panels which over time could greatly reduce efficiency. I don't know how much damage over what amount of time we're talking about - but safe to say that the best places to deploy panels are usually windy, sandy places. If I imagine the technology being used on a national or worldwide scale as the dominant energy source maintenance must be a true nightmare, if only due to the sheer number of panels needed. That said, I believe nuclear power is going to be our best bet for the future, until a energy source is discovered that's actually viable. I've got hopes for fusion but given the required circumstances to produce more output than input its debut as an energy source could be long off.

My advice; go nuclear and for once start investing heavily in space agencies such as NASA and the ESA. Taking into account population growth and the rest of the world catching up technologically and thus needing more of... everything, we're going to need to get our basic building materials from somewhere else, because I doubt the supplies of our earth can sustain the growing number of people who need massive amounts of stuff.

Meet asteroid;

At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile (1.6 km) contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.[1] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

He's got plenty of stuff.

If average living standards in India and China start to compare to that of the western world we are so fucked.

Shocking wrote:

Well for any decent solar cell you're still going to need (very) rare metals such as tellurium and indium. Those supposedly green energy sources rely on depletable materials just as much as any other alternative, and they're inefficient to boot; with the biggest problem being (imo) the inconsistency in your energy supply. It's completely dependant on external factors over which we have no influence. 

And apparently sand causes scratches on the panels which over time could greatly reduce efficiency. I don't know how much damage over what amount of time we're talking about - but safe to say that the best places to deploy panels are usually windy, sandy places. If I imagine the technology being used on a national or worldwide scale as the dominant energy source maintenance must be a true nightmare, if only due to the sheer number of panels needed. That said, I believe nuclear power is going to be our best bet for the future, until a energy source is discovered that's actually viable. I've got hopes for fusion but given the required circumstances to produce more output than input its debut as an energy source could be long off.

My advice; go nuclear and for once start investing heavily in space agencies such as NASA and the ESA. Taking into account population growth and the rest of the world catching up technologically and thus needing more of... everything, we're going to need to get our basic building materials from somewhere else, because I doubt the supplies of our earth can sustain the growing number of people who need massive amounts of stuff.

Meet asteroid;

At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile (1.6 km) contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.[1] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

He's got plenty of stuff.

If average living standards in India and China start to compare to that of the western world we are so fucked.

Erm, the plan doesn't call for solar-photovoltaic, its mostly solar-thermal - requiring no exotic materials at all.
I guess you didn't read it.

13rin wrote:

The EPA sucks and the unlawful moratorium on offshore drilling is a crock of shit.  Those two factors alone are strangling my country.

An inefficient vehicle fleet, poorly planned cities and gross overconsumption mislabelled as 'freedom' are strangling your country.

Dilbert_X wrote:

13rin wrote:

The EPA sucks and the unlawful moratorium on offshore drilling is a crock of shit.  Those two factors alone are strangling my country.

An inefficient vehicle fleet, poorly planned cities and gross overconsumption mislabelled as 'freedom' are strangling your country.

I started to type out a response, but got called away so here's my other response -We can't all ride kangaroos.

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Well for any decent solar cell you're still going to need (very) rare metals such as tellurium and indium. Those supposedly green energy sources rely on depletable materials just as much as any other alternative, and they're inefficient to boot; with the biggest problem being (imo) the inconsistency in your energy supply. It's completely dependant on external factors over which we have no influence. 

And apparently sand causes scratches on the panels which over time could greatly reduce efficiency. I don't know how much damage over what amount of time we're talking about - but safe to say that the best places to deploy panels are usually windy, sandy places. If I imagine the technology being used on a national or worldwide scale as the dominant energy source maintenance must be a true nightmare, if only due to the sheer number of panels needed. That said, I believe nuclear power is going to be our best bet for the future, until a energy source is discovered that's actually viable. I've got hopes for fusion but given the required circumstances to produce more output than input its debut as an energy source could be long off.

My advice; go nuclear and for once start investing heavily in space agencies such as NASA and the ESA. Taking into account population growth and the rest of the world catching up technologically and thus needing more of... everything, we're going to need to get our basic building materials from somewhere else, because I doubt the supplies of our earth can sustain the growing number of people who need massive amounts of stuff.

Meet asteroid;


He's got plenty of stuff.

If average living standards in India and China start to compare to that of the western world we are so fucked.

Erm, the plan doesn't call for solar-photovoltaic, its mostly solar-thermal - requiring no exotic materials at all.
I guess you didn't read it.

So which massive desert do you intend on covering with said solar-thermal (the claim of which "no exotic materials" are required interests me by the way. Those mirrors don't make themselves shiny)

pwned