Where is the best place to go to once oil peaks?

[funzone36]

Nuclear fusion have some difficulties producing electricity.

 

"It is relatively easy to start nuclear fusion reactions, which generate lots of energy (cf. nuclear weapons). However, the energy input needed in achieving the necessary temperature and electromagnetic confinement for controlled and sustained fusion is much too vast to maintain a significant energy gain."

 

And for fission, "The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of nuclear power have not been solved".

 

Uranium supplies are not too concerned because "a majority of this uranium would have to somehow be cost effectively extracted from seawater" just like hydrogen.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuels

[navynuke]

Nuclear fusion have some difficulties producing electricity.

 

"It is relatively easy to start nuclear fusion reactions' date=' which generate lots of energy (cf. nuclear weapons). However, the energy input needed in achieving the necessary temperature and electromagnetic confinement for controlled and sustained fusion is much too vast to maintain a significant energy gain."

 

And for fission, "The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of nuclear power have not been solved".

 

Uranium supplies are not too concerned because "a majority of this uranium would have to somehow be cost effectively extracted from seawater" just like hydrogen.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuels[/quote']

Very correct about fusion, and add to it that it has its own infrastructure problems after they find out how to control and contain the reaction.

 

Uranium is not in short supply. There are a lot of mines that are currently idle, but could be reopened in a very short time. I don't think it would be cost effective to extract a heavy metal of any sort from seawater.

[funzone36]

"But even assuming that to be true, the potential is limited. To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants. That’s a huge, probably nonviable initiative, and at that burn rate, our known reserves of uranium would last only for 10 or 20 years."

 

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v38/oil.html

 

Source is reliable because it's the "California Institute of Technology".

[navynuke]

"But even assuming that to be true' date=' the potential is limited. To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants. That’s a huge, probably nonviable initiative, and at that burn rate, our known reserves of uranium would last only for 10 or 20 years."

 

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v38/oil.html

 

Source is reliable because it's the "California Institute of Technology".[/quote']

We can use plutonium, and breeder reactors. We can also do the SMART thing and stop building poorly insulated houses. About 1/3 of our energy use goes for buildings, thus about the same amount is responsible for pollution.

Yet, tract builders today still have NO incentives to do more than a bare minimum towards building better houses. But as I have said many times before, lifestyle changes are the last thing on our minds when it comes to our energy needs.

[Phi for All]

We can use plutonium, and breeder reactors. We can also do the SMART thing and stop building poorly insulated houses. About 1/3 of our energy use goes for buildings, thus about the same amount is responsible for pollution.

This reminds me of an argument I once heard regarding hydroelectric dam projects for third world countries. I don't remember the exact figures used, but instead of multi-millions of dollars in aid we could save the taxpayers a ton of money by simply shipping over energy-efficient appliances like refrigerators and stoves, then there would be no need for new hydroelectric plants. And the third world populations would love us for improving their homes.

 

So why not apply the same intelligence over here and figure out smart ways to conserve?

[navynuke]

This reminds me of an argument I once heard regarding hydroelectric dam projects for third world countries. I don't remember the exact figures used' date=' but instead of multi-millions of dollars in aid we could save the taxpayers a ton of money by simply shipping over energy-efficient appliances like refrigerators and stoves, then there would be no need for new hydroelectric plants. And the third world populations would love us for improving their homes.

 

So why not apply the same intelligence over here and figure out smart ways to conserve?[/quote']

Most hydroelectric projects have a dual purpose, with flood control and controlling irrigation water to the farmers often more important than the electricity generated. And many 3rd world countries have NO electricity at all outside of their few major cities, so energy saving appliances mean nothing to them. And their homes are often little more than something that keeps the rain out. A country cannot leave 3rd world status without job generating industry, so that is the more important customer for hydroelectric plants. China is entering the space age while most of the chinese farmer/peasants are heating mud brick homes with low quality high sulphur coal. Our poorest class of citizens here are fabulously wealthy compared to most of the citizens of the 3rd world.

[navynuke]

Food production will suffer, surely, and that means the excess food that we grow here and ship overseas will instead stay here! Starving people all over the world will hate us, but we need to take care of our own first. There are only a few places on earth that are referred to as a "breadbasket" for the world, and we (North America) have one of them. One of the former USSR countries has another. China has 20% of the world population and only 7% of the world's arable land. A minor shift in the ocean's ecology could devastate the fisheries that so many Aisian countries depend on, so more starvation. A few extra feet of sea levels and the rice crops are no more!

I am going to start by getting fat like a bear going into hibernation. That will take care of the first few months, then I will dig into my 5 year supply of food storage. Visitors not bringing their own food will be roasted on a spit and then covered with bar-b-que sauce. Pirates of old called that "long pig".

During the depression, the poor farmers ate well because they were accustomed to growing a lot of their own food. They had no money, but you can't eat money. Sounds like a doomsday scenario, but hey, it could happen.

[funzone36]

We can use plutonium, and breeder reactors.[/Quote]

True. But, U.S.A. has stopped contructing nuclear reactors for 2 decades due to safety concerns. Plutonium still doesn't solve the safety issue. Even if the safety issue is solved, nuclear fission is non-renewable. Plutonium will eventually run out.

 

Because nuclear energy currently accounts for a small percentage of total energy production and it takes at least 10 years to contruct a new nuclear fission reactor, peak oil will still occur.

[navynuke]

Gosh!

 

Tell me more about your 5 years of food supply!

And keep away from the cannibalism thing' date=' it doesn't make for good neighhbourly behaviour. [/quote']

Ever see the movie Delicatessan? It is French, with subtitles, and is a hoot. Setting is post nuclear war, and there is a shortage of meat.

It is available on line.

Premise is that there is a butchershop on the main floor of a building that houses a hodgepodge collection of people as tenants, butcher also lives there, and acts as landlord. He hires someone to do maintenance of the building, then as soon as the work is done, they kill the poor guy and eat him.

No gore or anything, just dark humor. There is a love interest, in that the last guy falls in love with the butcher's daughter, and true love wins out in the end.

[navynuke]

True. But' date=' U.S.A. has stopped contructing nuclear reactors for 2 decades due to safety concerns. Plutonium still doesn't solve the safety issue. Even if the safety issue is solved, nuclear fission is non-renewable. Plutonium will eventually run out.

 

Because nuclear energy currently accounts for a small percentage of total energy production and it takes at least 10 years to contruct a new nuclear fission reactor, peak oil will still occur.[/quote']

 

I know, one of the last ones was the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station, and I was a contract employee there for several years, then rolled over to a permanent job with Arizona Public Service.

 

What safety issues are you talking about? The only real issue is storage of spent fuel. I have worked around nuclear for a long time, and it is safer than most people think. You can't believe the Jane Fonda types, they are not engineers, operators, or anyone who would know anything about it.

[funzone36]

The radioative stuff?

 

It's safe compared to coal mining or driving but it's not safe compared to fusion.

[funzone36]

Won't rainwater seep through and contaminate our underground water?

[navynuke]

The radioative stuff?

 

It's safe compared to coal mining or driving but it's not safe compared to fusion.

 

We can put spent fuel well below the water table, easily. I believe some countries have dumped some in the very deep ocean.

Fission plants are very safe, as long as they are built inside a very thick concrete containment like we do here in the USA. The Russians learned the hard way that a tin shed is not containment enough.

 

Fusion will not happen in your lifetime, perhap your grandchildren's, and then it will not be a commercially viable alternative to existing sources of energy.

It will be 30 or 40 years before a prototype will be built. And there are safety issues that no one is talking about.

 

 

Here is a FAQ link about fusion.

 

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq5.html

[FreqWhenSee]

Private technology in regards to energy demands already provides a solution. Private technology is always many years ahead of what the public is aware of. The reason for oil is control of a nation's people's finances. So I say we should be pro-active and destroy the power-hungry elitists who control oil and war and harness the many forms of safe "free" energy.

[navynuke]

Private technology in regards to energy demands already provides a solution. Private technology is always many years ahead of what the public is aware of. The reason for oil is control of a nation's people's finances. So I say we should be pro-active and destroy the power-hungry elitists who control oil and war and harness the many forms of safe "free" energy.

Actually, the government, and especially the military, is likely to have the latest and greatest technology.

Most of our engineers and scientists who are in the forefront of developing new technology are employed by big companies who often are under contract to Uncle Sam. Like you said, the technology we know about, even the supposedly newest technology, is probably old stuff to them.

There may someday be almost perfectly clean energy, but never free, and never entirely safe, and certainly not easy. I took a class at college entitled "Alternate Energy Technology", where we compared the benefits and problems of all the sources of energy then available, and in the works for future use.

If you look at the life cycle of fuels in use, there are dangers and pollution opportunities from mining, processing, delivery, use, disposal of wastes, etc. that have to be considered when comparing them to each other.

Anybody who thinks it is easy to come up with new energy sources that are clean and cheap probably knows very little about physics, chemistry, and/or the technologies of producing power.

[funzone36]

the government, and especially the military, is likely to have the latest and greatest technology.[/Quote]

And all of them are in experimental stages.

[funzone36]

For some reason, the edit button from post #79 is gone:

 

Phosphorus Is currently mined using oil.

Potassium is currently mined using oil[/Quote]

 

Can't we use electricity to mine minerals?

[danny8522003]

Can't we use electricity to mine minerals?

How do you think electricity is made?

[funzone36]

How do you think electricity is made?[/Quote]

 

From renewable energy, assuming we are at post peak oil.

 

History tells us it can be done:

 

"Potassium was first extracted in 1807 by electrolysis of the molten chloride KCl."

 

Just kidding. I know renewable energies won't work because they fail the "S.E.R.V.I.C.E." test.