Fossil fuel

[Tres Juicy]

Hi all,

 

I am given to believe that fossil fuel can be thought of as "stored sunlight", since all the energy on the planet comes from the sun (either currently or at some point in the past).

 

We are currently using the resourses of 1.4 (current) earths.

 

http://ypec.wordpres...tored-sunlight/

 

Fossil fuel is predicted to be depleted in less than 100 years, and there is not enough "current sunlight" to sustain a population of nearly 700,000,000 people, and our massive rate of consumption.

 

It is predicted that this means that we will only be able to produce enough food to sustain something like 15 - 25% of the population resulting in mass starvation, not to mention the obvious economical repercussions.

 

With little ablity to generate power, most of our scientific and technological advancements are rendered useless or unusable.

 

We will effectively have "unplugged" our power supply to the world. Scientific and technological advancement will grind to a halt and we will be forced to go back to agricultural lifestyles to sustain ourselves.

 

society as we know it will break down.

 

So, my questions:

 

1) How can science advance without computing power and machinery? (not to mention the fact that scientists would be far too busy gathering food all day to get anything else done).

 

2) As this is a relatively close deadline should we not be looking into alternative sources with more urgency?

 

3) If we as a species are to have any hope of (very) long term survival we need to colonise other planets. How do we that with no fuel?

 

4) What do we do if it comes to this point and we dont have an alternative power source?

 

5) What should we be doing now?

 

6) Shouldn't we as a species be concerned with our survival than trivial short term gain? (you've made x ££'s this year, but that's no good if you find yourself burning it (literally) for fuel next year. You should have spent your time more productively).

 

Your thoughts are appreciated

 

Thanks,

 

Al

Edited December 9, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[CaptainPanic]

I disagree with a couple of things here:

 

1. We have 7,000,000,000 people (one more zero).

2. The sun shines with so much power, that its power on the earth is still several orders of magnitude higher than our (fossil) energy consumption.

3. We can definitely generate enough power with sustainable energy. It's an economic problem (we don't want to invest that much in it) rather than a fundamental problem. So, if we switch on time, there is no problem.

 

So, I dunno... since this is an economic problem, and we are in an economic recession, I guess that for the time being, we're lucky if we invest a little in some small enterprises. Let's hope that the industry is ready to go once we're out of a recession (if ever). And let's hope that the Chinese invest in sustainable energy.

[Tres Juicy]

I disagree with a couple of things here:

 

1. We have 7,000,000,000 people (one more zero).

2. The sun shines with so much power, that its power on the earth is still several orders of magnitude higher than our (fossil) energy consumption.

3. We can definitely generate enough power with sustainable energy. It's an economic problem (we don't want to invest that much in it) rather than a fundamental problem. So, if we switch on time, there is no problem.

 

So, I dunno... since this is an economic problem, and we are in an economic recession, I guess that for the time being, we're lucky if we invest a little in some small enterprises. Let's hope that the industry is ready to go once we're out of a recession (if ever). And let's hope that the Chinese invest in sustainable energy.

 

1. We have 7,000,000,000 people (one more zero).

 

Damn, you're too quick! I was just about to click the edit button when I saw your post...

 

2. The sun shines with so much power, that its power on the earth is still several orders of magnitude higher than our (fossil) energy consumption.

 

We can't use it though our solar methods are not efficient enough and we don't have enough investment in it. We could probably get it ready in time - But I don't see any atempt being made to do that

 

3. We can definitely generate enough power with sustainable energy. It's an economic problem (we don't want to invest that much in it) rather than a fundamental problem. So, if we switch on time, there is no problem.

 

Same again, we're not doing it...

 

Let's hope that the industry is ready to go once we're out of a recession (if ever). And let's hope that the Chinese invest in sustainable energy.

 

If not we will be in trouble...

 

Even if we do - what about transport? Transport is vital to business, the economy and food production

Edited December 9, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[CaptainPanic]

We can't use it though our solar methods are not efficient enough and we don't have enough investment in it. We could probably get it ready in time - But I don't see any atempt being made to do that

[...]

Even if we do - what about transport? Transport is vital to business, the economy and food production

The real issue

The main bottleneck is simply the fact that we're 7 billion people now, and still growing! And there is nobody who is doing anything about that. Technology cannot solve anything if we keep breeding like rabbits.

 

People can definitely create more people quicker than they can create the necessary infrastructure/energy to deal with those people!!

 

But let's focus on the topic of this thread: energy.

 

Back on topic

The technology to generate all our energy form the sun's radiation is efficient enough.

 

Heat

We can provide heat at about 70% efficiency on sunlight. Solar boilers are that efficient. Electricity at about 20% efficiency. And if you realize that wind is a waste product from solar energy, and wind turbines use waste heat from the sun, this is even higher.

 

Electricity

Generating electricity, also for transportation (using batteries) is a matter of investment - of money.

We only need to allocate enough money, and thereby people and resources to build it. The technology exists. People may complain that battery-life is not enough, and that their cars would run only 100 miles instead of 400, then we'll eventually solve that. And people say that it's more expensive. Again true. That doesn't mean that it's impossible. If you want to buy something expensive, you cannot buy something else. So, perhaps in the future, cars will be more expensive.

 

Food/water

The real issues are food and water: plants are only (max.) 1% efficient, and when you wish to convert plants into meat, eggs or cheese for example, this drops to 0.1% efficiency on sunlight or lower. And then suddenly the earth is a very small planet when there are 7 billion people.

But a hungry person is an inventive person, and it seems we can still expand. It's nature who is suffering the most.

 

And the availability of water is another issue... it's not so easily expressed in terms of the sun's power (although it is related). Energy enables us to generate drinking water. But that is incredibly expensive (in terms of money and energy) compared to ordinary rain. But there will be a water shortage sooner or later... because the population will keep growing, and growing, and growing.

[Tres Juicy]

The real issue

The main bottleneck is simply the fact that we're 7 billion people now, and still growing! And there is nobody who is doing anything about that. Technology cannot solve anything if we keep breeding like rabbits.

 

People can definitely create more people quicker than they can create the necessary infrastructure/energy to deal with those people!!

 

But let's focus on the topic of this thread: energy.

 

Back on topic

The technology to generate all our energy form the sun's radiation is efficient enough.

 

Heat

We can provide heat at about 70% efficiency on sunlight. Solar boilers are that efficient. Electricity at about 20% efficiency. And if you realize that wind is a waste product from solar energy, and wind turbines use waste heat from the sun, this is even higher.

 

Electricity

Generating electricity, also for transportation (using batteries) is a matter of investment - of money.

We only need to allocate enough money, and thereby people and resources to build it. The technology exists. People may complain that battery-life is not enough, and that their cars would run only 100 miles instead of 400, then we'll eventually solve that. And people say that it's more expensive. Again true. That doesn't mean that it's impossible. If you want to buy something expensive, you cannot buy something else. So, perhaps in the future, cars will be more expensive.

 

Food/water

The real issues are food and water: plants are only (max.) 1% efficient, and when you wish to convert plants into meat, eggs or cheese for example, this drops to 0.1% efficiency on sunlight or lower. And then suddenly the earth is a very small planet when there are 7 billion people.

But a hungry person is an inventive person, and it seems we can still expand. It's nature who is suffering the most.

 

And the availability of water is another issue... it's not so easily expressed in terms of the sun's power (although it is related). Energy enables us to generate drinking water. But that is incredibly expensive (in terms of money and energy) compared to ordinary rain. But there will be a water shortage sooner or later... because the population will keep growing, and growing, and growing.

 

The main bottleneck is simply the fact that we're 7 billion people now, and still growing! And there is nobody who is doing anything about that. Technology cannot solve anything if we keep breeding like rabbits.

 

Agreed

[Phi for All]

I think once the cost problems are overcome (and this is inevitable as oil prices rise) you'll start seeing a great deal more investment in sustainable energy. I would like to see space-based solar technology gain prominence for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the formation of global protocols on how we deal with the stuff we put into orbit. I think having energy output devices hovering over the heads of every nation, capable of beaming down massive amounts of power, will cause us to treat one another with more respect.

[Tres Juicy]

I think once the cost problems are overcome (and this is inevitable as oil prices rise) you'll start seeing a great deal more investment in sustainable energy. I would like to see space-based solar technology gain prominence for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the formation of global protocols on how we deal with the stuff we put into orbit. I think having energy output devices hovering over the heads of every nation, capable of beaming down massive amounts of power, will cause us to treat one another with more respect.

 

 

How would you transfer the power from orbit? I am not aware of any way to transfer electricy wirelessly and cables are space elevator tech.

 

Or do you just mean reflected sunlight?

[Phi for All]

How would you transfer the power from orbit? I am not aware of any way to transfer electricy wirelessly and cables are space elevator tech.

 

Or do you just mean reflected sunlight?

Microwave or laser transmission.

[Moontanman]

I think nuclear reactors based on thorium instead of uranium is our best choice...

[Tres Juicy]

Microwave or laser transmission.

 

Ah... pretty cool