Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!

[iNow]

Your link about the Tuvalu Islands says nothing about decreasing land area of the Tuvalu Islands. The Tuvalu Islands are not in danger unless their land area is decreasing.

 

Perhaps you need to look-up the word "subside" so you can learn what that means. If 10% of sea level rise is due to land subsidence, then that inherently means that land area is decreasing (unless there's perhaps a volcano on the island about which nobody is aware... a volcano that is invisibly adding back to the land mass?).

 

I really do think we should all get back to the topic at hand which is future sources of energy.

 

Is that perhaps because you're growing tired of your off-topic claims being so easily and so consistently refuted?

[waitforufo]

 

He said oil could run out if we continued to increase our use by 5% per year, as we had been doing. But we didn't. in 1981, our use was 250 billion gallons in the US. Over that decade it went up not much more than 5% total, rather than the 60% increase you get for 10 years at 5% per year. (and then it went down for a few years). 2009 was still only 16% higher than 1981.

 

http://fresh-energy.org/2011/11/energy-101-oil/

Are your really defending this horribly ill-informed prediction? “All the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”

 

First, the data you provide in your link is for the US only. The quote is for the entire world.

 

Second , if you compound a 5% increase every year from 1977 to 1990 you get slightly less than a doubling in the use of oil over that period (1.89).

 

Third, It’s now 2013. So to the current date the time elapse is (2013-1977)/(1990-1977)=2.76 longer than the period of the prediction.

 

So we should have seen a significant dent in world oll reserves by now.

 

Nope.

 

I thought I would have a bit more spreadsheet fun.

 

If you consider world oil consumption in 1977 as a standard unit of consumption and then compound that consumption every year by 5% then oil consumption in 1990 would have been 1.885 times higher than a 1977 standard unit. The sum of all oil consumption from 1977 to 1990 would have consumed 19.6 standard units over that period. Now if oil consumption would have remained constant every year from 1977 to the present, 2013, we would have consumed 37 standard units of oil over that longer period. Almost twice as much oil consumed.

 

How do we have any oil left?

Edited May 30, 2013 by waitforufo

[swansont]

Are your really defending this horribly ill-informed prediction? “All the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”

 

Not so much defending it as calling out your shifting of the goal posts to make the prediction seem much more bold than it was. iNow already pointed out that "out of oil" and "use up proven reserves" aren't the same thing, and I addressed the qualifier about increased use.

 

 

First, the data you provide in your link is for the US only. The quote is for the entire world.

 

I used what I could quickly find, and the US at the time was a majority user of oil, so I'm betting it's a decent proxy.

 

 

Second , if you compound a 5% increase every year from 1977 to 1990 you get slightly less than a doubling in the use of oil over that period (1.89).

 

And this helps your argument in what way? If it was supposed to go up at that rate but instead stayed much more flat, you buy yourself more time. Wasn't that one of the goals of reducing oil consumption? Buying more time to develop more resources and alternatives?

 

 

 

Third, It’s now 2013. So to the current date the time elapse is (2013-1977)/(1990-1977)=2.76 longer than the period of the prediction.

 

So we should have seen a significant dent in world oll reserves by now.

 

Nope.

 

You complained about my sources, but I don't see yours. A true debunking of the statement should be relatively easy. If you can find what the known reserves were in 1977 and what the consumption rate was, it should be easy enough to calculate. An actual solid argument instead of weak hand-waving and appeal to ridicule.

[waitforufo]

I see nothing weak about my argument. Perhaps you missed my edit with additional simple spreadsheet numbers I added to my last post. Consider my posts as ridicule if you like but I am simply trying to point out how silly Carter's prediction was. Even at the time everyone new it was silly. I remember it clearly.

 

The world will continue to use oil for many more decades, even with the introduction of alternative sources.

Edited May 30, 2013 by waitforufo

[arc]

It has been discovered that worlds petroleum source is going to end within 100 years.. and if the consumption rate is going to be high then 100 years will be shortened to 50years..

so the need of an alternate source is necessary.. which is going to replace petroleum products??

Is it a consensus that all oil reserves known and unknown, including the very last quantities attainable in the future with advancing technology, will be removed and consumed whether or not alternative energy is developed? Does that 100 year estimate allow for future unknown technological advances in recovery. I think it will all be found and used. And alternative energy development and advancing recovery technology will push that "last drop used" progressively out farther into the future.

 

Add to this the future unknown but continually advancing efficiencies in oil consuming products, this best guess of 100 years could turn into a great deal longer. The only thing that will keep the oil in the ground is alternative energies that can under cut oil's production costs which should continually climb while the alternative's cost's reduce.

 

But here's the rub, the energy portion of oil is only a part of that valuable commodity. The fuel portion will be synthesized into something else and combined with the traditional chemical portion into the components that go into those alternative energy technologies.

 

So, all will be recovered, it will last farther into future than estimated, and be proportionally used less for fuel as time progresses.

[EdEarl]

... So, all will be recovered, it will last farther into future than estimated, and be proportionally used less for fuel as time progresses.

It is significant that this thread, i.e., "Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!," has been hijacked by those of us who are concerned about oil not being used or being unavailable or whatever. The cost of US imported oil in 2012 has been reported to be $434,000,000,000. That money is paid to foreign workers, instead of US workers. That is 40% of the federal deficit.

 

It is curious no one seems to care.

[arc]

It is significant that this thread, i.e., "Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!," has been hijacked by those of us who are concerned about oil not being used or being unavailable or whatever. The cost of US imported oil in 2012 has been reported to be $434,000,000,000. That money is paid to foreign workers, instead of US workers. That is 40% of the federal deficit.

 

It is curious no one seems to care.

Hi Ed, you can look at this in a different way. If the U.S. had been for the last 150 years importing all of its iron ore from foreign sources, it would have seemed to us that we were getting screwed every time they had a "shortage" or wanted to jack the price up. But the price would have been based on demand and our industries would have had a difficult time dealing with the unstable supply and our economy would have suffered for it. We would have found domestic sources, and done things like going to Alaska to find it. America could not have prospered like it has without its abundant and low cost domestic iron ore supply.

 

Our oil for a long time was cheaper to buy abroad than to produce at home, but now that has changed. How would everyone feel about oil if none was burned for fuel, not converted to CO2, just used like we use steel to make products. We take our domestic oil and make components for alternative energy systems and other products with it. Well, I think that will happen but not quickly. We are going continue to develop our reserves and transition as technology allows. The point I want to make regarding your post above is that the figure is high but has to be to bring domestic production on line. It costs much more per barrel to produce here than most places.

 

The important thing is these commodities like iron ore and oil are raw materials, and the real value is what all that iron ore is made into. Its worth as finished products is so much greater than the raw material its made from. Everything we built with the steel made from that cheap iron ore is what created our world leading economy during the 20th century. And the same go's for the oil, as we pay more for oil more will be produce domestically and more wealth will be created in Texas, OK, Kan, Col, NM, SD, Alaska, Canada and every where else in North America and even Mexico that has oil. Its the creation of finished products from raw materials that creates the wealth in our economy.

[EdEarl]

Sorry for not replying sooner, I missed it.

Hi Ed, you can look at this in a different way. If the U.S. had been for the last 150 years importing all of its iron ore from foreign sources, it would have seemed to us that we were getting screwed every time they had a "shortage" or wanted to jack the price up. But the price would have been based on demand and our industries would have had a difficult time dealing with the unstable supply and our economy would have suffered for it. We would have found domestic sources, and done things like going to Alaska to find it. America could not have prospered like it has without its abundant and low cost domestic iron ore supply.

 

Our oil for a long time was cheaper to buy abroad than to produce at home, but now that has changed. How would everyone feel about oil if none was burned for fuel, not converted to CO2, just used like we use steel to make products. We take our domestic oil and make components for alternative energy systems and other products with it. Well, I think that will happen but not quickly. We are going continue to develop our reserves and transition as technology allows. The point I want to make regarding your post above is that the figure is high but has to be to bring domestic production on line. It costs much more per barrel to produce here than most places.

 

The important thing is these commodities like iron ore and oil are raw materials, and the real value is what all that iron ore is made into. Its worth as finished products is so much greater than the raw material its made from. Everything we built with the steel made from that cheap iron ore is what created our world leading economy during the 20th century. And the same go's for the oil, as we pay more for oil more will be produce domestically and more wealth will be created in Texas, OK, Kan, Col, NM, SD, Alaska, Canada and every where else in North America and even Mexico that has oil. Its the creation of finished products from raw materials that creates the wealth in our economy.

 

 

Using oil and coal for plastics and other non-fuel things is OK and not-OK. It basically boils down to whether the thing will be recycled or not.

 

As a child, I remember gasoline at $0.15 in the Permian Basin around Midland, Texas. At that time the US was booming (1950s). Now we ship our wealth overseas to buy oil form countries, from which terrorists have come to bomb us. That US citizens are not outraged and activated by this fact blows me away. Instead of working to abandon oil in favor of renewable energy sources that create jobs in the US, they fester about illegal immigration (and other issues). If there were a way to seal the borders, which I believe is fundamentally impossible, the immigration issue might make sense. Although, I am not convinced it is a bad thing, because I cannot figure out whether illegal immigration is good or bad economically. On the other hand, paying for over $400,000 M in oil to foreigners is clearly a drain on our economy.

 

Back to the OP topic. Elon Musk has bet that solar PV will become the main source of electric power in the US in fewer than twenty years. That seems to be a prediction from the 1970s, which obviously has not occurred. Yet, Mr. Musk has been phenomenally successful, whom I tend to believe. He also believes electric vehicles will dominate transportation, except for rockets, in the future.

 

I am really curious about his hyperloop transportation idea. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

[arc]

EdEarl, on 01 Jun 2013 - 11:03, said:

 

 

Using oil and coal for plastics and other non-fuel things is OK and not-OK. It basically boils down to whether the thing will be recycled or not.

 

Well Ed, I think you hit the nail on the head. It will all be recycled, more so as time goes by. But don't fret the stuff we don't recycle now, well dig it up when the technology is cost effective. Companies will bid against each other to robotically mine the old land fills. They will tear down the buildings that now sit on some of them to get to the material under them. The name land fill is inaccurate, they are more accurately described as; Resource Storage Facilities. It is a shame the trash that was hauled and dumped out at sea, we should have stored it under ground for later recovery.

 

As a child, I remember gasoline at $0.15 in the Permian Basin around Midland, Texas. At that time the US was booming (1950s). Now we ship our wealth overseas to buy oil form countries, from which terrorists have come to bomb us. That US citizens are not outraged and activated by this fact blows me away. Instead of working to abandon oil in favor of renewable energy sources that create jobs in the US, they fester about illegal immigration (and other issues). If there were a way to seal the borders, which I believe is fundamentally impossible, the immigration issue might make sense. Although, I am not convinced it is a bad thing, because I cannot figure out whether illegal immigration is good or bad economically. On the other hand, paying for over $400,000 M in oil to foreigners is clearly a drain on our economy.

 

We developed oil resources outside of the U.S. because the free world was a free market. Americans were racing the British and Dutch around the world looking for the market advantage of more for less, more raw material for less money. Which is the easiest way to boost your profits. We took dirt poor countries and made them dirt poor countries with a billionaire mobsters running them. And we held our noses to the stench of corruption because that's the way the world has always worked. It was more important at the time to buttress a line of allies against the Soviets than to risk these two-bit dictators turning a 180 and helping the Soviets.

 

Like I said, that cheap foreign oil was more profitable to bring to market than the domestic, and competition drives corporate strategy. We now have the price of oil high enough to create a domestic oil boom and this is a good stimulus for the American economy. The EPA requirements are more stringent, so it creates jobs for testing technicians, pipe line workers, truck drivers and all of the supply chain involved, and many other jobs a foreign oil reserve would not. All oil is bought and sold on a world market, the price driven by supply and demand. If a country with a rate of consumption like the U.S. wanted to subsidize its own production of domestic reserves they would do it to their own detriment, we would help the other world wide consumers by decreasing the demand and forcing a price drop. Thus giving everyone else a discount while Americans pay more per barrel though the taxes going to the subsidy. A free market is also a fair market.

 

When you take all the biased politics out, this terrorism looks to me like simple cultural shock. They know they can't stop the modern world that is making there medieval world mindset irrelevant, so they hardened their resolve for a fight they will lose, not from us so much as from the youth of their own culture.

[EdEarl]

Well Ed, I think you hit the nail on the head. It will all be recycled, more so as time goes by. But don't fret the stuff we don't recycle now, well dig it up when the technology is cost effective. Companies will bid against each other to robotically mine the old land fills. They will tear down the buildings that now sit on some of them to get to the material under them. The name land fill is inaccurate, they are more accurately described as; Resource Storage Facilities. It is a shame the trash that was hauled and dumped out at sea, we should have stored it under ground for later recovery.

 

 

We developed oil resources outside of the U.S. because the free world was a free market. Americans were racing the British and Dutch around the world looking for the market advantage of more for less, more raw material for less money. Which is the easiest way to boost your profits. We took dirt poor countries and made them dirt poor countries with a billionaire mobsters running them. And we held our noses to the stench of corruption because that's the way the world has always worked. It was more important at the time to buttress a line of allies against the Soviets than to risk these two-bit dictators turning a 180 and helping the Soviets.

 

Like I said, that cheap foreign oil was more profitable to bring to market than the domestic, and competition drives corporate strategy. We now have the price of oil high enough to create a domestic oil boom and this is a good stimulus for the American economy. The EPA requirements are more stringent, so it creates jobs for testing technicians, pipe line workers, truck drivers and all of the supply chain involved, and many other jobs a foreign oil reserve would not. All oil is bought and sold on a world market, the price driven by supply and demand. If a country with a rate of consumption like the U.S. wanted to subsidize its own production of domestic reserves they would do it to their own detriment, we would help the other world wide consumers by decreasing the demand and forcing a price drop. Thus giving everyone else a discount while Americans pay more per barrel though the taxes going to the subsidy. A free market is also a fair market.

 

When you take all the biased politics out, this terrorism looks to me like simple cultural shock. They know they can't stop the modern world that is making there medieval world mindset irrelevant, so they hardened their resolve for a fight they will lose, not from us so much as from the youth of their own culture.

Good point about landfills being underground storage; although, that stuff was not my worry. It is the small bits and pieces strewn around, especially in the ocean but on land as well that will resist recovery even by robotics. Perhaps nanotechnology or biology will become the hero, but for the time being it is part of the environment.

 

True that corporations are making $ from overseas investments, but that mostly makes the rich richer. That $400,000M is making jobs overseas not in the US, and it exports $ to foreign governments to whom we are now paying ever more interest year by year. Ouch, I am doing what I've tried to stop in this thread...hijack it into another discussion. If you wish to continue, start another thread, please.

 

Back to the OP topic. I have followed both updraft and downdraft tower technology for a while. It sounds like someone rich might want to build the world's tallest structure as a monument, and by the way produce electricity. However, construction costs are very high and so far funding has not materialized.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

 

The Traveling Wave Reactor sounds promising, now that Bill Gates is a proponent. If some materials and regulation issues can be overcome, they would burn the nuclear wastes now sitting around nuclear reactors. The idea is to dig a deep hole near existing reactors, line it with "unknownium," fill it with nuclear waste and start a nuclear fire that travels downward for 50+ years generating electricity and turning the nuclear waste into lead or other non radioactive materials.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower,_LLC

[arc]

Increased complexity is always moderated by reduced probability. I like the solar and hydro-thermal technologies, they will continually improve over time and are safe. safe as in tsunami's, earth quakes and do not kill fish in rivers. The BPA has sent hydro-electric power south to California for many years, it's pay back time.

You can send power both directions on transmission lines.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Power_Administration

BPA transmits and sells wholesale electricity in eight western states: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, and California.

Edited June 2, 2013 by arc

[John Cuthber]

I see nothing weak about my argument.

Well, I do.

You said "It was the president of the United States that said the oil would run out by the end of the 80’s. "

But he didn't say that.

[arc]

Its a pretty long speech, you can read it here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

 

Its kind of strange hearing the trade oil consumption for coal consumption part. I don't remember that being discussed back then. It was not very practical in 1980. All you could do with it is generate electricity and I believe we were already generating a large proportion of it with coal. I'm guessing they were thinking electric cars on coal generated power. That's a step backwards.

 

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

 

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power. ( I would liked to have been in the room when they dreamed up that one; Coal and Solar, It's just old and new sunshine.) The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history. World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

 

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum. All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand. Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

 

This is my favorite line;

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

 

This message was brought to you by National Association of Coal Producers. Coal, its not just for blacksmiths.

arc

[John Cuthber]

If you have coal, and no concern about CO2 levels, then you can run cars on it.

South Africa did so for a long time.

http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/downloads/CTL_Brochure_1125921891488.pdf

 

President Carter had a point, he raised it and it seems to have had an effect.

Here's a graph of the world's oil consumption since 1950

http://www.worldwatch.org/brain/images/press/news/vs05-world_oil.jpg

Up until the mid 70s it was rising pretty much exponentially.

Then there's a break in the curve and it rises more slowly.

 

But all the talk of Carter's speech is beside the point.

The oil supply is finite so it will run out.

All you can argue about is the time scale over which we have to replace it.

[EdEarl]

The OP topic is "Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!", not how Carter underestimated oil reserves, or whether burning oil and coal is causing global warming, or the price of oil. As I pointed out before, the US spends nearly half a trillion $ on foreign oil which creates jobs overseas instead of in the US and increases the national debt...not related to the topic of this thread either.

 

I do not want to prevent the oil discussion, although, I have heard it already ad nausea. It just seems the oil discussion should be in a thread called "The Oil Debate," or some such thing.

[iNow]

The OP topic is "Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!"

 

Indeed... Which is why I thought of this thread when I saw this today:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-energy-sources-offer-the-most-promise-for-the-us/64c17cf4-c96f-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_topic.html

 

Welcome to the first Wonkblog CrowdSourced! The energy sources that drive the U.S. economy takes many forms, and the mix is always evolving, whether carbon-based coal, oil and natural gas; nuclear power; or renewables such as wind, solar, hydro, and biofuels. But which of these forms (or others!) offer the best mix of economic and environmental viability to power the United States in the future? What is it about the likely progression of science, technological innovation and how the economy works that makes an energy source the one that we should be betting on?

 

Leave your comment here, respond to those of others and upvote those existing comments that offer the most thoughtful, interesting and useful ideas on this pressing question.

 

What energy sources offer the most promise for the U.S. economically and environmentally?

 

I will be curious to see how the responses pan out...

Edited June 3, 2013 by iNow

[EdEarl]

I will be curious to see how the responses pan out...

Unfortunately, it is biased because posters put duplicates, and there are too many pages to look at and vote on. Many people will look at a few pages and quit. A good idea with poor execution.

[arc]

The OP topic is "Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!", not how Carter underestimated oil reserves, or whether burning oil and coal is causing global warming, or the price of oil. As I pointed out before, the US spends nearly half a trillion $ on foreign oil which creates jobs overseas instead of in the US and increases the national debt...not related to the topic of this thread either.

 

I do not want to prevent the oil discussion, although, I have heard it already ad nausea. It just seems the oil discussion should be in a thread called "The Oil Debate," or some such thing.

Sorry Ed, I like history. They say, you cannot know where you are going unless you know where you have been. I believe understanding the pivotal moments in something that is as critically important as this can shed light. .er. .solar energy on the subject. This speech by Carter is an earlier attempt to layout a comprehensive plan to replace oil. Should that not be relevant to the discussion? This was the leader of the free world and it looks to have failed miserably. What went wrong? Would we have been better or worse off? What if it had succeeded? Would we right now be discussing how we screwed up and went heavily into coal 30 years ago and now need to, due to climate change, move quickly back to gas and oil as a stopgap measure until we develop clean energy? You think we are behind now, we probably would have been even farther behind had it succeeded. You see why I bring this up.

 

As I alluded to earlier, if we were to subsidize more expensive alternatives to oil it would give the rest of the world's oil consumers a reduction in price due to free market mechanisms. We can only increase our energy costs by circumnavigating the free market. You pay the free market price or you pay more due to your forcing of non-market prices into what your citizens pay through hidden charges like taxes. Here's a perfect example. Venezuela has been discounting, aka subsidizing gasoline to its citizens for political gain. This gas would have generated profit if sold in the world market, and the profit would have been in the state treasury to pay for the many social programs like health and schools that were also promised by the government.

 

So to stay with the original post, I suggest you allow market forces to choose the winners and losers otherwise you may end up subsidizing lower energy costs for everyone else but us. The Tesla car company is a free market winner. The Chevy Volt has Chinese competition at half the price.

 

This is a few of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies that tried to compete against a free market and failed. The dollar amounts are federal funding losses. These 3 are a part of larger list that accounts for 8% that failed or defaulted, so to speak, of the total number of tax payer funded start-ups. I think that is an acceptable rate.

 

Some of these are cutting edge. As I said in the other post, I like solar and geothermal. I'm especially sad to see those type of ventures have failed or had trouble.

 

Beacon Power ($43 million) The company technology consisted of wheels inside vacuum tubes that can spin at near perpetual motion to store energy. Filed for bankruptcy.

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) no description needed.

Brightsource ($1.6 billion) designs, develops, and deploys solar thermal technology to produce high-value electricity and steam for power, petroleum, and industrial-process markets worldwide. I went to their site, it looks impressive. I don't know how they lost the 1.6 billion. It would seem to be a tried and true technology, They must have tried something difficult. "If we pull this off well be kings" kind of difficult.

[EdEarl]

Sorry Ed, I like history. ...

History can be good background info to support an argument about the OP.

I suggest you allow market forces to choose the winners and losers

A free market without bribery, subsidies, graft, and corruption is utopian, but we must deal with reality. The oil industry is subsidized in both obvious and subtle ways. Sometimes it is necessary to level the playing field by subsidizing otherwise unprofitable competition. Ideally, politicians would select the ones that will ultimately out compete oil and be green. However, politicians are notoriously bad about making rational choices, even if they had a crystal ball that could identify the best alternative to oil. And, there may not be any alternative to oil that is capable of competing on a level playing field at this time. IMO there is, but one cannot know because the economy is complex.

 

We can simplify by ignoring the big picture and narrowing our focus; thereby, learning more detail about specific subjects. For example, focusing on technological issues concerning of petroleum replacements. After learning low level details we can better understand higher level issues (e.g., economic interactions.) I believe Elon Musk (Tesla CEO) is successful because he is a physicist, engineer, and businessman. He analyzed first principles of electric cars to decide whether there could be an economically viable business that manufactured electric cars...not as simple as this sentence makes it sound

I like solar and geothermal.

Solar is inevitable. In one way or another the Sun (or another star) provides (has provided) all the energy we use. Oil is stored solar energy and fission is possible because some star made the fissionable material. Solar thermal and windmills are currently very good alternatives to oil, and IMO more economical (debatable). PV is pretty good and getting better and more economical.

 

Geothermal is a bit scary. Some potential geothermal locations have been tested with pilot wells, and abandoned. Geothermal requires putting explosives into the wells and cracking the rock, which sometimes increases earthquake activity.

 

At one time I thought putting lots of geothermal plants around Yellowstone might reduce the possibility of an eruptions, but now I think it is probably a bad idea. Maybe a combination of nanobots used to make a manifold in the rocks, instead of explosives, will make geothermal safer. I am undecided about its future.

[nuclear1]

We have more than enough carbon in the ground to cook our planet. James Hansen from NASA has calculated that we must not burn more than 1/5th of the proven carbon reserves.

The poorer countries will burn whatever is cheapest.

We need to develop power sources that are cheaper than coal.

The answer is Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor has the ability to be mass produced on an assembly line and can produce power cheaper than coal.

 

Check out...

http://atomicinsights.com/power-cheaper-than-coal-thorium-and-uranium-make-it-possible/

[Enthalpy]

The answer is Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor has the ability to be mass produced on an assembly line and can produce power cheaper than coal.

Crank.

 

Any security breach in a small reactor is as dangerous as in a big one, so the security cost cannot be downsized, making small reactors meaningless.

 

We have no significant uranium deposits to replace coal. It's under 1 to 100.

 

Thorium reactors don't exist. No single one has ever run.

 

Thorium reactors would need plutonium to start but don't produce it, so each thorium reactor would need several uranium reactors. In other words: they can't exploit a significant amount of thorium, because the available ²³⁵U limits them.

 

The same marginal gain is already obtained in VVER by burning recycled plutonium supplemented with some thorium. At least it needs no new reactor.

 

You should check the effect of a kinetic energy weapon on a fast neutron reactor. Prompt critical with tons of fissile material, instead of kilograms in a plutonium bomb.

 

Meaningless claims about LFTR work better in a non-scientific forum.

[arc]

We have more than enough carbon in the ground to cook our planet. James Hansen from NASA has calculated that we must not burn more than 1/5th of the proven carbon reserves.

The poorer countries will burn whatever is cheapest.

We need to develop power sources that are cheaper than coal.

The answer is Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor has the ability to be mass produced on an assembly line and can produce power cheaper than coal.

 

Check out...

http://atomicinsights.com/power-cheaper-than-coal-thorium-and-uranium-make-it-possible/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

 

David Charles Hahn (born October 30, 1976), also called the "Radioactive Boy Scout" or the "Nuclear Boy Scout", is an American who attempted to build a homemade breeder nuclear reactor in 1994, at age 17. A scout in the Boy Scouts of America, Hahn conducted his experiments in secret in a backyard shed at his mother's house in Commerce Township, Michigan. While his reactor never reached critical mass, Hahn attracted the attention of local police who found radioactive materials in the trunk of his car. His mother's property was cleaned up by the E.P.A. ten months later as a Superfund cleanup site. Hahn attained Eagle Scout rank shortly after his reactor was dismantled.

 

Hahn received a merit badge in Atomic Energy and spent years tinkering with basement chemistry which sometimes resulted in small explosions and other mishaps. He was inspired in part by reading The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments, and tried to collect samples of every element in the periodic table, including the radioactive ones. Hahn diligently amassed this radioactive material by collecting small amounts from household products, such as americium from smoke detectors, thorium from camping lantern mantles, radium from clocks and tritium (as neutron moderator) from gun sights. His "reactor" was a bored-out block of lead, and he used lithium from $1,000 worth of purchased batteries to purify the thorium ash using a Bunsen burner.

 

Hahn posed as an adult scientist or professor to gain the trust of many professionals in letters, despite the presence of misspellings and obvious errors in his letters to them. Hahn ultimately hoped to create a breeder reactor, using low-level isotopes to transform samples of thorium and uranium into fissionable isotopes.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Corporation began its humble beginnings like many other start-ups, just a boy and his dreams in a shed. arc

Edited June 29, 2013 by arc

[ralfy]

Anything can be used to replace petroleum. The catch is the EROI that is ensured by that source, the EOI need by the global population, the fact that much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture worldwide is heavily geared towards the use of oil, the need for petrochemicals, and an energy trap involved when moving to other sources of energy.

 

According to the IEA, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain global economic growth, and that probably includes more petrochemicals and minerals extracted to ensure increasing production of not only of luxury goods such as passenger vehicles but even food. The IEA also argues that economies should have started the transition process at least a decade ago, and one study shows that the transition will require several decades.

 

Meanwhile, the IEA forecasts at best a 9-pct increase in energy produced from all oil and gas sources for the next two decades, and that assumes that conventional production won't drop. Unfortunately, we will need to increase energy consumption by around 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth.

 

With that, the use of other energy sources to replace oil is inevitable, but they will not ensure "business as usual" given increasing resource and energy demand worldwide.

[EdEarl]

Anything can be used to replace petroleum. The catch is the EROI that is ensured by that source, the EOI need by the global population, the fact that much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture worldwide is heavily geared towards the use of oil, the need for petrochemicals, and an energy trap involved when moving to other sources of energy.

 

According to the IEA, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain global economic growth, and that probably includes more petrochemicals and minerals extracted to ensure increasing production of not only of luxury goods such as passenger vehicles but even food. The IEA also argues that economies should have started the transition process at least a decade ago, and one study shows that the transition will require several decades.

 

Meanwhile, the IEA forecasts at best a 9-pct increase in energy produced from all oil and gas sources for the next two decades, and that assumes that conventional production won't drop. Unfortunately, we will need to increase energy consumption by around 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth.

 

With that, the use of other energy sources to replace oil is inevitable, but they will not ensure "business as usual" given increasing resource and energy demand worldwide.

Your post seems to argue that we should not consider replacing petroleum, which is contrary to the topic of this thread, which is to discuss alternatives to petroleum.

[BrightQuark]

Oil energy is used for both stationary and mobile applications. There are a variety of energy resources that can replace oil for one or the other application. They include energy from PV, windmill, updraft towers, downdraft towers, solar ponds, geothermal, radioactive decay, fission, fusion, tidal, wave, ocean thermal, biodiesel, ethanol, batteries, hydrogen, cellulose pellets, direct solar heating (active and passive), and last but not least coal.

 

Direct solar heating is one that is relatively inexpensive to build into new homes and other buildings, and IMO should be mandatory, both for heating water and interior spaces. See: http://earthship.com/

 

Ed, why do you think we seem to be transitioning so slowly towards these new sources, is the technology still in its infancy, is it cost, or are we still too heavily invested in oil?

 

The UKs energy problem has been left far too long and now we seem to be rushing towards nuclear power stations, built by the French, wind turbines have attracted a great deal of criticism, to date, ruining views or clogging up the near shore seascapes.

Edited June 29, 2013 by BrightQuark