If I’m not mistaken, the problem at this point isn’t making a fusion reactor - it’s making a fusion reactor that generates more power than it requires to maintain the reaction. From my admittedly not terribly knowledgeable viewpoint, it looks to me like fusion is just a matter of time. Problem is, it might be more time than we have.
Actually, though, I think that distributed solar will actually end up being a big part of the solution - solar power-producing roofing material on everyone’s house to pick up production in peak hours, nuclear to provide baseline production. Solar is getting pretty close to being cost effective right now. A bit more improvement, and any substantial increase in oil prices, and it’ll be a very viable option. By and large it produces power at times of higher demand (more so than wind, anyways), so it makes a good auxiliary supply. We really should be building a bunch of fission reactors, though. Pity about the NIMBY problem.
I’d like to recant my last post. It occurs to me that by bootstrapping ethanol production this way with oil/natural gas you would wind up with fuel cells running the farm equipment. There would need to be additional energy from fission/fusion reactors to make up the progressive losses due to the second law but not as improbable as I thought.
The second law isn’t an issue with ethanol/biomass/biodiesel or what have you. Plant growth harnesses solar energy, so there’s no theoretical barrier to using these things as a source of energy (as opposed to merely a carrier). They are unlike hydrogen in this regard. I don’t know that the efficiencies are high enough to come out with positive energy, though.
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
If I’m not mistaken, the problem at this point isn’t making a fusion reactor - it’s making a fusion reactor that generates more power than it requires to maintain the reaction. From my admittedly not terribly knowledgeable viewpoint, it looks to me like fusion is just a matter of time. Problem is, it might be more time than we have.
[QUOTE]
I had the chance to tour the Princeton Fusion Lab once and I got some info about things. They still admit to being quite aways off, but part of the problem is that for more than 20 years they were working with the classic round torus Russian Tokomak design that turned out to be far, far removed from the ideal shape. They built and dedicated a new Tokomak a few years ago and things have progressed a bit faster. The new Tokomak also took up a fraction of the space.
For the record, I beleive theyve hit the break-even point, but haven’t gone much further. When you add in costs of maintenance its not economical yet.
What was amusing was to look at the computer room which once held shelves and shelves of 70’s era computers. Most of those shelves were bare and then held a handful of Macintosh G3 towers and some Dells.
I read the site with interest and found it informative regarding the topic but feel it has a few problems. The author was eager to dismiss alternatives to oil, perhaps too eager. His comments about nuclear power not being an alternative seem very weak for the most part. If the lights start going out, I can imagine public protests for nuclear reactors instead of against. His comments about fuel being limited ignore fast breeder reactors and the cost of building them won’t matter as much when you’re sitting in the dark wondering why the lights won’t work.
Don’t forget about Methane Hydrate. A quote from that site: “The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.”
The site sounds great as long as your willing to ignore every other option available in the event that oil is no longer able to power human society. I can be as alarmist as anyone about things going haywire but options do exist. It’s not an “oil or nothing” situation. Hell, you wan’t to worry(at least in the US), look into the super volcano under Yellowstone park. Now that’s going to be a bitch!
Ya, Methane Hydrate were mentioned several times in earlier posts. The problem with them atm is that they are essentially inaccessable comercially. The POTENTIAL though is staggering, and I have no doubts that if oil ever really does get critical, this will be a viable option…and one I note that hasn’t really been mentioned in any of the Peak Oil cites I’ve seen. It certainly wasn’t in the OPs cite at least.
There are a lot of options on the table for things that could act as either stop gaps or long term solutions to our dependence on oil. Right now, no one knows the future will hold energy wise, and anything can happen. Could society collapse and 5.5 billion die due to lack of oil or the wars fought over said oil? Sure. But equally likely to my mind is that, though we have short term energy crisis periodically (like we’ve BEEN having periodically for quite some time), in the long term some individual or corporation, out to make a boat load of cash, is going to come up with a solution/solutions that will allow us to continue on essentially business as usual.
What might that be? Dunno. Might be a combination of hydrogen fuel cell technology for running our farm machines/cars/transport, along with fission/fusion to extract the hydrogen and meet our electric needs (I actually think the combination of hydrogen/nuclear is one of the best bets, gazing into my own crystal ball). Might be methane fuel cells and nuclear power instead (another good bet IMO…maybe even better than hydrogen in some respects). Might be organics and solar for all I know, or some exotic beamed energy lash up using 1920 death ray technology in space. The point is that no one knows, because no one can predict the breakthroughs that will take place 10 years from now…or next year or even tomorrow for that matter. Think about the scientists and engineers of earlier times in history…how good were THEY at predicting the future trends in science and technology? Not very IMO…just as we aren’t very good now either.
It also might be that we don’t really come up against the ‘wall’ for decades yet…decades in which our science and technology continue to advance at staggering rates.
Is mankind living on an energy bubble? This is a fascinating topic. We can look around and see that lots of species have lived and died on bubbles that burst for whatever reasons, so it’s reasonable to wonder what bubble threatens us. Is it energy? Is it disease? Is it some other resource depletion? Is it nuclear holocaust? Is it something random like a meteor strike?
My opinion is that the “net return” equation in the energy area is working against us. It’s costing more to get less. We have indeed been living on an energy bubble. But it won’t burst suddenly, and it probably won’t kill billions of people. It will slowly deflate and alternatives will emerge, but they are likely to force some pretty radical changes in civilization.
[Please understand that I’m trying to tread carefully here for obvious reasons]
My brother works in the oil industry, in reservoir modelling (I’ve stated this before in other threads), and from what he’s told me, the article in question is alarmist and uses selective information. For instance the Cheney quote appears to assume no new oil reserves are found, yet new reserves are currently being exploited. And we haven’t even looked at Antarctica yet (yes, I know about the treaty - I fully expect it will be set aside if necessary).
It’s public knowledge that there’s plenty of oil: it’s just not currently economic to retrieve much of it. There might even be oil on Mars, if there used to be macroscopic life there. Yes, we need to find a replacement, but there’s no rush. As a stopgap we can ramp up use of fission power plants.
I don’t think it’s any treaty that keeps Antarctica from being mined or drilled. It’s the fact that nobody has figured out a way to conduct profitable extraction operations in a place where you have to dig through almost a mile (?) of ice just to get to the soil. And that’s not likely to change until there are some major technological breakthroughs or until the price of crude oil reaches levels we can’t even imagine now.
Just checked: Encarta says, “The Antarctic ice sheet has an average thickness of 2,160 m (7,090 ft); its greatest recorded depth is more than 4,700 m (15,400 ft).” So, yes, more than a mile if ice to dig through – just to get at a patch of soil and assay its mineral content.
Well, the probe that has been proposed for Europa is a nuclear reactor which produces heat to slowly melt through the ice. I would imagine that if such as thing can be sent through space and used on another world, it would work on the Antartic ice sheet.
Look, these are all great ideas and cool technologies - thermal depolymerisation, methane clathrates, biomass, melting through 1000 m of ice, all households on solar - but we are talking of feeding a very hungry beast - all the worlds industry and transport, as well as basic needs. You have to consider the economic disadvantages.
It is like being given the task of raising a tiger cub with a bonus free freezer room full of meat. When the meat runs out you have to start buying tins of cat food for this huge cat - it will be very expensive.
Fission seems like the best solution at this stage. Expect to see many fission plants popping up in 20-30 years.
antechinus, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that any of these things are ultimate answers. We’re talking about ways to buy time until new technologies, plant construction, and infrastructure changes can provide longer term answers. I personally agree with you that some sort of nuclear technology, hopefully fusion, will be the longer term answer. Even if we could continue to use them indefinitely, all of the hydrocarbon technologies have one major drawback - carbon dioxide emission.
Betting on a miracle is nothing more than wishing and the timing if it actually occurred must take place well before fossil fuel exhustion in order to prevent a hum dinger of a depression.
Alternate power technology within our grasp or within our reach could possibly provide 20-25% of current US usage, if the fossil fuel costs were some low multiple of existing prices. Possibly 2-3 times present prices. But to get to anything like 50%, if its even possible, would require a much greater multiple. (As the US is the major consumer, as the US goes so goes the world).
People aren’t going to reduce their energy lifestyle by 75% unless forced to by pricing. To avoid a depression, the pricing pressure must start well before oil runs out. They would have to give up one or both cars, live close enough to walk to work, downside their homes to about 800 sq ft. etc. Like was common in 1920 or so.
To avoid a collapse, oil prices must rise sharply for a long time before exhustion. But that’s not how pricing works. An owner will pump oil as long as there’s anything left if the operating costs are less than the going price. A price explosion will occur near the end but then it’s too late to avoid economic calamity.
The deep oceanic basins have yet to be explored, and there is probably a lotof oil there. This discussion reminds me of what went on in Brazil, in the 1970’s-there was no domestic oil, and the price of oil was ruining the Brazilian economy. What happened? The technology to drill in deep water came along…and drilling off of Rio de Janeiro uncovered a vast new field…now Brazil gets almost all of its oil domestically! Even better, PETROBRAS has just signed contracts to construct two new big offshore rigs, which will be able to drill in even deeper water.
So what was feared to be a disaster has never happened!
Deep oceanic basins can’t have oil: they’re formed by uprising magma. Oil requires organic deposition, coverage, and pressure.
We’ve got a long time to go before we run out of hydrocarbons. My brother told me we’ve extracted less than 1% of the available hydrocarbons. Sure costs will rise and make extraction in more expensive places more economic. Other technologies will take the place of coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power stations. Nuclear energy comes to mind, but solar, wind, and tidal energy will undoubtedly play thier parts.
“Technological savvy could turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year”:
If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water. While no one plans to put people into a thermal depolymerization machine, an intimate human creation could become a prime feedstock. “There is no reason why we can’t turn sewage, including human excrement, into a glorious oil,” says engineer Terry Adams, a project consultant. So the city of Philadelphia is in discussion with Changing World Technologies to begin doing exactly that.
“The potential is unbelievable,” says Michael Roberts, a senior chemical engineer for the Gas Technology Institute, an energy research group. “You’re not only cleaning up waste; you’re talking about distributed generation of oil all over the world.”
The above information is from this source originating in “Discover” Magazine. I understand “Scientific American” also is publishing as well.
In a nutshell we will shortly be able to turn human sewage into oil.
You may all relax. Civilization is not going to run out of fuel.
Thats all well and good…but what happens when we hit the ‘turkey gut event horizon’?? The turkey gut ‘wall’, when we hit it, will seriously hurt…5.8 billion will die from that (this is of course after the 5.5 billion deaths when we hit the oil ‘wall’)!! THEN what will we think of next??? We’re doomed…doomed!!!
I figure if they can make diamonds, they can probably do this too. I don’t know what the new technology will be…no one does. This looks promissing, but might not scale up well to provide the same quantity of fuel we presently use. Maybe they will use the complex hydrocarbons from this process along with traditional fission nuclear reactors and fusion plants to make hydrogen. Maybe the ‘new’ energy of the future will be something none of us can invision at all, and this idea will be like the buggy whip is today.
I don’t think that this is wishful thinking as aahala claims. I think greed is the best motivator. As there is literally a ton of money to be had in finding alternatives when natural reserves of oil begin to seriously decline, I’m quite confident that some greedy soul out there will come up with something…not because its right, or good, or noble, or whatever…but because they want to be stinking rich. Then other folks (maybe right here on SDMB) will sit back and bitch and moan that this greedy bastard cornered the market on whatever it is, and whinne and complain about how rich s/he is, and why should THEY have all the money, they have a monopoly, etc etc, blah blah blah. Hope I live to see it…and that this tread is still in the cosmic interplanetary net’s dustbin so I can resurrect it and go…SEE??? Toldja!
-XT
This contains many statements as fact which are pure speculation. It’s great to want to explain to people how you believe they are incorrect but dropping random “facts” into the discussion to bolster you point is not the way to debate an issue. Beyond this, the last paragraph has no basis in reality when compared to how oil prices are set or how oil is extracted from the Earth.
