| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Energy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Energy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Energy
    Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 03:15
What will we use for energy in the near future? Renewables seem insufficient for the task, nuclear is laden with armageddon like possibilities, and oil supplies are suspect in their quanity, for a number of reasons.
 
What will fuel the future?
 

"...Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent...."

 
 
 
 
 "...Its point forecast is for a near doubling of the real price of oil over the coming decade..."
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 05:35
Hydrogen.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 08:55
Hey Captain, where did you get the idea that renewables  are insufficient ?  Smile
Future sources for energy will be a combination of many things, but they will all have electricity as the resulting outgoing power.
 
 
Just to mention the two most dominant right now...
1) Wind energy 
Denmark gets ca. 25% of it's power from the wind and the number is steadily increasing.
New impressive off-shore park for 400.000 households ...   Anholt Windmillpark
 
2) Solar energy
Over the past few years, the price on solar cells has decreased to a level which makes it very interesting for companies and private houseowners to install solar cells on the roof. 
A 6KW installation is sufficient for a private household and the investment is paid back in 10 years.
From that point, you have the energy for free...
I live in a neighborhood with ca. 100 houses, and over the past year, 10 of them already has installed solar cells.
Here is a link to a site about it, in the UK 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Northman - 08 Jul 2012 at 09:00
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 10:53
Northman is right. What prevents renewables from taking over is a lack in major government investment into the power infrastructure. Coal and Oil would never have become cheap without massive government subsidies, and the same is true of replacement technologies such as Solar Thermal.
Nuclear is still a waste of money. It only justifies itself if you have a vested interest in having it for military reasons.
 
Hydrogen is portable fuel for other renewables.
 
@North: Personal Photovoltaic installations were very popular here about 4-5 years ago. They mostly proven a bust because they weighed too heavily on state government budgets (they had to artificially raise the sale price of electricity to make it work). It's better to build big installations in power plants.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 08 Jul 2012 at 10:54
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 12:54
Irregular nature of renewable resources driving us to store their production. Which means sulfur, cadmium, lead and other hazardous stuff... 1 kg of lead can cause far more damage than tons of CO2, where a common car battery contains 8 kgs of lead. Don't even want to think about electric car (contains a very large set of batteries and they must be changed regularly, of course you have to pay a rent for these batteries!!!). Most idiotic invention ever... Why just don't use LGP in cars instead of burning it first to aquire electricity (while losing half of energy in the process) then recharging batteries with it. This process would be meaningful if only renewable electricity resources make up majority of electric production (still hazardous batteries gonna exist).

Also I must remind you that, oil is just indirectly effects electric production. Majority of electricity production simply comes from good old method of termic power plants (mostly coal and some natural gas). Of course efficiency rised over 50 percent where it was around %3 in 19th centuries.



Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 13:07
Previous month Turkish minister of energy Taner Yıldız said, they will change 17 millions street lights with led ligths. Project will cost around 2 billion dollars but it will cut down street lighting budget by %75... This was a simple example. I believe electric heating should be banned too... Like Swedes does...

Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

The efficiency of any system depends on the definition of the boundaries of the system. For an electrical energy customer the efficiency of electric space heating is 100% because all purchased energy is converted to building heat. However, if the power plant supplying electricity is included, the overall efficiency drops. For example, a fossil-fuelled power plant may only deliver 4 units of electrical energy for every 10 units of fuel energy released. Even with a 100% efficient electric heater, the amount of fuel needed for a given amount of heat is more than if the fuel was burned in a furnace or boiler at the building being heated. If the same fuel could be used for space heating by a consumer, it would be more efficient overall to burn the fuel at the end user's building.

In Sweden the use of direct electric heating has been restricted since the 1980s for this reason, and there are plans to phase it out entirely - see Oil phase-out in Sweden - while Denmark has banned the installation of electric space heating in new buildings for similar reasons.[1] In the case of new buildings, low-energy building techniques can be used which can virtually eliminate the need for heating, such as those built to the Passivhaus standard.

In Quebec however, electric heating is still the most popular form of home heating. According to a 2003 Statistics Canada survey, 68% of households in the province uses electricity for space heating. More than 90% of all power consumed in Quebec is generated by hydroelectric dams, which have lower greenhouse gases emissions than thermal power stations and the low and stable rates charged by Hydro-Québec, the provincially-owned utility.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 14:23
I believe that future is in Solar Power Satellites and Nuclear Fusion. The first technology could be put in place right now, if we had the right entrepreneurs and investors. For the second, Nuclear Fusion, if we expended as much money as physicist do in the pursuits of Higgs' bosom, perhaps we could have had a nuclear fusion plant on place already.


Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 18:52
Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 21:31
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything.
I sincerely hope that those greedy companies and landowners will be stopped before the environment has suffered non-reversabel damage. Fracking is polluting the drinking water, the surface water and the air - destroying everything natural in the vincinity.
Quote
Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.
No, the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow - that is why we have the powergrids connecting the continents in every direction...  the sun is always shining somewhere, and the wind is always blowing somewhere.  That way we get power - if not from one source, then from another.
But the oilcompanies will surely tell you another story.
 
 
 
 
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 01:12
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Hydrogen.
 
Hydrogen would be a step up in terms of environment and energy supplies, but we can't pass around cigars yet. It takes a lot of energy to separate out hydrogen and turn it into a useful fuel. We will still need something else.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 01:17
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

Hey Captain, where did you get the idea that renewables  are insufficient ?  Smile
Future sources for energy will be a combination of many things, but they will all have electricity as the resulting outgoing power.
 
 
Just to mention the two most dominant right now...
1) Wind energy 
Denmark gets ca. 25% of it's power from the wind and the number is steadily increasing.
New impressive off-shore park for 400.000 households ...   Anholt Windmillpark
 
2) Solar energy
Over the past few years, the price on solar cells has decreased to a level which makes it very interesting for companies and private houseowners to install solar cells on the roof. 
A 6KW installation is sufficient for a private household and the investment is paid back in 10 years.
From that point, you have the energy for free...
I live in a neighborhood with ca. 100 houses, and over the past year, 10 of them already has installed solar cells.
Here is a link to a site about it, in the UK 
 
 
 
 
 
True, renewables have made some great strides, and a major breakthrough could yet be ahead. But as of today, they are, as you say only a piece of the puzzle, and mostly have found low key applications, like powering frugal private houses.
 
Denmark has done well, but a question- how much would that 25% figure slip downwards if Denmark was a major industrialized area, and needed power for steel mills and auto plants?
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 01:22
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Northman is right. What prevents renewables from taking over is a lack in major government investment into the power infrastructure. Coal and Oil would never have become cheap without massive government subsidies, and the same is true of replacement technologies such as Solar Thermal.
Nuclear is still a waste of money. It only justifies itself if you have a vested interest in having it for military reasons.
 
Hydrogen is portable fuel for other renewables.
 
@North: Personal Photovoltaic installations were very popular here about 4-5 years ago. They mostly proven a bust because they weighed too heavily on state government budgets (they had to artificially raise the sale price of electricity to make it work). It's better to build big installations in power plants.
More money may help, but there is no silver bullet when it comes to research. It still takes that leap of intuition, or that fresh insight, to make things work. More money is better than less money, but no guarentee. Infrastructure could be built, but there are still problems with many of these technologies.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 01:29
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Irregular nature of renewable resources driving us to store their production. Which means sulfur, cadmium, lead and other hazardous stuff... 1 kg of lead can cause far more damage than tons of CO2, where a common car battery contains 8 kgs of lead. Don't even want to think about electric car (contains a very large set of batteries and they must be changed regularly, of course you have to pay a rent for these batteries!!!). Most idiotic invention ever... Why just don't use LGP in cars instead of burning it first to aquire electricity (while losing half of energy in the process) then recharging batteries with it. This process would be meaningful if only renewable electricity resources make up majority of electric production (still hazardous batteries gonna exist).

Also I must remind you that, oil is just indirectly effects electric production. Majority of electricity production simply comes from good old method of termic power plants (mostly coal and some natural gas). Of course efficiency rised over 50 percent where it was around %3 in 19th centuries.



Yes, coal is still massively in use, in China, Japan, Korea- even the US still gets a surprising percentage of its electricity from burning coal. Whatever coal is replaced with- if it is replaced- and many scientists claim that it must be at some point if we are to avoid serious environmental problems, must bear a heavy burden.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 01:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I believe that future is in Solar Power Satellites and Nuclear Fusion. The first technology could be put in place right now, if we had the right entrepreneurs and investors. For the second, Nuclear Fusion, if we expended as much money as physicist do in the pursuits of Higgs' bosom, perhaps we could have had a nuclear fusion plant on place already.


 
Fusion remains ever elusive, always another few years down the road. And again, money only goes so far. One cannot be paid to have and Einstien moment.
 
What might be an improvement on nuclear is the use of alternative fuels, like Thorium, which apparently burns cleaner and safer.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 01:37
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.
 
Fracting has become quite controversial. Its original promise has now been questioned. There are serious issues with pollution, and also how much gas or oil would actually be recoverable under realistic circumstances. And of course there is global warming, which most scientists believe will mandate the curbing of fossil fuels anyway in the not too distant future.
 
I agree with you about corn. The use of corn for fuel has just shifted an energy problem to a food supply problem, one that has hit the poorest in on the planet the hardest.
Back to Top
fusong View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fusong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 02:49
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 
Every ideology has a kernel of truth and sea of whitewash.
Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 03:20
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 
I agree, one of my clients is a hydrogeologist, and she had to go the the Board of Geology and show them a video about its disbenefits.
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 21:36
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 

There have been problems with fracking, however given the prize it's nothing that can't be overcome. Oil is going nowhere in the near future. Its been said the US will be exporting oil in about 10 years due to fracking. We have natural gas for 200 years, but you can't run a semi and trailer on it, nor windmills, solar or battery power. The Nuclear option is viable for power and such, but it appears some countries have spoiled it for a future resource. There is no magic bullet. Windmills and solar can make excellent supplements to the power grid, but that is all. A country like Brazil can run on ethanol, in fact cane field factories are powered with the residue after the canes have been processed for the sugar. What would work is doing the same with switch grass, but that is proving a hard nut to crack.


Edited by Buckskins - 09 Jul 2012 at 21:40
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 22:17
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

.....There have been problems with fracking, however given the prize it's nothing that can't be overcome....
Have been?? - you need to read up on matters Buckskins - problems are current, massive and money can't fix it.
 
Oh - thats maybe not what you meant.... maybe it's another prize/price you are talking about - with a huge ranch like yours and a prospect of $2,500 to $3,500 an acre for mineral rights, who'd give a damn about environment? 
 
Great Prize/price indeed!
 
 


Edited by Northman - 09 Jul 2012 at 22:19
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 23:16
Since I work in the energy sector I would say nuclear energy especially the newer generations of fission reactors and to a lesser extent hydro.
 
Solar is both expensive and highly inefficient. Wind has massive engineering problems and is goegraphically limited to certain areas where wind conditions are perfect.
 
A great untapped source is geothermal. I know 100% of iceland's power comes from there and in alot of countries especially those with active volcanoes geothermal is probably the way to go.
 
Fusion is still way behind and in fact we may never be able to tap into it. The temperatures are simply too high for any large scale reactor despite the near limitless power supply resultant from it.
 
So basically, for the forseable future, fossil is king.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 00:43
There are only 2 problems with coal or fossil fuels, one is that it is a high polutant, the other is that it is limitted. So it will ruin the air, and we will run out of it, eventually.
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
fusong View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fusong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 02:32
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 
We have natural gas for 200 years

Oh please..... cooperate programming brought right into this forum... seesh!
Actually that is truly speculative and it is actually supposedly "100 years" instead of two.
But that is pecking at details Sleepy

take a look at this buddy
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html

How you can you just predict a century or even a quarter of century at exponential growth levels in a world of seven billion people?

Need I refrain on how impartial the so called "research was" on discovering centuries of natural gas by "fracking"
This is going to cause ecological disaster and simply hasten decline.
Every ideology has a kernel of truth and sea of whitewash.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 18:21
One problem with fossil fuels is that we don't really know how much is left. We do know that old fields are depleting, and newer ones seem to be smaller, and harder to get at. The decline has been significant in the West; the Middle East is something of a wild card. Most major producers there are less transparent with their figures than in Western countries. Back in the 1980's the reserves of many OPEC countries in the region inflated tremendously overnight- sales quotas were changed to reflect the reserves of producing countries at that time- and surprise! Some countries stated reserves doubled instantly. Since then some of these same authorities insist that reserves have not gone down. New discoveries have evenly matched oil pumped, even though many billions of barrels have been extracted. Now it could be that the reserves were simply re-interpreted in the most liberal way possible, and indeed new discoveries continue to abound at a surprising rate, but many in the field find these factors very suspicious.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 18:39
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Since I work in the energy sector I would say nuclear energy especially the newer generations of fission reactors and to a lesser extent hydro.
 
Solar is both expensive and highly inefficient. Wind has massive engineering problems and is goegraphically limited to certain areas where wind conditions are perfect.
 
A great untapped source is geothermal. I know 100% of iceland's power comes from there and in alot of countries especially those with active volcanoes geothermal is probably the way to go.
 
Fusion is still way behind and in fact we may never be able to tap into it. The temperatures are simply too high for any large scale reactor despite the near limitless power supply resultant from it.
 
So basically, for the forseable future, fossil is king.
 
Al-Jassas 
 
The best laid plans of  mice and men AJ..........
 
In theory, nuclear power should work efficiently and safely. But of course nothing in the universe is perfect, and the more complexity that goes into a project, the more room for error. With nuclear power, the errors can be long lasting- essentially forever, as far as mice and men are concerned. How many more 40 or 50 Km exclusion zones can we delete from the planet before things get uncomfortable? We now have one in Japan, one in Ukraine, a few more  in Russia and Kazakstan. Many reactors in the world are sited near major population and/or industrial centers.
 
Hydro is great. My corner of the world has as much as anywhere, but it is still not enough. Other fuels are used.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 18:48
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

.....There have been problems with fracking, however given the prize it's nothing that can't be overcome....
Have been?? - you need to read up on matters Buckskins - problems are current, massive and money can't fix it.
 
Oh - thats maybe not what you meant.... maybe it's another prize/price you are talking about - with a huge ranch like yours and a prospect of $2,500 to $3,500 an acre for mineral rights, who'd give a damn about environment? 
 
Great Prize/price indeed!
 
 

I'm not sure what your problem is Northman, but it's getting a bit childish. It so happens mineral rights in Texas do not automatically come with land purchase. We do own 1/16 rights on all minerals. This of course sweetens the family coffers with the two wells on our property. I sincerely hope sir, that this really frosts your ass.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 18:53
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 
We have natural gas for 200 years

Oh please..... cooperate programming brought right into this forum... seesh!
Actually that is truly speculative and it is actually supposedly "100 years" instead of two.
But that is pecking at details Sleepy

take a look at this buddy
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html

How you can you just predict a century or even a quarter of century at exponential growth levels in a world of seven billion people?

Need I refrain on how impartial the so called "research was" on discovering centuries of natural gas by "fracking"
This is going to cause ecological disaster and simply hasten decline.

When I mentioned our natural gas resources it had nothing to do with fracking. We already have natural gas aplenty.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 19:23
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Since I work in the energy sector I would say nuclear energy especially the newer generations of fission reactors and to a lesser extent hydro.
 
Solar is both expensive and highly inefficient. Wind has massive engineering problems and is goegraphically limited to certain areas where wind conditions are perfect.
 
A great untapped source is geothermal. I know 100% of iceland's power comes from there and in alot of countries especially those with active volcanoes geothermal is probably the way to go.
 
Fusion is still way behind and in fact we may never be able to tap into it. The temperatures are simply too high for any large scale reactor despite the near limitless power supply resultant from it.
 
So basically, for the forseable future, fossil is king.
 
Al-Jassas 
 
The best laid plans of  mice and men AJ..........
 
In theory, nuclear power should work efficiently and safely. But of course nothing in the universe is perfect, and the more complexity that goes into a project, the more room for error. With nuclear power, the errors can be long lasting- essentially forever, as far as mice and men are concerned. How many more 40 or 50 Km exclusion zones can we delete from the planet before things get uncomfortable? We now have one in Japan, one in Ukraine, a few more  in Russia and Kazakstan. Many reactors in the world are sited near major population and/or industrial centers.
 
Hydro is great. My corner of the world has as much as anywhere, but it is still not enough. Other fuels are used.
 
Which is why better systems should be in place.
 
We are planning to build a couple of nuclear facilities ourselves since we already burn 2 milion barrels every day on oil fired power plants like the one I work in. According to people more familiar with reactor design the current third generation of reactors which is almost universally used is outdates since they have been in service since the 60s, well before modern computerised systems appeared.
 
Fourth generation reactors (Gen IV) are much more efficient, much more safe and with higher power output and much lower radiation. The problem is expense. These use graphite and molten salt for cooling. These and Gen V (onlt theoretical) are probably the only real alternative to fossile fuels which have a finite supply.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
fusong View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fusong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 20:52
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 
We have natural gas for 200 years

Oh please..... cooperate programming brought right into this forum... seesh!
Actually that is truly speculative and it is actually supposedly "100 years" instead of two.
But that is pecking at details Sleepy

take a look at this buddy
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html

How you can you just predict a century or even a quarter of century at exponential growth levels in a world of seven billion people?

Need I refrain on how impartial the so called "research was" on discovering centuries of natural gas by "fracking"
This is going to cause ecological disaster and simply hasten decline.

When I mentioned our natural gas resources it had nothing to do with fracking. We already have natural gas aplenty.


The point is the claim that there are just two centuries of natural gas for the world is at our feet is plain speculative and out rightly ridiculous
Every ideology has a kernel of truth and sea of whitewash.
Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 21:04
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Fracking will replace most everything. Hydrogen is much cleaner but there's little profit in it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. At the moment corn is being used in this country as a fuel. It has doubled the price of corn in just a few short years, not to mention what will happen to the price when the effects of this years drought kicks in.


Fracking was legalized in my state sadly because a liberal legislator got confused and voted for the wrong side in the middle of the night.

Fracking screws up the water in the soil it messes with bottom line, if Fracking replaces everything we are going to have all kinds of ecological catastrophes

Personally I think peak oil is going to have it's toll on the whole world in a few years because there is not enough action by the goverment and people of the most important nations. 

There have been problems with fracking, however given the prize it's nothing that can't be overcome. Oil is going nowhere in the near future. Its been said the US will be exporting oil in about 10 years due to fracking. We have natural gas for 200 years, but you can't run a semi and trailer on it, nor windmills, solar or battery power. The Nuclear option is viable for power and such, but it appears some countries have spoiled it for a future resource. There is no magic bullet. Windmills and solar can make excellent supplements to the power grid, but that is all. A country like Brazil can run on ethanol, in fact cane field factories are powered with the residue after the canes have been processed for the sugar. What would work is doing the same with switch grass, but that is proving a hard nut to crack.
We may have natural gas for 200 years, but that means, in 200 years, it will be gone. Fracking should not be allowed at all. There are towns with the main resource is coal, or fracking, but look at eastern Kentucky, you can light the water that comes out of their fawcets on fire with a match. The same with towns throughout the world that use fracking. Would you rather have healthy water or electricity?
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 21:10
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

I sincerely hope sir, that this really frosts your ass.
 
No - it doesn't frost my ass at all, but I can can assure you, that the long line of similar insults and degorative remarks you have produced to most people on this forum, will get your ass kicked pretty soon.
 
Even without my help.
 
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.