Jump to content


Photo

Peak Oil~Rising Gas Prices~The Future of The World


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 ☆haNEUL☆

☆haNEUL☆

    mmm... BoA's cute

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:47 PM

*
POPULAR

No. Hydrogen cars won't be likely to replace our gas engines in the next 10 years. Look at hydrogen itself. It can react with other elements easily. On Earth, it is very rare to find pure oxygen. So how do you seperate hydrogen from a compound so that you can find pure hydrogen? Well, it's electrosis. Electrosis needs electricity. So where do you find electricity? We're back at fossil fuels. See, we will still need fossil fuels.


You can make electricity without fossil fuels... like hydroelectricity. Water is reusable.

There's oil (I don't know if it's crude or what...) in a lot of places, other than New Orleans - which, as a Houstonian. is the greatest problem for me - and the Middle East. There's estimated to be ...a lot... up in Canada and everything, but it's not in the correct form or whatever that the oil is that we get from the oceans. But it's possible to use the oil we can find there, but convert it, or something.

Clearly I only have the vaguest idea of what I'm talking about. But I just thought I'd throw that in there anyway.

#17 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:56 PM

You can make electricity without fossil fuels... like hydroelectricity. Water is reusable.

There's oil (I don't know if it's crude or what...) in a lot of places, other than New Orleans - which, as a Houstonian. is the greatest problem for me - and the Middle East. There's estimated to be ...a lot... up in Canada and everything, but it's not in the correct form or whatever that the oil is that we get from the oceans. But it's possible to use the oil we can find there, but convert it, or something.

Clearly I only have the vaguest idea of what I'm talking about. But I just thought I'd throw that in there anyway.



True about producing electricity from hydro. But hydroelectricity only produces 5% of total energy production. You're telling me that 5% can replace all of our gas engines with fuel cells?

There are 2 reasons why hydro power can't be mass produced. Not everywhere has a waterfall and they will cause flooding all over the place. Thus, we will never be able to power fuel cells from hydro power.

About oil in Canada. Most oil are produced in Alberta. I live in Canada so I know this.

Edit: It depends on where you live. But for sure hydroelectricity can't power fuel cells in the U.S.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 20 September 2005 - 12:22 PM.


#18 Yajimari21

Yajimari21

    <*(~Second to The Moon Queen~)*>

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts

Posted 20 September 2005 - 10:14 AM

Oil shale (nonconcentional oil resources) are what you are talking about...

Oh and in Sweden 60% of electricity is hydroelectric :notworthy:, I think its even more in Norway (like 70-80%) and like 30% of Sweden's electricity is nuclear.

#19 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 12:58 PM

my suggestion: sent these waste in capsules into the deep space,preferring to sent it near the sun(cause unless a supermaterial is found, no space shuttler/lifeforms will be near it


What you forgot to say is, how scientists have figured out a way to launch these wastes cheaply.

http://www.thespacer...m/article/437/1

Laser launch systems could provide low-cost space access and also resolve the growing problem of nuclear waste. (credit: LLNL)


This is not a good idea because the problem is, it's not proven that it will work. There are two disadvantages:

1)

The major problem would be if the laser failed before the capsule reached escape velocity. Because the capsule will be bullet-shaped, its ballistic characteristics are well known. Thus, if a launch failure occurred, the capsule would land only in known recovery zones. Launch trajectories would be designed to avoid populated areas.


2)

The capsule itself must protect its radioactive cargo not only from the demands of a normal launch with its severe atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loading, but also from potential accidents ranging from reentry into the atmosphere to a seriously flawed launch that would send the capsule into the high pressures of the ocean’s depths or into land.


Also, why use this idea when you can just bury nuclear waste and let the radiactivity die away naturally? It takes a long time but who cares? Nothing will go wrong and it's not a race to see which country is the fastest to exterminate nuclear waste.

Plus, it's not your suggestion. You didn't think up of this idea.

Thanks for emphasizing the potential for wave and solar energy but it seems like all you posted down were the advantages. Have you ever thought of the disadvantages? Read post #12 for the disadvantages.

Finally, thanks for agreeing that nuclear power is the most likely way to go when oil peaks. Uranium for nuclear fission is not renewable but hydrogen for nuclear fusion is renewable. We know that creating pure hydrogen is difficult, however, we can use the energy created from nuclear fusion to create more pure hydrogen. Problem solved. It's also very safe. For those that don't know, nuclear fusion is the same type of method the sun uses to create energy. That's good because most of the Earth's energy comes from the Sun. This means that we won't need to rely on the sun anymore if nuclear fusion on Earth will be possible.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 23 September 2005 - 02:29 PM.


#20 dictatormax84

dictatormax84

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:47 AM

legendsofaranna:

What you forgot to say is, how scientists have figured out a way to launch these wastes cheaply



why should people launch these waste cheaply?
saving is good, but people had been sending satellites into space every now and then remember so it will be surely affordable.
anyway, the capsules can drift out into the space , space shuttlers had been using sling effect of planatery's orbits.
the thing is to send these capsules/space rockets into the space, they can then drift slowly... once out in space, whether they explode or not is none of our business cause even if anyone argue about radiation from the radioactive material, i will point to cosmic rays, cosmic radiation that had already existed in the deep space.

nuclear(uranium and plutonium) thou could run out, but the energy yield is so great that you need not have a lot of these materials to provide the world with sufficient energy.


http://www.world-nuc...flyer/index.htm
(i suggest the pdf as jpg format is too large as a page.)

i suggest reading the following:
http://www.world-nuc...g/info/info.htm

go and read on the <Radioactive Wastes > section. it will tell about the handling of waste material.
by the way, the spent fuel can still be recycled!!! so by mutiplier effect, nuclear is the way to go.

Plus, it's not your suggestion. You didn't think up of this idea.

to sent it near the sun

anyway, my suggestion include the above, it is unique(unless you can say someone said/suggest it) so it is my idea. and also i provide the reason for it.

(cause unless a supermaterial is found, no space shuttler/lifeforms will be near it



#21 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 04:19 PM

nuclear(uranium and plutonium) thou could run out


So what happens when we eventually run out of uranium and plutonium? We don't have anymore nuclear fission energy to run the economy.

" the world's supply of uranium may run out even before the oil does, according to Goodstein."

http://www.alternet.org/story/18421

Actually, there probably isn't enough oil to last our generation


Very true. The oil crisis will happen before 2050. That, I am very sure. It took a century to use half of all oil on Earth. Earth is the only planet with oil. Other planets don't have oil because other planets don't have any lifeforms. There is no evidence there is lifeforms of any kind.

Although I said nuclear fusion will be possible, I fear it won't be available for large-scale production. It takes too much money and time. I belive it will take a least more than 50 years for that. The reason of this is, I read an article somewhere that indicated this. I forgot the source.

Also, the problem with nuclear fusion or any other renewable source of energy is that it won't provide the products of oil. Those products are listed on the first post of this thread.

A transition will be needed from a oil-fueled economy to a non-oil-fueled economy. In this transition, society will go out of order. I believe many people will be starved. I also believe a World War Three could happen because of our dependence of oil for its products.

Chances are, we will go back to the medieval age. A medieval age will renewable sources of energy only. All those products made from oil will be gone. Money will not be produced. Why? Ink used to print money are made from oil. Without oil, it's impossible to produce money. I think we will need to use gold again for money. The world population will eventually settle down to 2 billion because of lack of fertilizers and pesticides for our foods.

World civilization will not end. The egyptians and aztecs lived perfectedly without oil. But we end up living in a world with less technology. We live in a world where we grow our own food. A world where we provide our own security. A world where we provide our own energy from using wind, solar or wave energy.

The oil crisis is very sad. It will happen. Alternative energies will not solve the problem.

Yajimari21, thank you for bringing this topic up. You have raise awareness especially to me. I never knew the oil crisis will have such a immense impact on the world. Awareness is important for preparedness which leads to survival. This is the best thread on the whole forum. Again, thank you.

The reason I replied so late is because I educated myself on the oil crisis in the last month. I know everything about the oil crisis right now. It's really not as simple as you think. I once thought it was.

Edit: These are some of the products oil produce:

Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper


See how many products oil produce? Imagine living without them. Welcome to the non-oil dependent world.

I see no solution to the oil crisis right now. All I have to say is this. You are living in a world, in a developed country, that has the highest standard of living in human history. Be proud of it. That standard of living will be GONE soon. Want proof? Here it is:

The Olduvai Theory:
Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age
http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

Go to "Figure 1. The Olduvai Theory of Industrial Civilization." Look at the graph.

This is the timeline for the future. It is highly likely each of these events will happen within that time period. Time is running out.

http://deconsumption...round_for_.html

My opinion for a World War Three to happen was from that timeline.

A timeline for past events of peak oil:

http://www.postcarbo...formed/timeline

Even worse is that "Energy Doomsday Could Strike in Coming Decade".

http://www.surviving...Energy_Doomsday

Lastly, if you want to survivive the oil crash, read:

http://www.surviving...l.com/index.php

These are some articles by Matthew R. Simmons, Bush's energy advisor:

http://www.simmonsco...Type=msspeeches

"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America," said Bush in May 2001. "We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply." He added, "We can't conserve our way to energy independence."


Bush said that right on the newspaper. Right in front of the public.

http://www.reason.co.../rb072104.shtml

Here is a look at how much oil we need to discover to keep up with our needs:

Posted Image

This illustrates the depletion of all hydrocarbons:

Posted Image

If you want to discuss about peak oil on a bigger forum, go here:

http://www.peakoil.com/forums.html

I hope it's really not the end of civilization. Unfortunately, that's impossible. I used up one WHOLE month trying to look up and research on the internet for a solution to peak oil. NO luck.

If you want to talk about the issue of oil peak in your area, click here:

http://www.postcarbo...sources/meetups

Learn more about peak oil and how you can make the community around you aware of peak oil.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 04 December 2005 - 09:07 AM.


#22 dictatormax84

dictatormax84

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 20 November 2005 - 09:56 AM

legendsofaranna, my statement of

"my suggestion: sent these waste in capsules into the deep space,preferring to sent it near the sun(cause unless a supermaterial is found, no space shuttler/lifeforms will be near it"

since you had shown that it was mentioned before,

it will now be:

"open suggestion: sent these waste in capsules into the deep space,preferring to sent it near the sun(cause unless a supermaterial is found, no space shuttler/lifeforms will be near it"

by the time uranium and plutonium runs out, other energy sources will be in full productions....hopely as time will tell. e.g the nuclear fusion plants that you mentioned in some posts ago will be in full force....

this topic is hard to understand(impacts and such), so i guess it's been tough and boring to trawl through tne net for info.(i also did). congrats that at least another person understand the energy problem. hurrah.


:D

#23 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 20 November 2005 - 01:31 PM

his topic is hard to understand(impacts and such)


Ok. My post was probably too long and too complex. I'll make this simple.

by the time uranium and plutonium runs out, other energy sources will be in full productions


That is not true plus there is no evidence that is the case at all. I completely disagree.

World prodution will peak 2010 to 2015.


Source: http://www.oildeplet...roger/index.htm

If we only have 10 years left, how can we actually develop something that could replace oil or oil's by-products as listed above?

It is possible to shift a modern economy off hydrocarbon dependency, though a combination of conservation technologies, renewables, changes in patterns of logistics, and other measures. However it has been calculated that a change of this magnitude requires long-term planning and incremental application over a period of some half century.


Source: http://www.oildeplet...s/solutions.htm

Nuclear fusion is still not available, after 40 years’ research and billions of dollars invested.


Source: http://www.postcarbo...rt.Original.doc

That's exactly why nuclear fusion or any other alternatives won't solve the oil crisis.

Did that make my posts simpler? You may also want to read the links as it's there as evidence.

Something a little off-topic: Oil companies and the government doesn't want the public to know about peak oil. They knew this for 50 years that oil would peak. That's exactly why raising awareness and educating the public about this issue is so important. It's the only way to minimize the impact of the oil crisis. Once you go past the cliff, it's going to be too late.

In forums, I see so many people writing posts about how alternative energy can solve peak oil when it can't. It's just evidence of how much the public doesn't know about this.

Instead of debating about the oil crisis, we should be preparing on how to face the oil crisis. We should start to learn how to grow our own food, make our own clothes, filter own own water, build our own shelter, or learn anything that can make us survive the oil crisis. Once the oil crisis hits next decade, all electronic information will be lost and books and paper that are acid-based will be gone a century later. Basically, almost all information we now have will be gone. It's advantageous to prepare and learn right now before it's too late. You want to survive the oil crisis right? Fact: World poluation will decrease to 2 billion once the oil crisis hits excluding the deaths of a possible WW3.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 20 November 2005 - 01:55 PM.


#24 dictatormax84

dictatormax84

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 21 November 2005 - 04:38 AM

^ legendsofaranna: you misunderstood me.

My post was probably too long and too complex. I'll make this simple.

i did not point at your post at all. what i mean: this topic of oil peak in production is tough to understand... not your post.

latest :

http://www.asria.org...110336860/print

quotes:

"Known as Wilton 10, the pioneering facility is set to become one of the UK's largest biomass renewable energy projects, generating 30 MW of electricity - enough to power around 30,000 homes - once it is operational by mid-2007. "Biomass" refers to renewable plant-derived organic matter - such as dedicated energy crops and trees and wood wastes - used in place of fossil fuels to generate energy or energy-related products. "
"Wilton 10 will generate power and steam from around 300,000 tonnes per annum of wood from specially grown energy crops, as well as wood from conventional forestry, sawmill chips and recycled timber. A portion of the wood will be stored on the site prior to being fed into the boiler in the most combustion efficient way. "
"SembUtilities' new wood to energy approach is in line with the 1997 Kyoto Agreement against global warming, which calls for more energy to be generated from more environmentally friendly renewable sources. In addition, the process at Wilton 10 feeds back into the ecological cycle, as carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere is absorbed by trees during their growth. SembUtilities UK will be submitting an application to the UK Environment Agency for a permit to operate the plant, which has been designed to meet UK and European emissions targets by applying Best Available Technology. "

this is a breakthrough. this prototype will operate within 2-3 years, year 2007.
if it is successful,it will become a important model for biomass-source of energy.

Note: (1) its pollution emissions will be far lower than those of coal.
(2) it will generate 30MW of electricity when running fully functional, able to power 30,000 homes.
(3) of the wood used, 60 per cent will be grown for the purpose, hence renewable. the remaining will be recycled wood.

lastly, the 60 per cent of grown wood(or known as green wood) will be from three sources: fast growing willow trees that can be replaced in three-year cycles , sawmill off cuts and forestry cuttings.
*willow trees are classified as a renewable fuel as it has very short recycling period.

US Department of Energy noted that wood do contains some other pollutants such as sulphur, but less than coal does.


another point to note: the country that i am now living in is Singapore(country of birth), and that Singapore is the largest exporter of refined oil in Asia. the government are very "kiasu" or better known to be "extremely fear of losing in order to suceed" . yet, surprising, there had only been little "noise" about the pending oil crisis. if there is one in near future, the government would have already been panicking as this will affect this nation's finance seriously(as a large exporter of refined oil). but they are very calm over this issue. so with this calm assurance that nothing serious about the oil crisis is about to happen in near time, i will sleep/rest better.

strange thou, it seemed only you( legendsofaranna) and me discussing this lately. things moving slowly... :)

#25 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 21 November 2005 - 01:59 PM

i did not point at your post at all. what i mean: this topic of oil peak in production is tough to understand... not your post.


Oh, I misunderstood. Well, I hope you'll understand this better after we discuss this thoroughly in the following days. Much of this thread is about solutions to peak oil but not peak oil itself. I didn't understand peak oil until I researched it more thoroughly. Everything makes more sense now. Peak oil is really not something you can learn in a day. This is especially true because many people will get confused of exactly when peak oil hits.

It seems like conventional oil has peaked earlier than expected after researching a little bit more. Here is the quote from petroleum experts:

Petroleum experts Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Brian Fleay, Roger Blanchard, Richard Duncan, Walter Youngquist, and Albert Bartlett (using various methodologies) have all estimated a "peak" in "conventional oil" around 2005. Moreover, the CEOs of Agip, ENI SpA, (Italian oil companies) and Arco have all published estimates of peak in 2005. So it seems like a reliable estimate.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) is the second largest bank in Canada and one of the 10 largest in North America with assets of USA $182 billion and a market capitalization of USA $10.5 billion. CIBC relies on Petroconsultants' analysis for its energy research. http://www.cibcwm.com/About/ -- http://research.cibc...wnload/Or28.pdf.

On Sep. 19, 2000, CIBC released a new report that concluded "After rising for 140 years, world oil production is about to peak." http://www.ottawacit...06/4643011.html -- http://research.cibc...oad/Fcsep00.pdf .

Campbell and Blanchard say that Norwegian production (the second largest exporter after Saudi Arabia) is at "peak" now and set to enter long-term decline.

Colombian oil production appears to have peaked in 1999, but one can't be certain for a few years. Colombia obtains most of its oil from a few giant fields, which are now in rapid decline.

Venezuela's oil production has been by influenced world demand, OPEC quotas, and political events. Peak production occurred in 1970 but based upon data from Colin Campbell, the midpoint of EUR was 1998. The mature oil fields in Venezuela have gross decline rates of 20-25%/year. Conventional oil production in Venezuela can be expected to decline in coming years.

Mexico's oil production will probably peak this year or next at the midpoint of depletion.

The latest estimates by country can be found at http://dieoff.com/campbell.htm -- http://dieoff.com/campbell.pdf -- http://dieoff.com/campbell.xls -- http://www.halcyon.com/duncanrc/


http://www.dieoff.com/synopsis.htm

Something to keep in mind once this year ends.

For biomass, crops will not be used for it. Growing crops needs fertilizers in order for it to grow fast enough. Fertilizers are made from ammonia which is unfortunately made from oil. So, we are back at using oil. Keep in mind that in order for biomass to be used for large-scale production, we will need to cut down all trees for farming more crops or as a fuel itself.

The only reason willow trees takes such a short time to grow is because they are short. A willow tree barely reach 6 meters. Most big trees like those in the tropical forest needs thousands of years to grow. Because willow trees provide so little wood, they would need immense amount of land for large-scale production. We don't have that much land thus, willow trees will be useless for large-scale production of energy. Additionally, cutting down the large trees won't work. By further increasing deforestation, we will lose more trees.

If deforestation continues at its current rate, the world's tropical rainforests will be wiped out within 40 years.


http://travel.howstu...rainforest5.htm

In the end, crops and wood for biomass will not work. But, you bring up a good energy source. Biomass is the fourth most efficient source of energy. Nuclear fusion is the most efficient.

Edit: I have one more reason why nuclear fusion won't be here in time.

"US to halt nuclear fusion project"

http://www.energybul...n.net/1281.html

Extra disadvantages of nuclear fusion:

Plasma is the state of matter that is hardest to control. Microwaves, lasers, ion particles, magnetic fields, and ion beams are all needed for nuclear fusion. All of them need energy from somewhere else. That energy is either renewable or non-renewable.

However, a nuclear fusion plant on planet Jupiter will have a higher chance of success due to its mass and gravity. The sun achieves nuclear fusion because of its mass and gravity.

Ok. You can continue this by bringing up more alternatives but I'm just telling you now that I will counter every single one of them. Hint: Their disadvantages are totally hidden from the general public. You might not know some of their disadvantages too. I didn't until I did some research on news articles and alternative energy websites.

Something way off topic: I've been discussing peak oil with others in peak oil forums. It's definately a better place to learn about peak oil than here.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 21 November 2005 - 04:50 PM.


#26 dictatormax84

dictatormax84

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 04:43 PM

firstly, crops can be grown using organic fertilizers like manure and compost.
secondly, these biomass are not suppose to come from any present forest. deforestation will defeat the idea. unarable land can/should be used to plant these trees, thus, maximising land use in the world.
thirdly, wood ash will be returned to these planting grounds as fertilizers. this means a very self dependable energy system. (read on wood ash :http://extension.ore...toryType=garden) wood dust (from wood cutting, better known as wood shavings) are also to return to the planting ground.

>creating usable land should be done quickly, irrigation systems should be used whenever possible.
>gathering of manure(from people and poultry) will be more than enough for our demand of fertilizers. billions of people in the world , let alone the numbers of poultry we have globally...
> nobody can say manure is harmful as it support this world for as long as time is, so it is a proven clean fertilizer.

> even better fast grown trees are created in the future will create a higher yield of energy per hectare as of now; could happen as well. these trees can grow using less fertilizers, are hardy, produce more wood in shortest time from seeding etc; as what happen during "green revolution" when better strains of grains were made to provide the global need of rice. now a new "green revolution" should happen to the trees.


regarding nuclear:

Uranium is widespread in many rocks, and even in seawater. However, like other metals, it is seldom sufficiently concentrated to be economically recoverable. Where it is, we speak of an orebody. In defining what is ore, assumptions are made about the cost of mining and the market price of the metal. Uranium reserves are therefore calculated as tonnes recoverable up to a certain cost.

Australia's reserves are about 25% of the world's total, but Canada is the world's leading producer. Other countries with reserves include Canada, USA, South Africa, Namibia, Brazil and Kazakhstan. China may also have substantial deposits of uranium. Many more countries have smaller deposits which could be mined.

Uranium (chemical symbol U) is slightly more abundant than tin and about 40 times as common as silver. It occurs in most rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 parts per million and is as common in the earth's crust as tin, tungsten and molybdenum. It is also found in the oceans, at an average concentration of 1.3 parts per billion. There are a number of locations in different parts of the world where it occurs in economically-recoverable concentrations. When mined, it yields a mixed uranium oxide product, (U3O8). Uraninite or pitchblende is the most common uranium mineral.


http://www.world-nuc.../info/inf14.htm

more over, "the heat produced by nuclear reactors can also be used directly rather than for generating electricity. In Russia, for example, it is used to heat buildings and elsewhere it provides heat for a variety of industrial processes such as water desalination."
therefore, these clean water, collected from their vaporised state, can be used to irrigate the land! seawater in this case should be used.

read : http://www.world-nuc.../info/inf75.htm
on supply of uranium.
Thorium reactor:
"Today uranium is the only fuel supplied for nuclear reactors. However, thorium can also be utilised as a fuel for CANDU reactors or in reactors specially designed for this purpose. Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-232) atom captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. Some advanced reactor designs are likely to be able to make use of thorium on a substantial scale.

The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, though it is not yet in commercial use. Thorium is about three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium. " read more here: http://www.world-nuc.../info/inf62.htm

and:
"From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth's crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there. "

"There was very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005, so a significant increase in exploration effort could readily double the known economic resources, and a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time."

US can halt their nuclear reactor project if they want, but if more and more countries in the near future adopt nuclear as thier primary source of energy, the peak of oil production will be pushed further into the future, and giving more time for other sources to be more actively used/adopted, pushing peak oil production even more back as we gradually use more other sources of energy. and technological advancements will allow us to get those present-economically unrecoverable oil. faster coal mining technology in near future might just do the trick.(although it is hazardous for coal mining, but coal is abundant.)

#27 BoA_bEsT_eVeR

BoA_bEsT_eVeR

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 06:46 PM

Couldn't we just use solar power? They said solar power can be an alternative and saves alot of money. I'm high on hydrogen though... because it is generally 'safer for the environment' via less carbon dioxide in the air, water, soil.

#28 ( ̄ー ̄)

( ̄ー ̄)

    crazy fangirl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 09:14 PM

Couldn't we just use solar power? They said solar power can be an alternative and saves alot of money. I'm high on hydrogen though... because it is generally 'safer for the environment' via less carbon dioxide in the air, water, soil.


Solar power now is too pricey to mass produce.

#29 BoA_bEsT_eVeR

BoA_bEsT_eVeR

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 09:20 PM

it may be too pricey, but they should develop more solar factories in a pace at least. Make more than before, eventually it may be the mass product when you start earlier and wait later. Solar Power saves money after all, so you may save more than what you spent over time. But of course solar power will be useless when the sun is dead, but we wont be able to see that

#30 ( ̄ー ̄)

( ̄ー ̄)

    crazy fangirl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 10:41 PM

I agree, can't remember if it was in this thread or somewhere else that solar power is seen as the energy of the future.

The problem is that nobody is willing to try for it. They're going to try and milk every last dollar they can out of the oil industry.

edit: i'm talking about people with money~

Edited by Jeffu, 22 November 2005 - 10:42 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users