PDA

View Full Version : The end of fossil fuels



nic34
04-28-2014, 08:58 AM
The 21st century is the transition period that is the beginning of the end to fossil fuel as the dominant energy source. however keep in mind that it won't stop some at trying to make huge profits and make you think alternatives won't work.

https://joinmosaic.com/blog/end-fossil-fuels/


https://s3.amazonaws.com/mosaic-landing/World_US_RPS_3_1250w.jpg

Cthulhu
04-28-2014, 09:11 AM
I don't buy it.

Particularly the Iceland claim. Base load power? Sure.

...but they still drive cars there. And I'm pretty sure they don't all run off of geothermal power.

Green Arrow
04-28-2014, 09:21 AM
Not sure how accurate this is. Pure observation would indicate that we are still a long way off. Cars that don't run on gas are far more expensive than cars that do, and in our flailing economy, the vast majority of Americans will not give up a perfectly good gas car for a very expensive non-gas car.

Chris
04-28-2014, 09:23 AM
however keep in mind that it won't stop some at trying to make huge profits and make you think alternatives won't work.

Given that a transition to alternative fuels will be expensive, don't profits to pay for it make sense?

Cthulhu
04-28-2014, 09:24 AM
Not sure how accurate this is. Pure observation would indicate that we are still a long way off. Cars that don't run on gas are far more expensive than cars that do, and in our flailing economy, the vast majority of Americans will not give up a perfectly good gas car for a very expensive non-gas car.

Exactly. Cost/benefit ratio is still not their. Hybrids still have a great deal of ground to cover before they are mainstream and popular.

That is not even accounting the infrastructure rebuilding that would be needed for some of the other options out there.

That is why I'm such a choir boy for algae. Renewable, effective, multiple uses, no need for infrastructure changes either. They just gotta figure out how to make it cheaper is all.

Green Arrow
04-28-2014, 09:25 AM
Exactly. Cost/benefit ratio is still not their. Hybrids still have a great deal of ground to cover before they are mainstream and popular.

That is not even accounting the infrastructure rebuilding that would be needed for some of the other options out there.

That is why I'm such a choir boy for algae. Renewable, effective, multiple uses, no need for infrastructure changes either. They just gotta figure out how to make it cheaper is all.

I like nuclear, myself. Not sure you can get any greener or more renewable.

Cthulhu
04-28-2014, 09:28 AM
I like nuclear, myself. Not sure you can get any greener or more renewable.

Electricity generation you are spot on. Especially with the newer thorium isotope reactors and the pebble bed reactors.

But of course, the econazis try to block any reactor being built. All they do is scream "Chernobyl is coming!! Chernobyl is coming!!" so nothing ever can get done.

Nuclear power is the best option, always has been.

nic34
04-28-2014, 09:30 AM
I like nuclear, myself. Not sure you can get any greener or more renewable.

Yes, fusion. Fission has the dirtiest and most dangerous waste.

Pretty sure the op is about energy generation, not about personal transportation.

Green Arrow
04-28-2014, 09:31 AM
Yes, fusion. Fission has the dirtiest and most dangerous waste.

Pretty sure the op is about energy generation, not about personal transportation.

You can't end fossil fuels without addressing transportation, and there are ways to cleanly dispose of nuclear waste.

countryboy
04-28-2014, 09:34 AM
Yes, fusion. Fission has the dirtiest and most dangerous waste.

Pretty sure the op is about energy generation, not about personal transportation.
How many fusion reactors exist today? Answer, none. Fusion is not even a reality, let alone a viable alternative energy source. Unicorn farts are more of a realistic alternative energy source than fusion.

Cthulhu
04-28-2014, 09:36 AM
Yes, fusion. Fission has the dirtiest and most dangerous waste.

Fusion is a pipe dream. Although recently they did actually do a fusion reaction that created more energy than was put into it - on a near microscopic level.

Fission is actually the greenest form of energy other than chopping down tree and growing a new one in its place.

It's waste is only a problem if handled incorrectly. And on top of that, with modern nuclear tech we can actually recycle the waste for additional energy. And as Green Arrow said, there are ways to dispose of it safely.



Pretty sure the op is about energy generation, not about personal transportation.

Do cars use energy? The OP was vague was the problem.

countryboy
04-28-2014, 09:52 AM
Fusion is a pipe dream. Although recently they did actually do a fusion reaction that created more energy than was put into it - on a near microscopic level.

Fission is actually the greenest form of energy other than chopping down tree and growing a new one in its place.

It's waste is only a problem if handled incorrectly. And on top of that, with modern nuclear tech we can actually recycle the waste for additional energy. And as Green Arrow said, there are ways to dispose of it safely.



Do cars use energy? The OP was vague was the problem.
Yes, fusion is right up there with perpetual motion machines. :rolleyes:

I think nuclear energy can be safe, the problem is it has not had a great track record, and even one major mistake can and does create disaster. After Fukushima, I have great trepidation about the future of nuclear energy.

Green Arrow
04-28-2014, 09:55 AM
Yes, fusion is right up there with perpetual motion machines. :rolleyes:

I think nuclear energy can be safe, the problem is it has not had a great track record, and even one major mistake can and does create disaster. After Fukushima, I have great trepidation about the future of nuclear energy.

I think if we examine these disasters in context, they really don't happen often. In the history of nuclear energy, how many disasters in how many years?

countryboy
04-28-2014, 10:00 AM
I think if we examine these disasters in context, they really don't happen often. In the history of nuclear energy, how many disasters in how many years?
That's my point, it only takes one major meltdown, and the effects are essentially felt forever. What will the long term effects of Fukushima be? The West coast is already being irradiated as we speak. What will that do to cancer rates?

Green Arrow
04-28-2014, 10:03 AM
That's my point, it only takes one major meltdown, and the effects are essentially felt forever. What will the long term effects of Fukushima be? The West coast is already being irradiated as we speak. What will that do to cancer rates?

It won't be clear for a few years at least.

countryboy
04-28-2014, 10:05 AM
It won't be clear for a few years at least.
Yep, but I guarantee the effects won't be good. The only question is, how bad will they be?

Green Arrow
04-28-2014, 10:06 AM
Yep, but I guarantee the effects won't be good. The only question is, how bad will they be?

Probably not as bad as people think, but still bad.

nic34
04-28-2014, 10:14 AM
Yep, but I guarantee the effects won't be good. The only question is, how bad will they be?

What a great clean fuel.

sheeesh....

Heyduke
05-13-2014, 12:14 AM
Electricity generation you are spot on. Especially with the newer thorium isotope reactors and the pebble bed reactors.

But of course, the econazis try to block any reactor being built. Nuclear power is the best option, always has been.

Well, then, include me among the econazis, because I would definately work to stop the installation of another nuke plant out west.

Hilltop removal (among other obnoxious mining tactics) and federal seizures of land in order to get their hands on the uranium makes nuclear power highly unattractive.

No private insurance company in the world will insure a nuke plant. They have to have insurance to legally operate. Consequently, every nuke plant has government insurance. When they have a problem, the public pays for it in taxes.

In order to have the physical and strategic framework in place to have things like plutonium transportion going on; nuclear waste transported and disposed of; monitering of plants for possible hazards, etc., you need a national strategy and a gigantic beaurocracy. Of all the various energy choices, nuclear power is exceedingly the most reliant on a big bloated federal government. And riding piggy back on that is inevitably corruption and waste.

Nuclear power is, in my opinion, the most moronic choice for the future. Did I mention that it's expensive?(most cost assesments don't include the cost of waste disposal and other incidentals). Essentially, a nuke plant is just boiling water to spin a turbine. There are saner ways of boiling water to spin a turbine.

In tactical warfare, your nuke plants are targets. Your nukes get bombed, and suddenly you're glowing in the dark :undecided:.

And just in case that zombie apocalypse does occur (or if there were a widespread breakdown of society in a nuclear country), who is now managing the plant?

Heyduke
05-13-2014, 12:33 AM
The future of power should be with onsite personal energy independence systems.

What I see happening is an attempt by the power brokers to go toward more alternatives, but also ensure that everyone will always and forever get a monthly electric bill. Alot of solar installations now are so tied in with the grid (with no onsite storage) that your power goes off along with everyone else's during an outage.

What excites me about alternative energy is its ability to empower individuals. You make and store your own power. That kicks ass. And, you can start small. Buy a few panels and a few batteries, an inverter and BAM!, your kitchen lights and fans are running on power that you farmed. Kick ass!

Build a wide rectangular black box on your roof and pipe coils of water through it. Plumb that to your conventional water heater and BAM!, your conventional water heater doesn't have to do jack shit in the summer, and it works much less in the winter.

Get one of these personal wind turbines for $500;
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/a-personal-wind-turbine-for-500-the-air-x.html
Hook that bad rider to your PV system. It kicks out 400 watts during a 28 mph wind. And that's exactly what you're thinking, too, when you hear the wind blowing outside. You think about how much ass you're kicking while you break out the blender and crank up the stereo speakers.