Our <INSERT> Crisis

[Skeletor]

For those who DON'T believe that OPEC is manipulating oil prices and that there's plenty of cheap oil in the world...

I was just thinking recently how ridiculous it is that we're (America) focusing so much on issues like health care, the economy, etc. In other words, the hot Obama issues. We're waiting for Obama and the rest of congress to pass or reject whatever that's "hot." We think that passing health care, pouring money into the economy or some other solution by the current administration is going to save us from the current mess we're in domestically and globally.

I say we're focusing too much on things that aren't that important compared to the issue of energy. I've been thinking, for a long while now, that we need to seriously focus on one thing. We need to focus on solving our energy crisis. Energy is the source of human survival and what sustains our technological modern civilization. Right now, fossil fuels are responsible not just for running our cars, but electricity, plastic products, and almost everything in our homes are petroleum products. Unfortunately, since we are running our of access to cheap fossil fuels, this has a harmful effect on everyone in Earth.

Shouldn't we be pouring billions of dollars into R&D for fusion power? Fusion power will undoubtedly be a huge step in solving our energy crisis. We need a Manhattan like effort in developing fusion power and that means alot of funding for fusion power R&D.

We need to solve our <energy> crisis.

What is a crisis you think needs to be solved ASAP, something that affects our survival?

[AveryMaurice]

Skeletor said:

What is a crisis you think needs to be solved ASAP, something that affects our survival?

Alternative means of transportation. We need vehicles that dont run on gas, such as electric cars, which down the line still run on a non renewable resource.

But then again, there are thousands of issues that need to be solved ASAP, so you can take your pick.

[TheDarkArchon]

avery1555 said:

so you can take your pick.

I pick Final Crisis since I personally would rather not be destroyed by the Anti-Life Equation

[Creaphis]

Fusion? Meh. After two hundred years of flying cars and toaster ovens have used up all the deuterium in the ocean, then what?

[Kelzam]

I love the amount of people out there who expected Obama to wave a magic wand when he stepped into office that would fix everything in an instant. "Hot issues"? Spare me. Just because he isn't focused on one of the hundreds of very important issues, because he's not an all-intelligent omnipotent being capable of solving all the worlds' crises at once, doesn't mean he isn't aware of energy issues. What are you doing for the environment and energy crisis? Are you driving a fossil-fuel powered car? Do you use solar panels? Why aren't you President and getting things done?

[Skeletor]

TheDarkArchon said:

I pick Final Crisis since I personally would rather not be destroyed by the Anti-Life Equation

Darkseid, that bastard.

[Skeletor]

Creaphis said:

Fusion? Meh. After two hundred years of flying cars and toaster ovens have used up all the deuterium in the ocean, then what?

Good point. There's the moon but...after the moon...

[NiGHTMARE]

There's growing interest in a "new" type of fossil fuel, namely methane crystals. Previously they were too expensive to harvest compared to gas, coal, and oil, but with supplies of those dwindling they're being looked at in a new light.

Apparently there's enough methane crystals out there to last the human race for several hundred years.

Of course, the major downside to them is that, just like other fossil fuels, they cause pollution.

[Sharessa]

They can get the methane crystals from my ass.

Also what avery and Xenphire said.

[Maes]

There are also very large coal reserves, which can be readily used in many existing coal power plants.

I recently attended a national petroleum congress (aimed at engineers) where an outline of the future of energy resources was also presented. In that outline, oil had a steady first place for at least the next 50 years to come (although at increased extraction costs), all energy resources increased in absolute quantity consumption, while the percentage of each in the total worldwide usage of energy resources remained pretty much constant.

In any case, the quick and dirty solution for building a reasonably powered primary power plant from scratch is building coal, gas or oil operated plants.

Solar, wind, hydroelectric etc. are not primary power plants, because their generators cannot be guaranteed to operate 24/7 and at the required frequency/power level to keep the distribution net "charged". These types of power plants/generators need to "ride" on an existing net and are coupled with special power electronics and buffering stacks of accumulators (batteries).

If electric vehicles increase in number, then the number of dedicated power plants will have to increase too (and will probably be coal or nuclear).

[myk]

Living organisms are semi-autonomous and respond to concrete stimuli. They don't solve "crises" that are in a speculative or potential state.

Social justice (pertaining to social rights and equality) is more relevant than any other issue, as without it, you cannot obtain the consensus to solve anything.

[Technician]

Myk's social collective agenda always finds it's way into any topic.

[myk]

You might want to work more on your apostrophe usage and less on the snide remarks department.

PS: Ironically, this is quite on topic for my so-called agenda.

[kristus]

There's actually work being done on creating fusion. And they are a fair bit on the way to make something of it. But currently it's energy output isn't greater than the energy input.

Another experiment being conducted on clean energy is solar power in space. Solar power is deluted by the atmosphere. So there's people looking into putting solar panels in space then "beaming" the energy down to earth using microwaves. And again. They have had some promising progress on that. They've managed to send energy 100km through the atmosphere through a microwave beam. Which is the necessary distance to break through the earth's atmosphere and reach the ground.

[fraggle]

I don't see useful fusion power plants being used for at least another 50 years. ITER and NIF are the best efforts at the moment; they've both cost an absolute bomb and have yet to successfully produce power. When they do, they'll both make less energy than existing fission reactors. In summary, we need to make fusion power (1) work, (2) cheaper, (3) useful.

Not that it isn't a worthwhile effort, of course. If we can get working fusion power, that will be great. For the time being, though, the best option is existing fission plants, and lots of them. The technology is mature, mostly safe and cleaner than any of the other alternatives.

I also wonder if solar power could one day become much more useful. I remember reading a while back that if we covered the Sahara or the American desert in enough solar panels, it would generate enough energy to run the entire planet. Again, I suppose the technology would need to become cheaper and more efficient before we could do something like that, though.

[Maes]

fraggle said:

I remember reading a while back that if we covered the Sahara or the American desert in enough solar panels, it would generate enough energy to run the entire planet. Again, I suppose the technology would need to become cheaper and more efficient before we could do something like that, though.

Before pressing energy demands, any sensible contractor would choose to fill said deserts with nuclear or coal power plants, which can begin producing large amounts of energy much quicker, with a mature and well-understood technology.

[Creaphis]

NiGHTMARE said:

Apparently there's enough methane crystals out there to last the human race for several hundred years.

Of course, the major downside to them is that, just like other fossil fuels, they cause pollution.

Right. We've known about a layer of methane crystals covering the ocean beds for at least a century. The problem is we can't harvest it without ruining the oceans.

[Nomad]

The problem with coal is that it requires loads and loads and loads of coal to operate a coal power plant every single day.

People need to quit worrying about what happened at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and start investing more in fission power plants for the time being, at least. Fission is clean energy, and only requires a minuscule amount of material for daily operation (as I understand, a piece of plutonium about the size of your thumb to the first knuckle is all that's needed for about a day's worth of power generation). It may or may not be the end-all solution for our energy crisis, but it would be a wise move to utilize it in the mean time.

The only reason why I can think we haven't put more time and effort into it is because everyone is scared of a catastrophic meltdown, but our lessons have been learned since said incidents and safety protocol has been more or less perfected. All currently operating fission plants have been operating for quite a while without major incident as far as I know.

Well, and there's the removal of the nuclear waste, but I'm sure some day we'll come up with a good solution. I say we just shoot it into the sun.

[Abyssalstudios1]

Skeletor said:

Good point. There's the moon but...after the moon...

Asteroids! They're only the size of a small desk, shouldn't be too much of a problem!

[Ninjalah]

Nomad said:

Well, and there's the removal of the nuclear waste, but I'm sure some day we'll come up with a good solution. I say we just shoot it into the sun.

Why shoot it into the sun when we can attach rockets onto it and shoot it into the nearest black hole, or just towards the black hole? I wouldn't risk going near the sun, have you seen Sephiroths 3 minute long attack? There could be as many as 3 casualties!

[Aliotroph?]

Shoot it into the sun? Are you mad??? That would burn a nasty amount of fuel in an effort that would just kill potential fuel for us. If it's radioactive it's potential fuel for something.

[Nomad]

Do they teach you the meaning of the word "facetious" in Canada, Alio?

[AndrewB]

Nomad said:

The only reason why I can think we haven't put more time and effort into it is because everyone is scared of a catastrophic meltdown,

The main concern I've heard is regarding the safety of mining the uranium and the resulting negative health effects to the communities near the mining sites / nuclear plants. It's a highly radioactive substance, after all, even in its raw form. Cancer rates for people living in these areas are said (I don't know this for a fact) to be higher than normal, but it doesn't get much attention. There's a theory for why it doesn't get much attention. Someone once said something to the effect "Nuclear radiation doesn't cause the bodies of hundreds of people wash up on shore."

[Super Jamie]

Maes said:

Solar, wind, hydroelectric etc... types of power plants/generators need to "ride" on an existing net and are coupled with special power electronics and buffering stacks of accumulators (batteries).

This is very true. Most power grids are designed to cope with a steady unidirectional flow of power, and cannot handle the up-and-down to-and-fro that is intrinsic to powered-by-nature plants.

As for the rest, I am of the strong belief that alternative energy sources have been found, and shushed up by those in power of supplying the current energy supply (read: oil companies). Look at how strongly they fought to have CA's Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate removed, and to discourage acceptance of electric-only motor vehicles. Every now and then you hear rumors of people who've built a car that can run on water, and they either keep quiet about it or are made to keep quiet.

When you think about it, it makes sense. Imagine the economic turmoil that would happen if everyone woke up one day and we just plain didn't need oil anymore. That's a massive industry just gone, millions of people would be out of jobs! It would domino into other industries and make the current "GFC" look like a walk in the park.

As philanthropic as natural power sources are, our society is not designed to just switch off one source overnight. Acceptance is controlled (by greed and misinformation) and integration slow and gradual. Probably too slow. We have a long way to go before we live sustainably and for the betterment of the human collective like on Star Trek :P Until then, capitalism is king.

[Technician]

Nomad said:

The problem with coal is that it requires loads and loads and loads of coal to operate a coal power plant every single day.

I will definitely agree with you one this. Power plants in China for instance burn coal as fast as it comes in. I'd like to see the eventual phasing out of coal and oil as a power source then the need to adapt our vehicles to alternative fuel source.

I can also agree with the ignorance of nuclear power. Older generations like my father see nuclear power plants as something right out of the Simpsons.

I remember a couple of summers ago I would see truck after truck carrying blades and turbines for gigantic windmills up north. Sadly I never heard any follow up on their progress.

[Reisal]

Yes, we definitely should invest more R&D for fusion power. When that becomes widespread in major first world countries, the Middle East (esp. Saudi Arabia) will start crying because their oil is worth much less than it does when fusion comes around.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Nomad said:

The only reason why I can think we haven't put more time and effort into it is because everyone is scared of the oil companies and their puppet governments

fix'd

Mr. Chris said:

Yes, we definitely should invest more R&D for fusion power. When that becomes widespread in major first world countries, the Middle East (esp. Saudi Arabia) will start crying because their oil is worth much less than it does when fusion comes around.

Won't be allowed to happen.

Super Jamie said:

As for the rest, I am of the strong belief that alternative energy sources have been found, and shushed up by those in power of supplying the current energy supply (read: oil companies). Look at how strongly they fought to have CA's Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate removed, and to discourage acceptance of electric-only motor vehicles. Every now and then you hear rumors of people who've built a car that can run on water, and they either keep quiet about it or are made to keep quiet.

This also applies to fuel-efficient vehicles. The technology is there to make cars with mpg's in three (or even four) figures, but no prizes for guessing who holds all the patents and who shuts down any attempt by others to make one.

Total Recall sums it up...why turn on the source of (effectively) limitless air (energy in this case) when you'll lose control of the people for doing so?

[myk]

Nomad said:
People need to quit worrying about what happened at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and start investing more in fission power plants for the time being, at least.

It's one thing to have a smaller number of nuclear power plants in richer countries and another to have them spread all over the world. If you eventually get some sort of economic crisis and the mass of power plants become partially neglected, you could well have something much worse than one Chernobyl.

Besides, nuclear reactors would reduce thermal and fossil fuel power stations, which are just complementing hydroelectric energy. Oil is still going to power vehicles unless we're thinking of a billion nuclear powered cars, and coal may be inefficient, but it's easy to apply to small and medium scale industry.

The irony is that westerners that are concerned at the "energy crisis" and eye the OPEC and China with suspicion (note the political implications already) would just switch to being concerned about the nuclear threat, both as a weapon and as an environmental hazard, if nuclear power really became more available and widespread.

[Nomad]

Actually, I'm convinced that compressed air powered vehicles are the way to go. There is a French line of vehicles that use such a system, with an auxiliary gas powered air compressor that puts its potential "mpg" into the four figures. The technology is incredibly affordable, and doesn't require those mega expensive batteries that electric cars require.

[Super Jamie]

myk said:

It's one thing to have a smaller number of nuclear power plants in richer countries and another to have them spread all over the world. If you eventually get some sort of economic crisis and the mass of power plants become partially neglected, you could well have something much worse than one Chernobyl.

This is already the case in America. The companies that built and ran US nuclear plants (16 of which have since been decommissioned) did not put aside enough money or haven't had enough money in the last few years to dismantle the plants as originally intended. It's essentially just dead land.

Chernobyl is a complete farce. The existing sarcophagus is crumbling to pieces, the government body in charge of the area put a tender out to create a new sarcophagus by 2001 - one large enough to enclose the existing structure with enough room to bring in cranes and dismantle the plant for good - which was estimated to cost the equivalent of US$4.4bn. All tenders have since been scrapped and the structure remains a global health hazard.

At the time the tenders were scrapped, the US war in Iraq had cost about US$444bn. The war in Afghanistan is currently running at about half that cost.