Poll: Energy

[Timtom77]

The poll really speaks for itself. I have my own opinions on the matter, but I am interested to see what the general (well general for people who post comments on the internet) consensus is amongst others.

If you feel like you want to better explain your opinion you could answer:
-Do you think we will run out of fossil fuels?
-Do you think Global Warming is a problem/exists/is caused by us?
-Do you think we need to change from a fossil fuel based society? Why?
-If yes how and to what?

Wasn't sure if this should go in Religion & Politics or here, hope I chose correctly.

 

[spectrenihlus]

Nuclear energy has been shown to be the most efficient and cleanest way of getting energy. Hopefully we can get away from the stigma associated with this type of energy.

 

[Timtom77]

Nuclear energy has been shown to be the most efficient and cleanest way of getting energy. Hopefully we can get away from the stigma associated with this type of energy.

Sadly the spent nuclear fuel rods need to be placed in refridgerated running pools of water for more than a decade or explode in a cloud of radiation. Nuclear will replace coal until we can find something a little less kersplody

The rods are usually stored in concrete bunkers under/above ground or reprocessed and the waste process from the reprocessing are stored in said bunkers (after being in the spent fuel pools for 5 years). They have to be stored for more than a decade, some of the waste products have long half lives. It is also constantly radiating, no explosion has or will happen because of them. The problem with nuclear is it produces tons of this waste that has to be put somewhere. The concrete bunkers aren't a solution because earthquakes/weathering can break or destroy them and more commonly the waste that's being stored there destroys the bunker over time. This leads to radiative material leaking into the groundwater which then flows out into the environment. Even low concentrations of this stuff can cause serious problems in most lifeforms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste for more info

 

[Korolev]

Nuclear Energy is the only one that can replace oil/coal/natural gas right now. It's not necessarily the most optimum solution, but it IS a solution, in that it does generate a lot of power reliably. Hydroelectric dams can generate a lot of power, but only in regions with waterfalls. Good luck building a big hydroelectric dam in Saudi Arabia! Or most of Egypt!

Solar power is interesting. It's currently not quite efficient enough, but with every single year the efficiency of solar panels goes up and their cost goes down. I have no doubt that in 20 or so years, Solar Power will play an important role in power production in just about every nation on Earth. In spain they are experimenting with Solar Towers - these are huge towers built in desert regions or places which get a lot of sun - the tower is surrounded by an array of vast mirrors which track the sun and reflect the rays to the tower where it heats up a heavy liquid salt/liquid metal substance that is used to generate power. You might remember seeing such a thing in Fallout New Vegas called Helios One. Well, that was based on a real project that is being carried out right now and appears promising. Australia is likely to build one soon as well out near Perth.

We can get by without Oil. We have wind farms, nuclear power plants, Geothermal (Japan is about 10% powered by geothermal) and the sun's always there. We have alternative ways of producing energy - even if most of them are not quite as efficient as Oil or Coal at the moment. Society will NOT collapse - that's where the Peak Oil people are wrong. Oil is not indispensable to modern society - it's a big part of it, but it's not absolutely, utterly vital.

As for the other questions:

1) Will we run out of fossil fuels? Absolutely. We're not exactly sure when, because new deposits of oil are being discovered and they are inventing technology designed to create oil by using Genetically Engineered Organisms, but one day it will run out. We're simply using it faster than it is being produced. And of course, there's a finite supply of oil in the ground, because the Earth isn't infinitely big.

2) Yes I do think Global Warming is caused by us. I've examined the evidence very closely. However, I am not sure what the consequences of Climate Change will be. I don't think anyone knows. As a precaution, I suggest we try to avoid it or mitigate it, but I'm not worried it will destroy the world. I think it is a problem, potentially a serious problem, but not a "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" sort of problem.

3) We should because one day we'll have to. Although we are discovering new oil deposits, any geologist will tell you that one day we WILL run out. That's a given. And with nations like China and India (nearly 3 billion people between the both of them) industrializing at a record pace, oil is going to become significantly more expensive and rarer and one day we WILL run out. Current estimates of when we will run out are in the 2040s to 2060s range. Maybe within our lifetime we will run out completely - and within 20 to 30 years, Oil will get so prohibitively expensive that we'll have to change if we want to maintain our living conditions. We should also change because the Oil Industry has warped the geopolitical scene. The US and its allies are forced to support really horrible governments (like the Saudi government) because they have the oil. Politicians play games in the Middle East to affect the Oil Market. The Arab nations that should have benefited most from the Wealth of Oil under their land have been warped horribly, because they became excessively focused on oil. The ease of which they got the Oil has allowed the leaders to forget about progress and development - Despite earning hundreds of billions of dollars from Oil, Saudi Arabia still has significant amounts of poverty, a terrible education system, and comparatively little infrastructure in proportion to the Wealth they earned. They hit the jackpot and then they spent recklessly and foolishly, much like how a regular joe schmoe would when they won the lotto. Rather than use that money to build up the country, the Rulers treated it like a never ending cash stream, allowing them to purchase a lot, but build little aside from gigantic palaces and big armies (made up entirely of US arms. They don't build a single weapon for themselves, nor do they know how to maintain their army properly).

4) How can we change from an oil based society? When oil inevitably hits about 200 dollars a barrel, that's when change will occur. It won't happen any other way. Oil is, right now, to useful and still too cheap to be toppled. There is immense social, political and economic pressure (and practical pressure) on maintaining oil production, refinement and use. It's still too easy, too available, too necessary for so many industries, that nothing can replace it except Nuclear Power. China and India are building Nuclear Power plants, but the US isn't and probably never will, nor will many other countries who either are scared of it, or don't have the technical expertise to build them.

Time will inevitably force us from an oil based society, and time is about the only thing that can do it - aside from a miracle invention that makes solar power 10x more efficient cheap and affordable combined with a miracle battery invention that makes storing energy 50x more efficient. If those inventions came out tomorrow, then Oil prices would drop like a Rock. And that might happen - the Japanese have invented Nano-Lithium Batteries which can hold a lot of energy and can be re-charged literally within minutes (about 8 minutes to be precise).

 

[Timtom77]

Nuclear energy has been shown to be the most efficient and cleanest way of getting energy. Hopefully we can get away from the stigma associated with this type of energy.

Nuclear is not a very clean technology as it produces large amounts of nuclear waste (see above). Also not mentioned above is the by products from uranium extraction which are also hazardous to store. Nuclear is efficient in terms of putting the fuel in and getting energy out, but looking at the cycle as a whole it is not very efficient. Nuclear plants are very expensive and technologically difficult to build. They also have high running costs due to the need for highly trained competent staff and many safety systems. Granted the energy produced more than makes up for these costs but this does not take into account the problem of waste disposal nor does it take into account where the fuel comes from. The reactors principle fuel source is enriched uranium. Uranium is fairly common in the earth's crust but it is also fairly spread out which means that very large mines need to be dug to get enough uranium to justify the effort. The uranium then needs to be enriched which produces its own waste products. Nuclear is not a renewable energy source and will run into the same problems as fossil fuels down the road. It also can have immediate consequences if a safe storage technique is not invented soon.

 

[BulletMagTrig]

I think that we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. Instead we should look into a bit of everything.

Wind Energy is my primary choice. Living in the middle of the country I see a lot of wind farms that feed off of the trade winds and the gulf. This is a near constant source of renewable energy with very few drawbacks.

Nuclear Energy is consistent and when controlled is actually quite safe.

Hydro Energy is fine for rivers, but we should also look into Tidal Energy harnessing the tides and the gulf stream around our coasts. The energy potential is staggering if you actually think about the forces involved.

Solar Energy is superb, but it isn't as consistent as other energy sources. Perfect for California and the High Desert.

Geothermal Energy is also superb in being consistent and you can harness it anywhere literally. I could see a geothermal energy station in every house and out bills would be lower than ever.

Petroleum is a finite resource that is better suited for other purposes than simple energy. The excess burning is a waste and a hazard to the world. Global Warming exists, and I don't want to make this post longer than I need to in order to give my thoughts on it. Lets just say I'd rather run on a clean car and save my petrol for plastic and american cheese than burn it driving to school.

Coal is a horrible idea. There is no such thing as clean coal, and the best it would do is delay the inevitable while destroying the world faster.

 

[Korolev]

Nuclear energy has been shown to be the most efficient and cleanest way of getting energy. Hopefully we can get away from the stigma associated with this type of energy.

Nuclear is not a very clean technology as it produces large amounts of nuclear waste (see above). Also not mentioned above is the by products from uranium extraction which are also hazardous to store. Nuclear is efficient in terms of putting the fuel in and getting energy out, but looking at the cycle as a whole it is not very efficient. Nuclear plants are very expensive and technologically difficult to build. They also have high running costs due to the need for highly trained competent staff and many safety systems. Granted the energy produced more than makes up for these costs but this does not take into account the problem of waste disposal nor does it take into account where the fuel comes from. The reactors principle fuel source is enriched uranium. Uranium is fairly common in the earth's crust but it is also fairly spread out which means that very large mines need to be dug to get enough uranium to justify the effort. The uranium then needs to be enriched which produces its own waste products. Nuclear is not a renewable energy source and will run into the same problems as fossil fuels down the road. It also can have immediate consequences if a safe storage technique is not invented soon.

Yep - Nuclear Power is not the most optimum solution. It is, however, *a* solution to running out of Oil. It has significant hazards, and not everyone could (or should for that matter) have Nuclear Power plants, and yes, Uranium and Plutonium are finite resources.

However, they don't have as many problems as the Greens would have you believe. Many Greens and Environmentalists still have this vision that Nuclear Power Plant technology hasn't moved on since the 1950's - but it has, in tremendous ways. The very newest generators produce extremely little waste since they can actually reuse former "waste" as a power source. Uranium is finite - but it's not just Uranium that can be used. We can also use Plutonium and other by-products from the nuclear cycle to produce energy.

Waste disposal is still a problem. The technology isn't perfect. But at the end of the day, if our backs were against the wall, the economic pressure to use nuclear power plants would override any concerns. If Oil ran out tomorrow for some mysterious reason, we'd have to build nuclear power plants.

Here's a link you should read:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092 (this was made in 08 so it doesn't talk about Fukushima)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

I don't agree with everything Brian Dunning says. I think he gives too little attention to the waste problem. But it just goes to show that the Greens and the environmentalists often have a very incomplete, unscientific view of nuclear power that mostly comes from an emotional fear of the technology, combined with a decades old hatred of it due to its dual use purpose for creating weapons. Truth be told, the Left initially hated Nuclear Power not due to any environmental concerns, but because they were used to make Nuclear Weapons. With the Cold War a memory and the technological advancements in the field of nuclear power, many of their concerns are out-dated or even simple false, but they've spent so much energy fighting Nuclear Power and demonising it and screaming it down, that they simply can't stop. Once they've decided to hate it, they'll decide to hate it forever.

Monbiot has also called the Greens out. Read his articles.

I consider myself an environmentalist. I am a scientist. Not a physicist, but I am a molecular biologist. I've looked at the evidence. Nuclear Power is NOT without its share of problems but the left have demonised it to a degree that is simply ludicrous.

The Greens have a very simplistic view on Nuclear Technology: "Once bad, ALWAYS BAD! FOREVER BAD!" The idea that technology could improve to make it much safer and cleaner hasn't occurred to the greens, and they bitterly oppose even the very CONCEPT that it could. And that's just sad.

Having said that, I am not that enthusiastic for the building of new nuclear plants. While they generally operate safely, when they do fail, they can fail spectacularly as Fukushima proved. They are expensive to build and I don't want nations like Iran or Syria having Nuclear Power Plants. Not all nations can maintain or build them effectively and although Uranium is relatively cheap now, if everyone builds a nuclear power plant, Uranium prices will increase. It's not a perfect solution. It's not a perfect technology. It has its drawbacks and I'd rather see more research done into Solar and Fusion than spent on Fission reactors.

But I don't think Nuclear Power will end the entire world. Germany used Nuclear Power Plants for decades without any problem, until Fukushima happened. And Fukushima only happened because public pressure prevented the authorities from upgrading the very old nuclear power plants which were unsafe. Had Japan upgraded the Fukushima plant to a Generation III reactor, the problem that occurred would not have occurred.

 

[Timtom77]

2) Yes I do think Global Warming is caused by us. I've examined the evidence very closely. However, I am not sure what the consequences of Climate Change will be. I don't think anyone knows. As a precaution, I suggest we try to avoid it or mitigate it, but I'm not worried it will destroy the world. I think it is a problem, potentially a serious problem, but not a "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" sort of problem.

Depending on which climate model you use (legitimate arguments for many of them, no consensus as to the "best" one) its possible that we will lose 50% of life on earth by around 2050. 50 by 50. Even the most conservative of estimates predict a mass extinction (by 2100 I believe not sure though). Granted its very unlikely that we will go extinct as a species but I imagine that many of the less fortunate of our species won't survive along with many species around the world. Its not the planet exploding but it is on track to being akin to the mass extinction events that have been used to mark the end of a geologic period. Ie. Cretaceous mass extinction, Permian mass extinction etc. I would argue that while maybe not a "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" problem it probably will be an "A LOT OF US ARE GOING TO DIE" problem which is cause for concern.

 

[Timtom77]

Yep - Nuclear Power is not the most optimum solution. It is, however ... occurred.

I don't know how to snip so this will have to do. Nuclear is a short term solution but the problem with it is that its very expensive to get up and running. Once we are all switched over to nuclear we would be very unlikely to switch again until we start running out of uranium or people start dying of radiation poisoning.

The main concern with nuclear power aren't over the fact that it could be used to make nuclear weapons or that the plant could fail and go into meltdown (these are both things we can control and prevent with a high degree of success). The problem is the waste.

The world produces 10,000 tons of high level nuclear waste per year. That has to go somewhere. Some of the elements in this slop have half lives of millions of years. This stuff is highly poisonous and even small quantities released into the environment would lead to drastic consequences.

The wikipedia article on this is very good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management

As of right now there is no solution of where to put this highly toxic sludge that is going to remain highly toxic for the few million years (15.7 million year half life for the longest and some of them are still dangerous after multiple half lives). This is a major problem and advocating that we fully switch to nuclear is advocating that we drastically increase the production of this sludge that we have no where to put.

 

[Esotera]

Biofuels. With current methods, oil only has to go up by about 3-4 times its current price, and it should get cheaper with time.

 

[OriginalLadders]

-Do you think we will run out of fossil fuels?

Yes, we may find more, but they are still finite.

-Do you think Global Warming is a problem/exists/is caused by us?

Yes it exists, to say otherwise is willful ignorance. We are not the cause of it as the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, however we have dramatically accelerated and increased the current upswing.

-Do you think we need to change from a fossil fuel based society? Why?

Yes, not going extinct would be nice.

-If yes how and to what?

Nuclear energy, it is the cleanest, most reliable and highest yield method of energy production we have and the use of Thorium breeder reactors will dramatically extend how long we can use fissionable materials (and dramatically decrease the amount of waste produced) before we finally master fusion.

 

[Timtom77]

-Do you think we will run out of fossil fuels?

Yes, we may find more, but they are still finite.

-Do you think Global Warming is a problem/exists/is caused by us?

Yes it exists, to say otherwise is willful ignorance. We are not the cause of it as the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, however we have dramatically accelerated and increased the current upswing.

-Do you think we need to change from a fossil fuel based society? Why?

Yes, not going extinct would be nice.

-If yes how and to what?

Nuclear energy, it is the cleanest, most reliable and highest yield method of energy production we have and the use of Thorium breeder reactors will dramatically extend how long we can use fissionable materials (and dramatically decrease the amount of waste produced) before we finally master fusion.

We are in an interglacial warm period. Looking at the past few interglacial periods compared to this one one would expect the temperature to be dropping slowly not rising quickly. We are changing things.

While Thorium breeder reactors do produce much less waste and extend the lifetime (how long we could use nuclear power based upon how much fuel is estimated to be in the crust) of nuclear power for hundreds of millions of years, it still produces high level radioactive waste. If the entire world went nuclear the increased production would far overshadow the reduction in amount due to using the thorium. Then you are still left with the problem of where to put all of this sludge. Also there is currently only one breeder power station operating in the world and when building new reactors they still use the old design.

 

[Arrogancy]

While we will need to make the switch from fossil fuels to something more tenable, we won't need to make that decision any time soon (note the use of the word need). There is more than enough oil to keep our planet fueled for a good, long while yet. When we do make the switch I'm most optimistic about nuclear power as a fuel source.

 

[Maclennan]

Nuclear energy has been shown to be the most efficient and cleanest way of getting energy. Hopefully we can get away from the stigma associated with this type of energy.

Sadly the spent nuclear fuel rods need to be placed in refridgerated running pools of water for more than a decade or explode in a cloud of radiation. Nuclear will replace coal until we can find something a little less kersplody

They don't actually explode, they ignite throwing radioactive elements off in a cloud of toxic smoke. Its actually probably worse then exploding.

Theres fission nuclear methods which reduce this time, Candu reactors only need about a third the time of highly enriched designs used by France, the USA and Japan. Also thorium fuel reactors need much less time then Candu uranium reactors.

Fusion nuclear methods are where its at, unfortunately we haven't figured out a way to sustain the high pressure and temperatures necessary.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Depending on which climate model you use (legitimate arguments for many of them, no consensus as to the "best" one) its possible that we will lose 50% of life on earth by around 2050. 50 by 50. Even the most conservative of estimates predict a mass extinction (by 2100 I believe not sure though). Granted its very unlikely that we will go extinct as a species but I imagine that many of the less fortunate of our species won't survive along with many species around the world. Its not the planet exploding but it is on track to being akin to the mass extinction events that have been used to mark the end of a geologic period. Ie. Cretaceous mass extinction, Permian mass extinction etc. I would argue that while maybe not a "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" problem it probably will be an "A LOT OF US ARE GOING TO DIE" problem which is cause for concern.

50% of all life in less than 40 years. That's complete garbage.

Yes, there will be many, many species going extinct...but that's happening now, and has been happening for decades due to humans, without all that much concern.

Global warming isn't likely to "that bad". In that untold millions of people live in terrible conditions in the third world without it being "that bad" according to us in the West.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Nuclear energy has been shown to be the most efficient and cleanest way of getting energy. Hopefully we can get away from the stigma associated with this type of energy.

Sadly the spent nuclear fuel rods need to be placed in refridgerated running pools of water for more than a decade or explode in a cloud of radiation. Nuclear will replace coal until we can find something a little less kersplody

That's the old plants - the ones from the 1950s.

The new style (Thorium plants) don't use rods. Or water. And they produce an amount of nuclear waste per year equal in size to an aspirin tablet.

Oh, and they physically can't melt down. Without coolant, the reaction ceases.

Thorium plants are currently being build in Europe to replace the older plants.

 

[cgaWolf]

-Do you think we will run out of fossil fuels?

Yes, for a very simple reason: Fossil fuels are finite vs. an exponential growth of energy requirements. Even if opinions differ on just how much oil there is left, how much coal and gas is left, etc... there is one thing we do know is a fact: the supply is limited.

The problem everyone fights about ofc is "when?", however both sides of the discussion have proven they can't count. Here's two hallmark numbers you need to remember when talking about exponential growth of anything:
a 7% (per annum) growth rate means doubling in 10 years,
a 3.5% growth rate means doubling in 20 years.

.
.
.
Given our economies (and energy consumption) are supposed to grow (growth is good, right), and that outside of economic crisis the growth numbers generally land in the 3-7% range depending on which country you look at, that has a dramatic influence on reserves of any limited fuel.

For the sake of the argument, i'll take the 10 year doubling 7% growch rate, but the reality doesn't change much even if you assume a 15 or 20 year cycle:


If say we have a 100 year reserve of fuel X, that sound well and good, but
- 10 years down the road, the consumption doubled, bringing the reserve down to 50 years, 10 of which have already passed
- 20 years later, that 100y reserve equivalent to a 25y reserve, and 20 of those have passed....
And oops, we're about to run out.

Even if we take a 200 year supply, the actualy supply is still really short:
- 10y down the road, it's a 100y supply (10 of which have passed),
- 20y down the road it's 50y (20 of which have passed),
- 30y down it's a 25y supply
And ooops, we're out a while ago -- that's right, with double the initial reserve, we get about one more cycle, and not even that.

A 1000 year supply (estimated Thorium supply for Thorium breeder reactors)?
0:1000; 10:500; 20:250; 30:125; 40:62.5; 50:31.25
-- and ooops our 1000 year supply lasted less than 50 years.


Now, there are discussions about when peak oil has been reached, and if it has been at all. In the US, it certainly has, sometimes in the early 70ies, since then oil retrieval in the US is on the decline, which gets compensated with imports; worldwide there are differing opinions, but if the actual oil production stats are an indicator, we'we reached world-wide peak oil already - from now on, less and less oil can be pulled out of the ground, and that includes oil production of predicted discoveries of oil fields that have not yet been made.

The reality of that curve has one more implication: if peak oil has indeed been reached, that means half the oil that exists world wide (including undiscovered reserves) has already been used. According to our exponential function above, that would mean we have one more cycle before oil runs out.

There's caveats to that statement ofc: oil is not the only form of energy we use, things that run on oil get more efficient, and we might hit a bump-up on the road down if we're lucky. Also, the 7% growth numbers is a high estimate given the current economic crisis (worldwide GDP growth 2007-2010: 5.2%, 3.1%, -0.7%, 4.9%).

However the problem of the exponential function vs. a limited fuel supply is fundamentally true, for oil, for gas, for coal, for uranium. You can delay, and dodge a bit, but you can't change it. Mining a limited resource faster (Drill, baby, drill!) is obviously not a solution to the problem - it's a concept known as "strength through exhaustion" and complete idiocy to anyone who can count.

We might supplement fossil fuels by fermented "fossil" fuels, ie. ol produced by genetically engineered organisms, however there's alsso a slight problem with that: you need to feed those organisms, and agriculture needs energy (in fact, agriculture may well be defined as the industrial process by which energy is changed into food). Sooner or later, thermodynamics will give us the middle finger on that one - again, it can delay & help, but it's not a solution.

-Do you think Global Warming is a problem/exists/is caused by us?

Yes, although i believe the warming is less of a problem than the pollution or the above mentioned problem of exponential growth vs. a limited supply.

-Do you think we need to change from a fossil fuel based society? Why?

Because otherwise the exponential function will have surprise buttsex with our economies.

-If yes how and to what?

A combination of solar, hydro, wind and fusion to replace fossil fuels; with renewable resources heavily subsidized to accelerate the transition, as well as infrastructure changes that allow limited local producers of electricity (say solar panels on my roof) to feed electricity into the network.

What would also help would be cost-transparency. Every now and then we get a bunch of hippies running around demonstrating against nuclear fission; the reality is that right now we don't have much short-term alternative. The reality of fossil burnable fuels is pollution (which causes all sorts of respiratory diseases which don't get factored into the energy cost), and he reality of fission is that - while normally safe and clean - we have no final storage concept for nuclear waste, and accidents that do happen have unforseeable consequences (&costs).

There are ofc no perfect solutions: Hydro causes massive changes in the environment through construction; solar panels construction involves pollution & heavy metals while most of the countries who can currently afford them are in the location where solar panels are least effective, wind-power is ugly & noise, and fusion - while awesomesauce, and the tokamak reactors being failsafe, is still quite a ways off.

 

[Pinkamena]

If the scientists working on the National Ignition Facility can get nuclear fusion under control, that would fix all of our energy needs, forever. I really hope they'll be able to do it soon!