AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Peak oil

38 16655
roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
340 posts
Nomad

oil prices are getting higher! So what's the best, cheap,and updated fuel source to replace oil. Post solutions pls.view;_ylt=A2oKiHAzsE5RNXMAdKa1Rwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fph.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dpeak%2Boil%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-711%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D13&w=1024&h=768&imgurl=8020vision.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2FPeak_Oil_2.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2F8020vision.com%2F2010%2F09%2F03%2Fgerman-military-study-warns-of-potential-energy-crisis%2F&size=88.1+KB&name=%3Cb%3EPeak+Oil+%3C%2Fb%3EStudy+Leaked+by+German+Military+Think+Tank&amp<i class==peak+oil&oid=f54e60060454053ec8b12ab1dfb489b3&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-711&tt=%253Cb%253EPeak%2BOil%2B%253C%252Fb%253EStudy%2BLeaked%2Bby%2BGerman%2BMilitary%2BThink%2BTank&b=0&ni=128&no=13&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12o2vlpq0&sigb=132gvuha3&sigi=11olrnvvb&.crumb=fhE6udOUV7g&fr=yfp-t-711" alt="http://ph.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2oKiHAzsE5RNXMAdKa1Rwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fph.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dpeak%2Boil%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-711%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D13&w=1024&h=768&imgurl=8020vision.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2FPeak_Oil_2.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2F8020vision.com%2F2010%2F09%2F03%2Fgerman-military-study-warns-of-potential-energy-crisis%2F&size=88.1+KB&name=%3Cb%3EPeak+Oil+%3C%2Fb%3EStudy+Leaked+by+German+Military+Think+Tank&amp=peak+oil&oid=f54e60060454053ec8b12ab1dfb489b3&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-711&tt=%253Cb%253EPeak%2BOil%2B%253C%252Fb%253EStudy%2BLeaked%2Bby%2BGerman%2BMilitary%2BThink%2BTank&b=0&ni=128&no=13&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12o2vlpq0&sigb=132gvuha3&sigi=11olrnvvb&.crumb=fhE6udOUV7g&fr=yfp-t-711" />

don't post something offensive pls.

  • 38 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

note that the article is from 1999 and written in 1988.
it is out dated. but still reliable.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Interesting as energy source for future moon bases. I guess it would also power each trip to the earth and back to supply it with Helium-3; but that still means a heck of a lot of pollution at each launch, unless you invent "green" rocket propulsors (rofl). Better than nuclear waste though.

But that still implies going to the moon, foraging for the ressource, thus building all of the facilities, building the plants on the moon and on earth... the global grid in my previous link sounds a bit more close at hand right now.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Interesting as energy source for future moon bases.

you might wanna check how much energy it gives. sure not only for use on the moon. (why do you think all major space agencies want to colonize the moon by 2020? not for the view, i can tell you that.)

but that still means a heck of a lot of pollution at each launch, unless you invent "green" rocket propulsors (rofl).

nuclear propulsion is possible.(nuclear submarines) why not He3 propulsion?
it's more powerfull and 99.999999etc.9% "green". the only waste it gives is He(4) and O2. both harmless for nature.

Better than nuclear waste though.

and for this reason alone we should atleast try it.

thus building all of the facilities, building the plants on the moon and on earth...

nuclear plants as they already exist can be modified. no need to completely build from scratch.

the global grid in my previous link sounds a bit more close at hand right now.
might sound like it, but i doubt it really is.

beside that the global is not 1 loving entity. it will take ages to get all the noses the right way.
and then there is the problem that wind and sun energy are not always the same as the demand in energy. (or better said it is never the same) we can't store that amount of energy. so we either have to use more energy then we need all day around. or find a way to store the energy and hope the power grid never overloads.

also do all these solar panel and wind turbines need to be created. costing allot of pollution.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

and then there is the problem that wind and sun energy are not always the same as the demand in energy. (or better said it is never the same) we can't store that amount of energy.

If you read the link, that problem is not that big actually, thanks to the way the grid is designed. Wind turbines at the coasts of Greenland will produce a quite constant supply of energy, and the distribution lines will account for the time shift between consumption peaks of Europe and America. No storage needed.

also do all these solar panel and wind turbines need to be created. costing allot of pollution.

Again, the plants for Helium-3 too. I doubt you can just use the very same plants we have now. Also, you might want to read this:

"The reason for this is the very low Coulomb barrier for this reaction; for D+3He, the barrier is much higher, and it is even higher for 3Heâ"3He. The immense cost of reactors like ITER and National Ignition Facility are largely due to their immense size, yet to scale up to higher plasma temperatures would require reactors far larger still. The 14.7 MeV proton and 3.6 MeV alpha particle from Dâ"3He fusion, plus the higher conversion efficiency, means that more electricity is obtained per kilogram than with D-T fusion (17.6 MeV), but not that much more. As a further downside, the rates of reaction for helium-3 fusion reactions are not particularly high, requiring a reactor that is larger still or more reactors to produce the same amount of electricity.

To attempt to work around this problem of massively large power plants that may not even be economical with D-T fusion, let alone the far more challenging Dâ"3He fusion, a number of other reactors have been proposed â" the Fusor, Polywell, Focus fusion, and many more, though many of these concepts have fundamental problems with achieving a net energy gain, and generally attempt to achieve fusion in thermal disequilibrium, something that could potentially prove impossible, and consequently, these long-shot programs tend to have trouble garnering funding despite their low budgets. "
Wiki

To me, it sounds as if there are still quite a few problems to be solved before we can envision something like this. On the other hand, the energy produced by the global grid would not be much more expensive than todays electricity.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

i'm comfused by your 1st quote. are they talking about D+He3 or He3+He3 ?

a average nuclear reactor is 1 of 26KeV. D+He3 fusion can happen from 10KeV. there is no need to build new reactors from scratch. the heat that needs to be generated to make this happen can be done in the already existing facilities

i can't seem to find info about how many energy a nuclear reactor produces per kilo (or even better would be 0,6 kilo) deuterium/americium or a other isotope they use. if i know that i can make the conclusion if it really isn't that much more. asfar as i know does it make a huge difference. and not just a slight increase as you/they make it seem.

they assumption that a reactor needs to be immensely big. seems to just be wrong to me.

================================

If you read the link,

i'll read it fully when i get time.
however. still, getting everyone on the same line is going to take very very long.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

ow and for your claim that wind energy is a constant supply of energy.
you might wanna read this site.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

nuclear propulsion is possible.(nuclear submarines) why not He3 propulsion?

There's a difference between powering a submarine turbine, and shooting a space shuttle into space against earth's gravity. You won't launch a shuttle with a turbine.

i'm comfused by your 1st quote. are they talking about D+He3 or He3+He3 ?

D-T fusion. The quote is not very well chosen, just read the article.

the heat that needs to be generated to make this happen can be done in the already existing facilities

How do you explain the discrepancies between your arguments and what is mentioned in the wiki?

they assumption that a reactor needs to be immensely big. seems to just be wrong to me.

Again, can you defend your impression?

ow and for your claim that wind energy is a constant supply of energy.
you might wanna read this site.

Read the link. it has all answers

I also found those two links that are interesting:
http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html
http://io9.com/5908499/could-helium+3-really-solve-earths-energy-problems

But in my search through Google for Helium-3, I'm missing actual research done about the feasability of the whole thing. It seems like a promising idea, but the wiki article raises legitimate (imo) questions about the net gain of all of this. I guess we'll have to wait. In the meantime, start with something we actually know would work (hint hint).
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

You won't launch a shuttle with a turbine.

there is the idea to fly shuttles into space before igniting it.
but thats all future music.

D-T fusion.

now it confuses me even more. xD

Read the link. it has all answers

i did read the part about greenland. there was no word of the changes in wind and how to make up for that. solar energy isn't going to do it. solar energy isn't constant either.

start with something we actually know would work (hint hint).


oh, i never mend to say that we do not have to try to find other ways. that project of yours is good and i agree that has a high priority.
but it's not the holy grail. (neither is He3, that lasts only about 10.000 year.)
but i c more future in He3. because it can be done by 1 party. (or 14 in reality) for your idea the entire world has to work together. i dont see that happening anytime soon.

==================
as for the rest i didn't reply on:
i have to read up some befor i can say. not everything is stuck in my head. =P
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

oh, i never mend to say that we do not have to try to find other ways. that project of yours is good and i agree that has a high priority.
but it's not the holy grail. (neither is He3, that lasts only about 10.000 year.)
but i c more future in He3. because it can be done by 1 party. (or 14 in reality) for your idea the entire world has to work together. i dont see that happening anytime soon.

I totally agree that we should explore as many ways as possible, and I'm not against the use of Helium-3. I'm just skeptic as to the actual gain there is to get for earth supply. I also see a problem in the time necessary to build all the infrastructure on the moon; we'll have to come up with something before that.
And I do see some problems concerning which earth power should have access to the Helium-3 ressources; the race has already begun, it seems, at least conceptually; and if you watched the movie Iron Sky, you'll know what I mean ^^

i did read the part about greenland. there was no word of the changes in wind and how to make up for that. solar energy isn't going to do it. solar energy isn't constant either.

"Zones where a constant strong wind blows... "
"The conditions there are ideal for a large wind power station: on average, the wind blows at over thirty kilometres an hour "

No word of the changes because they are negligible?

"On the other hand, in desert regions such as the Sahara, where the sun always shines, enough energy could be produced in a relatively small area to supply the entire world population with power. "

Of course there are night and day shifts, but unlike in Europe, weather in the Sahara is quite constant.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

I also found those two links that are interesting:


interesting indeed but a bit outdated.
in these 2 articles they still talk about the next "space race"
but 14 space agency's are working together on this project now.
including nasa, roscosmos (russia) esa (europe) and cnsa (china)
it's no race whit a "winner gets control" or most profit. anymore.

and i dont see them talking about immense new reactors either.

===========
about your 1st link:
they keep talking about usa and europe.... but asia needs allot of power aswell.

and to gkeep going about the wind in greenland. i found this document.(.pdf)
(Analysis of measured data for estimating the wind resource in Sisimiut)
and it starts whit:
"The measurement campaign in Dumpen started in August 2004; Dumpen is a hill-top position in the neighbourhood of Sisimiut. The study of this data has revealed a huge winter wind resource (514 W/m2) and a low summer resource (136 W/m2)" (after corrections 300-350 W/m2(winter) and 125 W/m2(summer)).

and a bit latter "Due to high electricity production costs in Greenland, pr
oducing electricity from wind energy in Dumpen is close to be cost competitive, it remains however expensive due to poor wind resource (~10 câ¬/kWh)."
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Zones where a constant strong wind blows...

wind never blows constant. well only Atmospheric wind is sort of constant. but our windmills dont get that high.


Of course there are night and day shifts

it's night in the sahara and greenland has a wind off day. usa is in panic because there is not enough power.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

it's night in the sahara and greenland has a wind off day. usa is in panic because there is not enough power.

Who cares?^^

No but seriously. You're right, it IS an issue that has to be thoroughly investigated.I don't have access to the full text of the study and so I can't say what their measurements say; but they made measurements off the coast of Greenland, and they say it's feasible; so I'm positive about this. I searched a bit, and while I found no data of wind speed over the year, I found out about those so-called prevailing winds who always blow in the same direction. Such winds blow quite constantly, some may be weaker than others and some may fluctuate more than others, but it seems to me constant air currents are just as possible as constant water currents.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Such winds blow quite constantly, some may be weaker than others and some may fluctuate more than others,

they blow constantly but not whit a constant speed.
you can't have fluctuations on a power grid. i guess you can imagion yourself what will happen if it does.

both solar and wind energy are not constant. they need to be connected to a normal power source/grid. for you to stay able of having power whenever you need it.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

you can't have fluctuations on a power grid. i guess you can imagion yourself what will happen if it does.

I only see this as a problem if you rely solely on it. If you use it to feed the produced energy into the country's power supply, you can control that easily. Just base yourself on the minimal energy input from the wind farms to know the max amount of energy you need to be able to produce otherwise.

And again, I don't know the research team, I can't see their results (numbers), but I trust the institute; they're not so stupid to just ignore things like what you've been saying. If they say it's feasible, that means it's certainly not rubbish. I dare you to purchase the paper and prove me wrong.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

K nvm, I got access to it. I'll have a closer look, in the meantime let's just agree to disagree on the details, and agree more widely that we should investigate alternative methods to get independent of peak oil.

Showing 16-30 of 38