Return to board index
Moving topic out of the other thread.
I'm opposed to putting too much reliance on non-renewable energy because it's bound for failure when it runs out and it's literally killing our planet.
I'd rather use something we can rely on rather than rely on weather.
We need something that won't shut down if the sky is cloudy or the wind dies down.
Sure, solar and wind both have their problems. Nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric are other options.
But my point is, we have to get some kind of fuel that not going to run out in the next hundred years. If we're still so heavily dependent on fossil fuels when they run out, it's going to be chaos everywhere.
It's just a bonus that we're currently causing the planets sixth mass extinction event.
Look, i'm all for this, but it's not going to work.
The future is nuclear fusion, but these greens keep forcing money into dead-end tech.
Uh huh...so what is your plan for getting rid of all that deadly left over that nuke plants leave behind?
Honestly, I do not believe that we even can make an educated guess as to when fossil fuels will "run out". Just 10-20 years ago, fracking was unheard of. This process has opened up billions of barrels of oil, and literally immeasurable amounts of natural gas, that we had no idea existed (or could be tapped) just a decade ago. Yes, the supply is 'limited', but we really have no way of knowing what that limit is. I think that most reasonable people can agree, that we are not going to run out between now and 2050.
I also believe that the solution is not a single step, but wisely using the resources we have, and maximizing efficiency with what we use.
Nuclear power is renewable, and when used properly, is the 'cleanest' form of efficient energy we know of today. There are plenty of places on this Earth that we can safely and responsibly store the spent fuel rods. And it is also very possible that we will discover a way to better store them, or perhaps even use them, or decontaminate them in the future.
Like I mentioned earlier, fracking has led us to discover a tremendous amount of natural gas that was impossible to extract before. Natural gas is extremely clean when used to generate electricity. the fracking process is still evolving, but it is already one of the least invasive methods of extracting a natural resource from the Earth. What problems it does cause (and their are many falsified and exaggerated claims out there about its 'destruction'), will likely be overcome after the process has been perfected.
Coal is still a viable means of producing energy, but it should not be the preferred method. However, it should not be dammed either. It is a resource we have a large supply of, and it should not be discredited until a time comes when a viable alternative (or alternatives) are in place. And this is one of the biggest problems we have right now.....there is no real alternative out there, yet people want the coal industry eliminated... NOW. This is only going to lead to a massive price spike in energy, or shortages..or both. Don't kill your milk cow if all you have in the barn are calves....assuming you want to have milk.
Solar and wind are, unless an unknown breakthrough occurs, only a viable source for personal energy generation, or small scale production. The current technology is simply to inefficient to make it viable. It takes massive, and I mean massive wind or solar farms to generate even a reasonable amount of power. They are, however, both great methods for individuals to generate their own power. It is not that difficult to get a single residence 'off the grid' (I am about 80% self sustained at the moment, and I should be 100% soon, perhaps by this summer).
In other words...use it wisely....use it ALL wisely.
Just to note - fracking has been around in testing and commercially for over 4 decades. It's only in recent times that it's become more cost efficient than traditional forms of drilling and mining that it's being seen as an alternative energy source. And even then, it's not that fracking has become more cost efficient, but that the cost of resources and capital has meant that coal and other energy sources has become more expensive.
I'd also note that at current mining rates, most large coal producers are going to run out of coal in the next 30 years based on current prices and economic reserves. The prospect of 'large / limitless supply' is on the basis that prices will increase, making it more economic to dig deeper and utilise less efficient ore bodies.
So in a nutshell, yes, we can make a guess - it will run out either when we use up all our easily available reserves, and/or when people can't afford to pay the high prices required to dig out the less accessible resources.
I can basically agree with you.
is an excellent article explaining how, in an economic sense, we're going to be affected more by the rising cost of oil than the sudden lack of it.
As for alternatives,
is currently my favorite long term energy solution until we eventually get around to finding a solution to fusion power.
My biggest problem is just how much damage fossil fuels are doing to the planet. We're looking at making the planet nigh-uninhabitable by most life by the end of this century, and I think we should be more concerned about that than we seem to be.
I'd also note that at current mining rates, most large coal producers are going to run out of coal in the next 30 years based on current prices and economic reserves.
It has been
that there are over 861 billion tonnes of
coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 112 years at current rates of production.
The federal Energy Information Agency
the United States alone has about 260 billion tons of recoverable coal, enough to support current consumption levels for at least two centuries, said George Warholic, an EIA coal economist. And the National Mining Association said the United States is sitting on enough recoverable coal to power the country for the next 440 years.
I hate to say it, but it all biased 'science'. I am sure you can provide a source that backs up your 30 year claim as well. But when you have 'science' claiming a span of 30-440 years on something that we use as much as coal....that just reeks of bias...on both sides.
Personally, I like the World Coal estimate of 100 or so years. It falls between the two extremes of 30 and 440, even falling closer to the low end, and it (claims) to be based on 'proven' (i.e. known and financially viable) reserves.
Hm, that number's changed pretty significantly since I last looked then, but that makes sense - coal prices have increased pretty significantly in the last few years. The BP study looking at 2009 reserves coincides with a coking coal price quadruple what it was 6 years earlier. This is what I mean about reserves - even if we don't find any new ore bodies, the amount of reserves in the world will increase as the price increases. I last wrote a paper on it about 4 years ago, and the prices were significantly lower based on available data back then. Certainly, the US didn't have the highest reserves back then either, which suggests to me that the increased pricing has 'unlocked' previously uneconomic reserves.
I'm not going to deny it's based on proven reserves - I'm very happy with any of the three resources linked at the bottom of that article. The only criticism I have is that 'financial viability' is a technical concept based on the price, rather than on what the world can actually afford in the long-term.
And, again, y'know, it's part of how we're causing the
You are not logged in. Please
to post a reply or
if you don't already have an account.