|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: falsereality]
#23591896 - 08/29/16 10:18 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Potential? Not with current technology. Wind and solar has the limitation of not functioning 24/7, and storage technology just doesn't exist to bridge the gap. Hydro is only producing about 17% of the world's energy and hydro output is increasing slower than consumption. Geothermal has the potential to produce about 200 GW of power...less than 1% of current world consumption. That leaves us with nuclear. Nonrenewable and very expensive.
Of course, if we start developing more efficient ways to run cars, planes, boats, and trains on stored electricity, then we'll use less oil, but that's only going to add to the overall electricity problem.
Today, 2.5 billion people don't even have access to a toilet. A first-world lifestyle to them is a distant dream.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
PatrickKn



Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 20,564
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: falsereality]
#23591918 - 08/29/16 10:25 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If 2 billion people live the first world lifestyle, and 5 billion don't, and hypothetically everyone started using the same amount of oil resources at once, you'd see oil deplete 2.5 times as fast as it currently is. Given that some people estimate the current reserves to last another 53 years if current production rates remained the same, that would change to 21.2 years instead before most of the oil reserves were tapped out, assuming some countries weren't hoarding for themselves and it was equally distributed by population density.
Assuming oil reserve estimates are wrong and we find new ways to extract, you could probably extend it to 30 or 40 years world wide if we continued at current rates adjusted for the other 5 billion people (as a liberal estimate of available oil that hasn't been accounted for), which isn't too realistic as current production rates would skyrocket if everyone were burning it up as well, and it would go up as world population increases. Essentially, the effects of first world lifestyles wouldn't be realized before the oil was burned up.
Edited by PatrickKn (08/29/16 10:25 PM)
|
falsereality


Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 4,112
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: Enlil]
#23591993 - 08/29/16 10:54 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
@PatrickKn I don't think those estimations hold water.
Quote:
Enlil said: Potential? Not with current technology. Wind and solar has the limitation of not functioning 24/7, and storage technology just doesn't exist to bridge the gap. Hydro is only producing about 17% of the world's energy and hydro output is increasing slower than consumption. Geothermal has the potential to produce about 200 GW of power...less than 1% of current world consumption. That leaves us with nuclear. Nonrenewable and very expensive.
Of course, if we start developing more efficient ways to run cars, planes, boats, and trains on stored electricity, then we'll use less oil, but that's only going to add to the overall electricity problem.
Today, 2.5 billion people don't even have access to a toilet. A first-world lifestyle to them is a distant dream.
Quote:
Generally 'renewable' relates to harnessing energy from natural forces which are renewed by natural processes, especially wind, waves, sun and rain, but also heat from the Earth's crust and mantle. Although it shares many attributes with technologies harnessing these natural forces – for instance radioactive decay produces much of the heat harnessed geothermally – nuclear power is usually categorised separately from ‘renewables’.
Conventional nuclear power reactors do use a mineral fuel and demonstrably deplete the available resources of that fuel. In such a reactor, the input fuel is uranium-235 (U-235), which is part of a much larger mass of uranium – mostly U-238. This U-235 is progressively 'burned' to yield heat. But about one-third of the energy yield comes from something which is not initially loaded in: plutonium-239 (Pu-239), which behaves almost identically to U-235. Some of the U-238 turns into Pu-239 through the capture of neutron particles, which are released when the U-235 is 'burned'. So the U-235 used actually renews itself to some extent by producing Pu-239 from the otherwise waste material U-238.This process can be optimised in fast neutron reactors, which are likely to be extensively deployed in the next generation of nuclear power reactors.
A fast neutron reactor can be configured to 'breed' more Pu-239 than it consumes (by way of U-235 + Pu-239), so that the system can run indefinitely. While it can produce more fuel than it uses, there does need to be a steady input of reprocessing activity to separate the fissile plutonium from the uranium and other materials discharged from the reactors. This is fairly capital-intensive but well-proven and straightforward. The used fuel from the whole process is recycled and the usable part of it increases incrementally.As well as utilizing about 60 times the amount of energy from uranium, fast neutron reactors will unlock the potential of using even more abundant thorium as a fuel (see information page on Thorium).
Using a fast neutron reactor, thorium produces U-233, which is fissile. This process is not yet commercialised, but it works and if there were ever a pressing need for it, development would be accelerated. India is the only country concentrating on this now, since in a world context uranium is so abundant and relatively cheap. In addition, some 1.5 million tonnes of depleted uranium now seen by some people as little more than a waste, becomes a fuel resource. The consequence of this is that the available resource of fuel for fast neutron reactors is so plentiful that under no practical terms would the fuel source be significantly depleted. Regardless of the various definitions of 'renewable', nuclear power therefore meets every reasonable criterion for sustainability, which is the prime concern.
-http://www.world-nuclear.org/
Sustainability is not an issue with nuclear power. Nor is cost.
Quote:
On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour.
-instituteforenergyresearch.org/
Quote:
There are more people than the planet can support in anything resembling a first-world lifestyle.
This sentence is what I was disagreeing with, not the feasibility of switching from oil to an alternate source of energy for transport reasons. There are enough resources on this planet for the entire population to enjoy a first world lifestyle.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 9 hours, 31 minutes
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: falsereality]
#23592821 - 08/30/16 09:05 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
falsereality said:
Quote:
PatrickKn said: We rely on oil for more than most people realize, it's not just a matter of car fuel and electricity. If you look around your house, every object in the room is somehow related to oil in some facet. Cities are built with it. There's literally nothing we do that isn't touched by oil somewhere down the line. Oil is on par with water in it's importance.
Sure, oil is important but it's not a limiting factor in societal development because of its abundance. There is enough oil for the population of the world to enjoy a first world lifestyle.
Yes there is enough oil, but at what cost? The US shale oil is already shutting down because it needs $70 per barrel oil to breakeven, many offshore oil would need $130 oil to breakeven, other deposits would need even higher prices.
How would the world function with $300 per barrel oil, it wouldn't.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 4 minutes
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: Great Scott]
#23593227 - 08/30/16 10:58 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Those are the Georgia Guidestones, brah. It's the Luciferian world government public relations scroll.

You're a total nutcase
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
topdog82
Death Spirit



Registered: 07/16/10
Posts: 7,992
Loc: California
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: koods]
#23599174 - 08/31/16 09:38 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I snorted chili powder in elementary school for like $10. Which basically made me rich at the time
|
Starstepper
AI Brobot



Registered: 05/08/16
Posts: 2,935
Loc: The blip on the radar
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: topdog82]
#23599513 - 08/31/16 11:10 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I used to own a piece of a restaurant with my old boss. We had live music going one night and he paid me $100 for every old lady I would dance with at this big table of them celebrating a birthday. I danced with 5 of them and busted some sweet Fred Astaire type moves. Totally made their night and I walked with $500. I was 26 and they were all in their 60s. Good times.
|
Great Scott
Trigger Lover


Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Whats the weirdest/funniest/most disturbing thing you ever did for money? [Re: koods] 1
#23606797 - 09/03/16 01:37 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: You're a total nutcase
False. You just can't handle having your paradigm challenged and watching the false reality that you cling to crumble before you like a house of cards. So you resort to clutching of pearls in the form of calling me a nutcase. It's much easier to simply dismiss me as crazy than to face the truth. And that's the truth.
--------------------
|
|