You are not logged in.
As a species our economic prospects depend on the supply of good which we use to sustain our quality of life. At our current consumption rate we are draining our coal and oil reserves fast enough that in 50 to 100 years the scarcity will begin to be felt. Substitutes for this consumption are available in terms of wind, hydro, solar, fission and fusion. But with a growing population how well will alternative energy sources to meat our demands. How much land will be flooded for hydro power, what kind of foot print on the land will solar and wind leave on the land. How big a supply of fissionable material is there and what kind of environmental impact will it have. I think the best forms of power are fusion and space based solar. If fusion was mastered surely there is enough power in the ocean to last at least a billion years. I create this thread not to preach but to enquire. I truly wish to understand how our industry will effect our way of life in the near and short term.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Substitutes for this consumption are available in terms of wind, hydro, solar, fission and fusion.
Well, based on current capabilities I'd scratch wind, solar and fusion off the list; the first two because they produce too little and the last because at present we can't do it. Hydro is a limited solution, leaving us with fission.
So for the near-term future the answer to our energy needs is fission, it's the most viable alternative.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Okay, now some links:
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ … tml]United States Energy and World Energy Production and Consumption Statistics
I guess nuclear is already used twice as much as hydro.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/by … .PDF]Solar Power Sattilites
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Chapter14c.htm]The Uranium Suply
Nuclear opponents claim that uranium is a nonrenewable fuel, like the fossil fuels, so that nuclear energy can only be a bridge to the renewable energies that will ultimately be needed. Therefore, they argue, we should go straight to the renewables, eliminating the nuclear stage. If nuclear energy is to be compared to a bridge, it should be the 13km long Confederation Bridge to and from Prince Edward Island rather than the Peace Bridge across the Niagara River. Like all good myths this one has a factual basis, but the net effect is misleading. The response is in several parts:
Large amounts of uranium exist: it is about as abundant as tin. At the current rate of consumption (35,000 tonnes per year) and prices, known uranium resources of four million tonnes represent about 65 years consumption at current rates, comparable with about 42 years for oil and 62 years for natural gas. For all these fuels, as the reserves are consumed exploration is likely to discover new resources. A principle of mining is that the more you look the more you find. Estimates of potential, as yet undiscovered, resources would add 16 million tonnes. Even as a bridge, uranium should not be ignored: it has almost no other use while the fossil fuels are valuable as chemical feedstock.
Canada currently accounts for about 30 per cent of the world production of uranium. Canadian reserves have an energy content equivalent to 25 billion barrels of oil, making it the Saudi Arabia of uranium.
Countries using LWRs foresee a need to develop a new design of Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) that could eventually extract most of the potential energy in the uranium. ("Fast" refers to the fast, i.e., unmoderated, neutrons, "breeder" refers to the ability to breed fissile plutonium from fertile uranium, and the few prototype reactors that have already operated have used as coolant a liquid metal, sodium-potassium alloy.) Countries using CANDU reactors will not have to develop this challenging technology. By using thorium, even more abundant than uranium, as the fertile feedstock in the existing design of CANDU reactors a similarly great extension of energy resources can be achieved, albeit not as great as achievable by FBRs.
The so-called renewable energy technologies are renewable only as far as their fuel supply. Their massive structures for the collection and storage of the energy would have to be renewed many times over the bridge-period for nuclear energy. On a philosophical level, even their fuel is nonrenewable since the sun is a huge nuclear reactor, exploiting nuclear fusion, that is consuming itself.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Though I have not listened as of yet here is a NASA Proposes Use of Nuclear Reactors in Space
NASA officals recently proposed the use of nuclear reactors in space to provide electricity and vehicle propulsion.
Offline
We don't have to worry about running out of electrical power in the near future. Coal and Uranium should last for at least 100 more years, while wind and solar can supply enough power at a cost that is only slightly higher. The problems with scarcity that we will have in the near term are shortages in oil and natural gas. There won't be any problems in making sufficient energy, but there will be problems finding cheap alternative chemical feedstocks and compact, efficient methods of storing energy.
Offline
But we are only talking about running out of the fuel that is used by large power plants.
Oil though is what actually pushes our economies and its need is actually growing exponentially. Especially with the new so called tiger economies demanding more and more oil. We will find the prices for oil going up again as demand outstrips supply again this year.
But then again we have passed what is called the peak oil point 7 years ago. Bring on the Hydrogen car
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
World oil production is currently at about 97% so prices are going to continue to rise as demand increases plus the oil is going to run out.
The problem with nuclear powerplants is the radioactive waste they produce. It's just not a good solution.
Bio-diesel powered hybrids, fuel cell, and even electric vehicles are an alternative that I believe America should switch to. Within ten years all newly produced vehicles should be powered by one of the above sources. Bio-diesel is basically vegetable oil so many countries will be able to produce it not only to supply vehicles but for their powerplants.
Offline