Peak oil

spaced_out_guy · 2004-08-08 10:47:09

Anyone here interested/aware of Peak oil?

Potentially a major bummer for us all, with obvious consequences for space exploration funding.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-08 15:57:30

Anyone here interested/aware of Peak oil?
Potentially a major bummer for us all, with obvious consequences for space exploration funding.
Go to http://www.peakoil.com]peakoil

Peak oil?

What brand is that?

Just kidding!

I know what peak oil is. It the amount of oil that can be produced before you peak and you start getting diminishing returns on the amount of oil that you can get out of the ground.

However we have a solution for you. We need to go to the moon in a crash program and we need to develop fusion power that uses helium 3 to replace the oil industry that having peak oil now. There is enough helium 3 on the moon to supply the Earth with power for a thousand years or so.

May we count on your support to develop a mining colony on the moon to get helium 3 and to develop fusion power to replace the fission, Coal, Gas electric plants and maybe even the petro-fuels too?

Larry,

RobertDyck · 2004-08-08 17:35:15

Um, didn't you read my post elsewhere on this board regarding Helium 3? Perhaps I need to make a presentation entitled "Debunking Helium 3". I had thought of presenting it at the Lunar & Planetary Mining Sciences Symposium, but didn't. Let me make the points briefly.

- We don't know how to make a working fusion reactor.
- There are 3 fuel mixtures you can use for fusion: Helium-3/Deuterium, Tritium/Deuterium, double Deuterium. Deuterium is part of every drop of water on Earth, including sea water, river water, rain water, and every drop of blood in your veins. Double deuterium is cheap because you can distil deuterium from tap water on Earth.
- You have to look at secondary reactions: Helium-3/Deuterium produces Helium-4 and a proton as waste. Tritium/Deuterium produces Helium-4 and a neutron as waste. However, double Deuterium produces Helium-3 and a neutron about half the time, Tritium and a proton the other half. Secondary reactions for a double Deuterium reactor are the other two reactions. That means a double Deuterium reactor will make its own Helium-3 and Tritium.
- When you work out the energy produced per unit mass of fuel, including the secondary reactions, double Deuterium produces more energy than Tritium/Deuterium and about 10% less than Helium-3/Deuterium.
- Nuclear engineers who work on bombs and nuclear rockets ignore the secondary reactions because waste from the primary reaction doesn't stick around long enough for secondary reactions to occur. However, in a power plant they will.
- Fusion ignition temperature may be higher for double Deuterium than the other two, but can be sustained by energy from all 3 reactions occurring in the same reactor vessel. Fusion initiation will occur by starting with a pinch of Tritium so you only need a Tritium/Deuterium reaction to start the power plant. After ignition the reactor will make its own Tritium and Helium-3. That initial Tritium can come from heavy water fission power plant.

This does require research into nuclear fusion, but once a workable fusion power plant is developed it won't need fuel from the Moon.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-08 18:30:07

Yes, I read your explanation some where else on this forum and know what you said about it.

Larry,

Dook · 2004-08-08 18:48:50

I don't know what it is about mining the moon and asteroids that gets the interest of people.

Saudi Arabia has pretty much reached it's maximum output of oil and gas prices continue to rise simply because demand is growing. China, India, and many third world countries are in their industrial revolution stage. OPEC can only produce so much, there is a limit, and the supply is running out. With our current supply (may be more oil that's not been found yet somewhere) we will probably run out completely in 50-60 years. Fuel cell and hybrid vehicles are coming along at just the right time.

BWhite · 2004-08-08 21:50:03

Under the sea, the answer is http://www.fact-index.com/m/me/methane_ … html]under the sea.

And if we melt this stuff too fast, a super-fast run-away greenhouse. ???

http://ois.nist.gov/techcal/search/disp … 45]Another link.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33 … e.htm]Give me another - link. :;):

http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/hydrate/]And for more link, for the road.

hubricide · 2004-08-08 23:23:55

If fusion can be used to create power, it can be used to blow things up. If you think the idea of terrorists or rogue states setting off nuclear bombs is worrisome now, wait until some genius invents the fusion bomb (for all the right reasons, of course..).

Euler · 2004-08-08 23:35:29

If fusion can be used to create power, it can be used to blow things up. If you think the idea of terrorists or rogue states setting off nuclear bombs is worrisome now, wait until some genius invents the fusion bomb (for all the right reasons, of course..).

We already have fusion bombs.

bolbuyk · 2004-08-09 03:36:47

I think research on nuclear fusion should be done with much more enthousiasm than yet. There's to much politics in this stuff. The environmental organisations are against it, because something 'nuclear' or 'atomic' they consider as dangerous. And countries are quarreling where to build the new fusion plant (France, Spain, Canada or Japan). These stuff makes progress very very slow. Predictions are that it will last some decades to find a commercially available power-plant on fusion. If it was without politics, they would find this in less than 10 years. Then all environmental issues belonged to the past for the next 10,000-s of years.

Grypd · 2004-08-09 04:58:44

I think it is a conspiracy that fusion is so underfunded.

Most goverments tax petrol when it comes into there country and then tax it when it is sold at the forecourts. It may be that the tax on fuel is the single largest tax any country gets short of income tax's

Along comes a potential power source that would free us from the need to use consumables! Do you see any country backing something that would cut there tax base?

It may be the desire to reduce our dependance on oil from the gulf states that means fusion is back on the agenda.

Though another point is what happens to these gulf states when the oil is gone or simply not needed any more. Bahrain is going hell for leather to become a tourist destination building super hotels and sports events to attract tourists.(it has seriously reduced oil reserves and is using them in my mind wisely). But what of Saudi and Kuwait who rely completely on oil as there main source of capital. Well it will not be a nice experience for them.

clark · 2004-08-09 08:57:29

Need gas? :laugh:

Antarctica.

The call for an environmental protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came after scientists discovered large deposits of natural resources such as coal, natural gas and offshore oil reserves in the early 1980s. Antarctica is considered to be part of the theoretical super-continent known as Gondwanaland, which separated near the end of the Paleozoic era and consisted of South America, Africa and Australia. And, because it once was completely covered in vegetation, many scientists believe it may hold one of the last supergiant oil fields yet to be discovered. The continental shelf of Antarctica is considered to hold the region's greatest potential for oil exploration projects, and although estimates vary as to the abundance of oil in Antarctica, the Weddell and Ross Sea areas alone are expected to possess 50 billion barrels of oil - an amount roughly equivalent to that of Alaska's estimated reserves. However, Antarctica's extreme conditions make oil field accessibility in many areas economically problematic.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarc … tica2.html

Once the oil prices stabilize, people will start to reassess the value of the various reserves. This is why OPEC countries are trying to bring the price down (which is actually increasing because of hedge funds and the like). OPEC has a vested interest in keeping the price of oil below $40 per barrel- at that price, their reserves are profitable, but all the other low grade reserves are not. Above $40, and the equations start to change.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-09 13:16:49

How about solar energy cost?
Every highway has section that could have over head collectors that track the sun. These if wide enough and properly spaced could also act as solar blinds to reduce car accidents on the east- west aligned roads. Store the energy during the day and use it during the night for highway lighting or for other reasons.

Euler · 2004-08-09 17:20:39

Solar power and fusion would not really help reduce our usage of oil. Very little oil is used to make electricity. To really reduce our oil consumption, we need a cheap, compact, and efficient way of storing energy.

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-09 18:01:32

Biofuels have the same energy density as current gasoline. So there you go. Not like we have to invent some new thing, biofuels predated fossil fuels.

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-09 18:43:45

I think it is a conspiracy that fusion is so underfunded.
Most goverments tax petrol when it comes into there country and then tax it when it is sold at the forecourts. It may be that the tax on fuel is the single largest tax any country gets short of income tax's
Along comes a potential power source that would free us from the need to use consumables! Do you see any country backing something that would cut there tax base?
It may be the desire to reduce our dependance on oil from the gulf states that means fusion is back on the agenda.

If we truly were weaned off of oil, that would destroy the polticial power of oil companys.

Power (polticial) is never, ever given up.

When an organization is faced with a innovation that threatens their very exsitance and power, it is only natural that they fight it tooth and nail. If they did not, then that would be a sign that the innovation does not threaten their power.

Hence, the tact permission of solar power.

Hence, the demonification of nuclear power as being something unatural and harmful to your health, when in reality, is better on almost all counts.

Hence, the constraints on the nuclear power industry (NRC) to ensure they remain in control of poltically powerful congress, and not "dangerous" entreputnears.

Hence, the continuation of oil supreme, which gets more power with less oil.

Hence, the presentation of ineffectual solutions that force the final reality that the only solution is to drill more.

clark · 2004-08-10 09:05:59

I wonder what the horse and buggy industry has to say about all of your comments. :laugh:

C M Edwards · 2004-08-10 14:25:02

I'm taking a course on renewable energy sources this fall. Looks like I got there just in time! :up:

bolbuyk · 2004-08-11 06:30:50

If nuclear fusion works, It's no problem anymore to 'create' oil or something like that using carbon dioxide, biomass, or whatever to do the things that are yet done with oil. Eg sugar could be enriched to hexane by adding electrolitically obtained hydrogen, so you have some kind of substitute for benzine (right english?). Metallurgic extractions yet done with cokes could be done by electrolysis, also replacing some fossil fuel. Irrigating big areas using huge amounts of energy can result in big areas of growing biomass, which can be used to make plastics, rubber, medicine, etc.. Nuclear fusion is the real solution for very much problems.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 06:36:06

Nuclear fusion is the real solution for very much problems.

If and when we get it to work.

Much virtue in if. :;):

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 05:58:48

A nuclear reactor on Mars would provide the needed power for a whole colony of scientist but last I knew they where designed around heat exchange to water and by turning of turbines to created the electricity.

Since Mars water would be scarce at first and need much processing to get from the in-situ materials this would mean shipping it from earth. I have learned that it should not be liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen is serperate tanks. Cooling of each to stop evaporation not the mention due to the long journey metal fatigue of the tank. Can the water be shipped in its liquid form or would this require heating of the tank?

There would be many problems with construction of a reactor on the surface of Mars such as the containment shell no concrete, steel reenforcement rods and the list goes on.

bolbuyk · 2004-08-12 08:19:20

Nuclear fusion is the real solution for very much problems.
If and when we get it to work.
Much virtue in if. :;):

It's a matter of looking for the right realization. With what is yet discovered, I can't imagine this will never work. When? If we go on, neglecting political bla-bla, within a decade.

Mundaka · 2004-08-12 08:41:10

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-12 08:43:45

Cindy, didn't you once post a link to an article about a guy
who figured out how to convert garbage into oil?

All you need to do is bury it in a deep hole.

For a few million years.

Palomar · 2004-08-12 08:54:07

Cindy, didn't you once post a link to an article about a guy
who figured out how to convert garbage into oil? :hm:

*Hi Mundaka: Nice to see you're with us again.

I don't recall. I have posted articles about turning pig excrement (ugh) into an energy source.

?

Otherwise I don't recall, sorry.

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2004-08-12 09:12:10

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-08 10:47:09

Re: Peak oil

#2 2004-08-08 15:57:30

Re: Peak oil

#3 2004-08-08 17:35:15

Re: Peak oil

#4 2004-08-08 18:30:07

Re: Peak oil

#5 2004-08-08 18:48:50

Re: Peak oil

#6 2004-08-08 21:50:03

Re: Peak oil

#7 2004-08-08 23:23:55

Re: Peak oil

#8 2004-08-08 23:35:29

Re: Peak oil

#9 2004-08-09 03:36:47

Re: Peak oil

#10 2004-08-09 04:58:44

Re: Peak oil

#11 2004-08-09 08:57:29

Re: Peak oil

#12 2004-08-09 13:16:49

Re: Peak oil

#13 2004-08-09 17:20:39

Re: Peak oil

#14 2004-08-09 18:01:32

Re: Peak oil

#15 2004-08-09 18:43:45

Re: Peak oil

#16 2004-08-10 09:05:59

Re: Peak oil

#17 2004-08-10 14:25:02

Re: Peak oil

#18 2004-08-11 06:30:50

Re: Peak oil

#19 2004-08-11 06:36:06

Re: Peak oil

#20 2004-08-12 05:58:48

Re: Peak oil

#21 2004-08-12 08:19:20

Re: Peak oil

#22 2004-08-12 08:41:10

Re: Peak oil

#23 2004-08-12 08:43:45

Re: Peak oil

#24 2004-08-12 08:54:07

Re: Peak oil

#25 2004-08-12 09:12:10

Re: Peak oil

Board footer