|
-
01-02-2020, 05:36 AM #31
-
01-02-2020, 05:38 AM #32
-
-
01-02-2020, 06:05 AM #33
Looks like you didn't read the article since :Many predictions fall short because they too simplistically center on reserve years or the proved recoverable reserves divided by the annual consumption rate.
which is literally what you're doing. From the 70s and 80s based on the amount of reserves we've been calculated at 40-50 years consistently. Yet here we are in 2020 and it's still at 40-50 years of reserves yet.Het bier zal weer vloeien
In ons Gelderland
Op winst in de strijd
Op vlees en jolijt
Kom laat ons nu drinken
Op ons Gelderland
-
01-02-2020, 06:23 AM #34
Maybe you didn't read the part where I already was very generous about if we would find additional reserves. READ.
Suppose you get a bit lucky and discover new ways of getting more access to oil, upping the reserves to T=2.5 trillion barrels. That only gets you to 51 years, and that would be a remarkable discovery of increasing the available oil reserves by 44.5%. Think about that. This oil resource exhaustion issue IS an issue our generation will face in old age, and it is definitely one your children will face.
-
01-02-2020, 06:33 AM #35
Yes, cause that is how it works.
Just 2 months ago for example
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/10/b...ntl/index.htmlHet bier zal weer vloeien
In ons Gelderland
Op winst in de strijd
Op vlees en jolijt
Kom laat ons nu drinken
Op ons Gelderland
-
01-02-2020, 07:05 AM #36
-
-
01-02-2020, 07:27 AM #37
- Join Date: Oct 2013
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 37
- Posts: 10,227
- Rep Power: 125998
More evidence that the climate alarmists want one thing, control. The entire effort is to cripple western economies, siphon as much of their wealth out and into a few elites ahdns as possible, and usher in a heavy handed govt that will ration every individuals lives doen to the minute "for the greater good".
I will continue to oppose the climate alarmists loudly and openly, we must all continue to fight them and try to wake people up before they do something that is irreversible srs.
-
01-02-2020, 07:33 AM #38
-
01-02-2020, 02:59 PM #39
I'm not basing this on some tv show tard. Wow I didn't know nuclear reactors could violate the laws of thermodynamics. Gee whiz! There is always waste, you autist. And 95 is a far cry for the 20,000 or so that would be around if we fully tried to replace fossil fuels. People less retarded have looked at the risks. Go read what the Union of Concerned Scientists and Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have to say about 4th gen reactors. They are good reactors, sure, and it is a step in the right direction. But this "no waste" chit is bs and you know it so stop spreading bs. Nuclear waste is not a joke.
Last edited by wincel; 01-02-2020 at 03:19 PM.
-
01-02-2020, 03:22 PM #40
lol too bad you aren't one of those 'less retarded' people you reference in your strawman filled diatribe. The entire premise of my post was that to install a true 'Green New Deal' nuclear power is needed both to phase out fossil fuel usage as well as provide a stable backup for the energy grid that would be run on renewables.
-
-
01-02-2020, 03:29 PM #41
-
01-02-2020, 03:32 PM #42
-
01-02-2020, 03:46 PM #43
-
01-02-2020, 03:46 PM #44
Germany ditched a lot of nuclear just after Fukushima and even brought coal back on line.
Backup for renewables will end up being lots of pump storage, in countries where practical. You have two dams at different heights and you use spare electricity to pump the water up the hill and then let it back down for hydro power when you need it.
I wrote a report years ago on the cost of renewables and the level of redundancy needed to prevent rolling blackouts if fully renewable meant electricity costs of ~7x what they are today.
Renewables end up being a racist issue (this is where you get to have fun with it), in that when electricity prices go up, due to higher levels of "green" energy, minorities are disproportionately affected. So all the white middle class libs screaming about climate change, want to make black people poorer.
Bad white libs, bad.Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!
The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.
They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
-
-
01-02-2020, 04:17 PM #45
Interesting article on the problems with nuclear energy
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclea...ld-energy.htmlThe difference between a winner and a loser is
that when a loser loses, he gives up. Moore's law crew.
-
01-02-2020, 04:31 PM #46
-
01-02-2020, 04:31 PM #47
-
01-02-2020, 04:35 PM #48
-
-
01-02-2020, 04:45 PM #49
It isn't net positive.
The amount of power generated and consumed varies throughout the day. When you are generating more than you are consuming, you pump the water up the hill and when you are using more than you are generating, you let it back down the hill, to generate electricity. You can just google pumped storage if you want sources, it has been used commercially for over 50 years.
Any method of electricity storage is highly expensive and wasteful, so you pick the least worse option. As supply and demand vary, electricity providers will do all sorts of things, including slightly altering the frequency of the AC supplied. To get a turbine up to speed takes about four hours, so they cannot quickly respond and needs sources of extra peak production. Atm, they literally turn on diesel generators when it gets too tight.Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!
The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.
They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
-
01-02-2020, 05:25 PM #50
-
01-02-2020, 05:33 PM #51
You're looking at it wrong. You use the dam to store the overproduction from wind, solar, coal etc.
During the day, a country uses more electricity than at night. You take the spare electricity produced at night and use it to pump the water up hill and then when you need it during the day, when you are near production capacity, you use that water to increase max production.
A pump storage system is basically a huge battery that doesn't bleed charge.
If you have lots of solar, you can use it the other way around and pump the water up hill during the day time and then let it back down at night (to generate hydro power when solar is lacking).Last edited by DuracellBunny; 01-02-2020 at 05:39 PM.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!
The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.
They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
-
01-02-2020, 05:38 PM #52
lmao prefect example of someone with ZERO knowledge of the subject bulchitting because he thinks hes smart and everyone else is too dumb to realize
you don't need oil to make polymers, it just so happens that after oil is distilled for fuel, whats left can be used to make polymers and carbon-fiber, its VERY cost effective. (you prob didin't even know that most carbon fiber is made from oil lmao)
your precious little EV's guess what, the miles of wires are....coated in polymers, the lightweight interior....polymers and not to mention the batteries.... ding ding ding polymers
you saying we need to stop our dependence on polymers is as dumb as saying "we need to stop using metal, or ceramics, or semiconductors" completely absurd and impossible if we don't want to regress technologically, how could you be so anti-science? polymers are literally the final frontier when it comes to material science.
the solution has to occur organically, as oil gets used up, the price goes up, and it becomes more economically viable to recycle or produce plastic by other means,
Your solution would mean a great depression worse than the world has ever seen and for sure everyone will starve, how many scientific advancements do you think will occur under a great depression lolLast edited by gluon; 01-02-2020 at 05:46 PM.
-
-
01-02-2020, 06:36 PM #53
-
01-02-2020, 07:07 PM #54
-
01-02-2020, 07:35 PM #55
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Greeley, Colorado, United States
- Age: 43
- Posts: 11,187
- Rep Power: 62599
works great in some places, how many regions have enough storage dams to actually do this, less tan 10%, most that do have already exhausted this or are close to it. That's not a reasonable solution and could come no where close to supplying US or any other countries energy demands.
Edit: probably less than 2%, I work.in grid level utilities, right now we use this and we get well under 1% and that's tapped out because there are various factors needed for this to actually work. It's a pipe dreamYellow fever crew
High test Manlet crew
EE master race
5'7" @ 175
PRs, B325 S405 D405
-
01-02-2020, 07:40 PM #56
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Greeley, Colorado, United States
- Age: 43
- Posts: 11,187
- Rep Power: 62599
another thread where you have no idea what you're talking about. If Carter didn't enter into a nuclear proliferation treaty then we could simply recycle spent fuel and development of reactors would be decades ahead of wh ed re they are. France gets more than 80 percent of their energy from nuclear with no accidents and minimal potential for any, because their politicians didnt kneecap any efforts.
Yellow fever crew
High test Manlet crew
EE master race
5'7" @ 175
PRs, B325 S405 D405
-
-
01-02-2020, 08:53 PM #57
-
01-02-2020, 08:56 PM #58
WTF are u talking about retard? I am telling you that when the oil production and consumption declines, we will see a huge depression because of all the stuff we make, including polymers, using these fossil fuels. Your "organic solution" of denial and waiting is wasting precious time at researching alternatives. The hit will come whether you like it or not It's also funny that uneducated idiots tell me I don't know what I am talking about. I made the case crystal clear for you earlier. If you don't get it, go fuk yourself.
-
01-02-2020, 09:01 PM #59
-
01-02-2020, 09:16 PM #60
I said nothing of the sort. I showed you a calculation that at current rates, we will run out in under 40 years. I said we need to get off fossil fuels asap. That is obvious. Otherwise, we will continue to exhaust them. I have said we need to fund alternative sources of energy.
I'm not even sure what you are arguing. The central premise of your argument seems to be that polymers are important. Yes. I agree. And? We are exhausting the primary source of these polymers rapidly.
Bookmarks