And she has forgotten that an another successful process called thermo-depolymerization can seperate the components of raw coal such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadnium, sulphur, etc and sell them separately at a profit, leaving only pure carbon thus cleaning up the coal and recycling any water used in this process. The same process can be used on tar sands and shale oil rocks deposits. Is it any wonder why she left this proven process out? Corporate suppression of competition is the answer!
As for shale oil. the Karrick Retort Process is already a proven success and it is an open patent open to the public for public use for anyone who wants to use it. To say the oil shale processing is still experimental is a corporation styled suppression of the truth because anyone wt a Karrick Retort Processing Facility can turn any coal and shale (except 1 kind of shale) mine into an oil producing area at a profit at lower costs than drilling and is mechanically automated, self-cleaning, safe.
You Americans can increased your oil production of your old and abandoned oil wells by underreaming these wells back to their original production output, at first it's expensive but once it is done the increased production can payoff the costs gradually and after the initial underreaming is done oil revenues must set aside funding periodically for periodic undeereaming indefinitely.
She didn't mention thermo-depolymerization because it isn't being used in Tar Sands processing, not yet anyway, as far as I know. Few people know anything about what you're talking about, including Taylor. Lets be fair.
They are doing something similar though, where they use the by-product from the Tar Sands processing, natural gas, I think, to provide the heat necessary for the process, making it much more efficient.
@Vulcan750L Not paranoid, just realistic. We Russians has also developed independently our own version of the thermal depolymerization process to clean up our Elga coal deposits and tar sands from remote parts of Siberia. It is a success. Underreaming is when we make the holes deep underground much larger to remove the clogged rock surface sides of the holes thus unclogging the old oil wells making them as productive like new oil wells.
It is not realistic to think that everyone is controlled by the oil companies and that everyone works for the big corporations. That is not realistic, it is paranoia.
Taylor is a college student making a documentary on Shale and Tar Sands.
11 billion barrels of recoverable oil... that is only what U.S would consume in 2 or 3 years or what the world would consume in 4 months.Shale oil is not the solution to peak oil.
11 Billion is the amount of recoverable Tar Sands the US has.
Shale Oil is 800 Billion barrels recoverable in the Green River Formations alone and almost as much in the Bakan's Formation. Domestic oil, just in the form of Shale, will last us 200 yrs if we do not produce or import ANY other oil. But of course we are, so the Shale will last us much longer than 200 years.
"Recoverable" is always being redefined as our technology improves.
@Vulcan750L Ok, 800 billion barrels sounds a lot more promising than 11 billion. However even 800 billion barrels won't really last 200 years if demand continues to double every 10-20 years as it has been doing for most of the last 80 years. With demand growing at that rate today's "200 year supply" it might actually only last between 40 and 60 years.
Check out this YT video;
The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)
You missed the rest of what I said. You are only focused on the 800 Billion in the Green River Formations. There is also the Bakens which is almost as great as the GRF.
There is also vast quantities of coal that can be converted into oil. There is also vast quantities of natural gas that has been replacing oil in energy production and transportation. There is also a myriad of green technologies growing exponentially.
@Vulcan750L Go back and look again at the video I mentioned, you don't seem to have understood what exponential growth in demand actually means. Even if the new shale finds you mention equal all the oil that has ever been used in history they would still only sustain the economy through one more cycle of exponential growth. Atm the exponential growth cycle is not more than 20 years.
"Green technologies" do not look like a solution that will allow continued economic growth either.
Oil is currently being replaced by alternatives. The demand for oil will soon decrease and not continue to increase. To assume that things will never change and base your whole theory on the past is ignorant.
Times are changing and technology advances every year. Electric cars and green technologies are growing exponentially and will put the oil industry out of business within the next 50 years.
@Vulcan750L Can you name some of those alternatives? The only immediate realistic alternatives to oil are other fossil fuels such as gas and coal. Coal would damage the environment (just look at China) and run out eventually anyway as would gas. And Gas costs 4 times what coal costs. All known alternatives to oil, including shale and tar sands will cost multiple times what oil costs due to the increased cost of extraction and/or harnessing. There is no getting around that fact.
The argument here isn't about which alternative is PERFECT. Oil isn't exactly clean and without environmental costs either. The Exxon Valdez and the BP blowout in the Gulf comes to mind . . . Burning oil and gasoline isn't exactly good for the environment either.
So how is coal and natural gas any worse? Anyway, that is beside the point. The point is . . . oil has many alternatives and is currently being replaced. I already mentioned what they are.
I already saw that video. It talks about about exponential growth. What about the exponential growth of electric cars and other green technologies and alternative fuels?
It is faulty to think that our technology will not change and that we will still be driving around in gas combustion engines 100 years from now.
@Vulcan750L I was simply pointing out the flaw in your claim that shale oil will last 200 years. I repeat, It would only last that long if demand remained steady. But demand for energy does not remain steady it increases exponentially.
The number of electric cars is not relevant because demand for energy is related to the price of energy and the drive for economic growth.If electric cars use less energy then the energy saved will get used elsewhere in the growing economy.
@Tadgh78 Apparently, you are very ignorant if you have to ask me, "what alternatives?" Alternatives to crude oil . . . Cheap thin film solar panels. Enhanced Geothermal Technologies which can be implemented almost anywhere. Nuclear Wind Turbines Solar Farms (photo voltaic and a variety of others using solar energy) Algae Bio-fuels Electric Cars Natural Gas Coal Oil from Shale and Tar Sands
@Vulcan750L I am far from ignorant, friend. I was just looking for a few specifics. As I suspected most of processes that you consider to be "alternatives" are generally recognized as being much more expensive than fossil fuels and in any case would never be capable of supplying base-load power. The only system that might supply base-load power is Nuclear, but Nuclear Fission is dead. There hasn't been a Nuclear plant built in the U.S for 30 years. The rest is mostly science fiction.
You seem to have a talent for misinterpreting, misreading, and missing the point. Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
You are confusing energy consumption with energy production numbers. There is a difference.
Energy PRODUCED from oil burning power plants is 1% of the total electricity produced in the US.
The amount of energy we CONSUME in the US in the form of oil every year is about 37% of the energy mix. This is almost entirely for transportation, not electricity.
The number of electric cars is indeed relevant. All but 1% of the oil imported and produced is for cars and transportation, mostly for cars, not energy production.
Oil only accounts for about 1% of energy production. It has been losing market share over the decades and continues to lose market share as the price of oil increases.
Electric cars will kill off the oil industry. Algae Bio-fuels will take care of the rest, planes and ships.
@Vulcan750L Electric cars will never kill the oil industry. Cheap energy will always be in demand. That is why I say the number of electric cars is ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant to this is "demand for energy". This has been increasing exponentially for the last hundred years and shows no signs of slowing. The growth based Economy is a Malthusian trap. It must either grow or else collapse and in order to grow it requires cheap energy. That is the kernel of the problem.
@Vulcan750L You think only 1% of energy comes from oil!? Guess again!. FYI 37% of total U.S energy comes from oil.You can look it up. That is a pretty darn big tank of juice to replace with a few windmills and slime farms. If you know so little about the part oil plays in energy supply, what else or you way off the mark on? You obviously lack a basic understanding of these subjects and I'm afraid don't have any more time to educate you. I'm done here. Good day! :-D
If oil is only 1% of the energy mix and is being phased out . . . and cars will all be electric within the next 20 to 40 years, what do we need oil for?
Sure, we will always need more and more energy, but it isn't coming from oil. Very little of it comes from oil now, and will not be in the future.
June 8, 2011 Sales of hybrids have yet to break beyond about 3 percent of new car sales in the United States. But the mildest form of gas-electric technology that prevents a car from using any gasoline when idling—known as micro-hybrid, stop-start or idle-stop—could be the cost-effective breakthrough fuel-saving technology in the hybrid age.--
Going to take a long time to change all the fleet out
What is your definition of a "long time"? I think within 50 or 60 years, more than 95% of the cars on the road will be electric.
Current battery technology allows pure electric cars a 140 mile range. They are working on a 500 mile range battery. In the near future, there will be charging outlets in parking lots and battery swapping stations throughout the country.
Considering we have plenty of oil for over 150 years, 50 or 60 years isn't a problem.
It is not going to happen all at once in 50 or 60 years. It is a gradual transitional process which started a few years ago with the Prius.
A few years ago, you had 1 or 2 EVs or hybrids to chose from. Now, you have about 2 dozen. Just about every major and minor auto manufacturer in the world has an EV, hybrid, or alternative fuel offering. A few auto companies ONLY make EVs.
as reported by the BP Statistical Review. Renewables now appear in the 2010 globel energy use data, and account for 1.32% of total world supply of energy.cheap solar panels and windmills have a long way to go
Renewables are on the increase, growing by leaps and bounds. New factories to produce wind generators, solar panels, and electric cars are being built all over the world to meet ever increasing demand.
China and the US are competing to be the world's supplier of renewable technologies and equipment. Green energy is growing exponentially.
Oil is finite and will soon be a thing of the past.
Solar, wind, geothermal, and other green alternative energies more than double every year. At that rate, within 50 or 60 years, they will be the primary ways in which we get our energy.
Also, within 30 years, we will have fusion power. Do some research on Fusion power and Cold Fusion. One or both of those will be available within 30 years.
@Vulcan750L wikipedia The ITER project was formally agreed to and funded in 2006 with a cost estimate of $12.8 billion.start date 2008 to end of project 2038.doubt you will see one working fusion reactor within 30 years,not worth talking and cold fusion. thorium-based molten salt reactor system may be do able in the time frame 10 to 20 years .solar, wind and geothermal are not planed to be are primary energy source, 20% max but who knows in 50- 60 years to far off to even guess.
I mentioned a variety of alternatives, not just wind, solar, and fusion . . . "other green alternatives", ie. algae.
Geothermal will also play a much greater role in energy production borrowing deep drilling methods from the oil industry, allowing plants all over the country.
When I talk about solar, I'm mostly talking about solar panels on the roof tops of homes and businesses. Cheap thin film solar technology will drastically decrease demand on centrally produced electricity.
Whether or not Fusion comes online in 30 or 50 years, doesn't really matter. Five key current technologies can solve our hydrocarbon dependency by themselves, nuclear, "enhanced" geothermal, EVs, cheap thin film solar, and Algae fuels.
@Vulcan750L Have a look at Gregor.us Don,t think the world is going green ,it,s turning to coal as is USA who are building a large number of coal fired power stations.
China is growing exponentially in every direction. They are an emerging industrial power and are still in their infancy and have a long way to go before they are on par with developed countries. Renewbles are not enough to satisfy ALL their needs at the moment.
But, they do know that it is foolish to rely on an energy source that will soon be depleted. Once renewables have matured and become cheaper, more widely available on a large scale, they will replace the coal, oil, and gas.
@Vulcan750L How is obama,s renewables recovery act 2009 going ? that is to double renewable energy in three years ,a tall order as the last doubleing took 30 years
He talks about Canada's production of oil from Tar Sands, not the US. His numbers assumed no new plants or investment to increase production. This is a bad assumption because Canada increases their output every year and plans to more than triple their Tar Sands production in 10 or 15 years.
He doesn't talk about the vast quantities of Shale and Tar Sands that the US has that we haven't even touched yet.
David Hughes' calculations don't include the vast quantities of coal that the US has that could be developed into oil for less than $2/bbl.
He assumes that the demand for oil is exponential. But ignores the exponential growth of green technologies and a worldwide movement towards renewables.
His calculations do not factor in the breakthroughs in cheap solar panels and electric cars.
@Vulcan750L Don't think you watched it as he talks about clean coal and carbon capture and say's it's better to burn the coal in a efficient plant then you can power your electric cars. he also talks about renewables as energy use grows it will grow but remain at same percentage of power mix.Don,t know where you get coal to oil at $2/bbl as only figure i have seen is $25 to $40 which is very doable at the expense of global warming and waste of coal.Just more of the same crap ?
He mentions everything in his talk but ignores or downplays their significant impact and contribution as if they make no difference. Also like every other peak oil theorists, he ignores the explosion of green energies and technologies. He assumes everything is a linear progression. And he assumes demand for oil will only increase and supply of oil will only decrease coming to a cataclysmic collision point.
Yes, it is the same crap. Is he bringing up anything new?
You're right about the price. It's not less than $2/bbl. It's $1.20/gallon. Instead of nitpicking on all the irrelevant things, why don't you focus on the things that is relevant to our argument?
So Hughes mentioned that coal can be used to provide energy for electric cars. And??? What is the point of your argument? Just that he mentions it? Nitpicking on irrelevance.
Does Hughes understand that electric cars is the "game changer"?
The entire content of your last response was about whether or not Hughes mentioned the electric car or not, and the fact that I made an error on the price of synthetic fuel from coal. If that is what you are focused on then you're missing the entire point of our argument. What are we arguing about here?
Why don't you address all the relevant things that I mentioned instead of ignoring them and nitpicking at stupid shit!
And why was he only talking about coal? We also have vast quantities of Shale, natural gas, and heavy oil. All this combined we have well over 200 years at current consumption.
Given the exponential growth of green energies and technologies, it is not realistic to assume that our consumption of fossil fuels will continue to grow indefinitely. My guess is, our demand for fossil fuels will start to diminish in 10 or 20 years.
The problem with his assertion is that he doesn't take into account the EXPONENTIAL GROWTH of renewable energies. Solar panels, wind farms,geothermal plants, and electric, hybrid, and bio-fuel vehicles.
Fusion power is also on the horizon, within 20 - 30 years, much sooner if we dramatically increase the funding.
And she has forgotten that an another successful process called thermo-depolymerization can seperate the components of raw coal such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadnium, sulphur, etc and sell them separately at a profit, leaving only pure carbon thus cleaning up the coal and recycling any water used in this process. The same process can be used on tar sands and shale oil rocks deposits. Is it any wonder why she left this proven process out? Corporate suppression of competition is the answer!
darthvader5300 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As for shale oil. the Karrick Retort Process is already a proven success and it is an open patent open to the public for public use for anyone who wants to use it. To say the oil shale processing is still experimental is a corporation styled suppression of the truth because anyone wt a Karrick Retort Processing Facility can turn any coal and shale (except 1 kind of shale) mine into an oil producing area at a profit at lower costs than drilling and is mechanically automated, self-cleaning, safe.
darthvader5300 3 months ago
Comment removed
darthvader5300 3 months ago
You Americans can increased your oil production of your old and abandoned oil wells by underreaming these wells back to their original production output, at first it's expensive but once it is done the increased production can payoff the costs gradually and after the initial underreaming is done oil revenues must set aside funding periodically for periodic undeereaming indefinitely.
darthvader5300 3 months ago
@darthvader5300
What is underreaming?
She didn't mention thermo-depolymerization because it isn't being used in Tar Sands processing, not yet anyway, as far as I know. Few people know anything about what you're talking about, including Taylor. Lets be fair.
They are doing something similar though, where they use the by-product from the Tar Sands processing, natural gas, I think, to provide the heat necessary for the process, making it much more efficient.
You're a bit paranoid about
Vulcan750L 3 weeks ago
@Vulcan750L Not paranoid, just realistic. We Russians has also developed independently our own version of the thermal depolymerization process to clean up our Elga coal deposits and tar sands from remote parts of Siberia. It is a success. Underreaming is when we make the holes deep underground much larger to remove the clogged rock surface sides of the holes thus unclogging the old oil wells making them as productive like new oil wells.
darthvader5300 2 weeks ago
@darthvader5300
It is not realistic to think that everyone is controlled by the oil companies and that everyone works for the big corporations. That is not realistic, it is paranoia.
Taylor is a college student making a documentary on Shale and Tar Sands.
Vulcan750L 1 week ago
;) Awesome,the oil industry pays its workers well.........................The process will only get more efficient....
TheChristianRight09 3 months ago
11 billion barrels of recoverable oil... that is only what U.S would consume in 2 or 3 years or what the world would consume in 4 months.Shale oil is not the solution to peak oil.
Tadgh78 7 months ago
@Tadgh78
11 Billion is the amount of recoverable Tar Sands the US has.
Shale Oil is 800 Billion barrels recoverable in the Green River Formations alone and almost as much in the Bakan's Formation. Domestic oil, just in the form of Shale, will last us 200 yrs if we do not produce or import ANY other oil. But of course we are, so the Shale will last us much longer than 200 years.
"Recoverable" is always being redefined as our technology improves.
Vulcan750L 6 months ago
@Vulcan750L Ok, 800 billion barrels sounds a lot more promising than 11 billion. However even 800 billion barrels won't really last 200 years if demand continues to double every 10-20 years as it has been doing for most of the last 80 years. With demand growing at that rate today's "200 year supply" it might actually only last between 40 and 60 years.
Check out this YT video;
The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)
Tadgh78 6 months ago
@Tadgh78
You missed the rest of what I said. You are only focused on the 800 Billion in the Green River Formations. There is also the Bakens which is almost as great as the GRF.
There is also vast quantities of coal that can be converted into oil. There is also vast quantities of natural gas that has been replacing oil in energy production and transportation. There is also a myriad of green technologies growing exponentially.
Oil is being replaced as an energy source.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Vulcan750L Go back and look again at the video I mentioned, you don't seem to have understood what exponential growth in demand actually means. Even if the new shale finds you mention equal all the oil that has ever been used in history they would still only sustain the economy through one more cycle of exponential growth. Atm the exponential growth cycle is not more than 20 years.
"Green technologies" do not look like a solution that will allow continued economic growth either.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
I know exactly what exponential growth means.
Oil is currently being replaced by alternatives. The demand for oil will soon decrease and not continue to increase. To assume that things will never change and base your whole theory on the past is ignorant.
Times are changing and technology advances every year. Electric cars and green technologies are growing exponentially and will put the oil industry out of business within the next 50 years.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Vulcan750L Can you name some of those alternatives? The only immediate realistic alternatives to oil are other fossil fuels such as gas and coal. Coal would damage the environment (just look at China) and run out eventually anyway as would gas. And Gas costs 4 times what coal costs. All known alternatives to oil, including shale and tar sands will cost multiple times what oil costs due to the increased cost of extraction and/or harnessing. There is no getting around that fact.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
The argument here isn't about which alternative is PERFECT. Oil isn't exactly clean and without environmental costs either. The Exxon Valdez and the BP blowout in the Gulf comes to mind . . . Burning oil and gasoline isn't exactly good for the environment either.
So how is coal and natural gas any worse? Anyway, that is beside the point. The point is . . . oil has many alternatives and is currently being replaced. I already mentioned what they are.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
I already saw that video. It talks about about exponential growth. What about the exponential growth of electric cars and other green technologies and alternative fuels?
It is faulty to think that our technology will not change and that we will still be driving around in gas combustion engines 100 years from now.
Check out my playlist on electric cars.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Vulcan750L I was simply pointing out the flaw in your claim that shale oil will last 200 years. I repeat, It would only last that long if demand remained steady. But demand for energy does not remain steady it increases exponentially.
The number of electric cars is not relevant because demand for energy is related to the price of energy and the drive for economic growth.If electric cars use less energy then the energy saved will get used elsewhere in the growing economy.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Vulcan750L I am far from ignorant, friend. I was just looking for a few specifics. As I suspected most of processes that you consider to be "alternatives" are generally recognized as being much more expensive than fossil fuels and in any case would never be capable of supplying base-load power. The only system that might supply base-load power is Nuclear, but Nuclear Fission is dead. There hasn't been a Nuclear plant built in the U.S for 30 years. The rest is mostly science fiction.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
You seem to have a talent for misinterpreting, misreading, and missing the point. Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
You are confusing energy consumption with energy production numbers. There is a difference.
Energy PRODUCED from oil burning power plants is 1% of the total electricity produced in the US.
The amount of energy we CONSUME in the US in the form of oil every year is about 37% of the energy mix. This is almost entirely for transportation, not electricity.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
The number of electric cars is indeed relevant. All but 1% of the oil imported and produced is for cars and transportation, mostly for cars, not energy production.
Oil only accounts for about 1% of energy production. It has been losing market share over the decades and continues to lose market share as the price of oil increases.
Electric cars will kill off the oil industry. Algae Bio-fuels will take care of the rest, planes and ships.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Vulcan750L Electric cars will never kill the oil industry. Cheap energy will always be in demand. That is why I say the number of electric cars is ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant to this is "demand for energy". This has been increasing exponentially for the last hundred years and shows no signs of slowing. The growth based Economy is a Malthusian trap. It must either grow or else collapse and in order to grow it requires cheap energy. That is the kernel of the problem.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
Cheap energy??? Oil is no longer cheap. Have you been living under a rock?
How did you manage to miss my most major point? Only 1% of energy comes from oil.
Dude, you are a retard. I'm tired of repeating myself.
Right now, all the alternatives I mentioned are cheaper than oil. That is why oil is being phased out.
Algae and other bio-fuels, not yet, but soon will be.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
@Vulcan750L You think only 1% of energy comes from oil!? Guess again!. FYI 37% of total U.S energy comes from oil.You can look it up. That is a pretty darn big tank of juice to replace with a few windmills and slime farms. If you know so little about the part oil plays in energy supply, what else or you way off the mark on? You obviously lack a basic understanding of these subjects and I'm afraid don't have any more time to educate you. I'm done here. Good day! :-D
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78
I guess you still don't GET IT.
If oil is only 1% of the energy mix and is being phased out . . . and cars will all be electric within the next 20 to 40 years, what do we need oil for?
Sure, we will always need more and more energy, but it isn't coming from oil. Very little of it comes from oil now, and will not be in the future.
Vulcan750L 5 months ago
Comment removed
Tadgh78 6 months ago
Shale is evil. They will never get their greedy hands on Califonria those vultures.
TheBeckyRileyShow 7 months ago
June 8, 2011 Sales of hybrids have yet to break beyond about 3 percent of new car sales in the United States. But the mildest form of gas-electric technology that prevents a car from using any gasoline when idling—known as micro-hybrid, stop-start or idle-stop—could be the cost-effective breakthrough fuel-saving technology in the hybrid age.--
Going to take a long time to change all the fleet out
reedy93 8 months ago
@reedy93
What is your definition of a "long time"? I think within 50 or 60 years, more than 95% of the cars on the road will be electric.
Current battery technology allows pure electric cars a 140 mile range. They are working on a 500 mile range battery. In the near future, there will be charging outlets in parking lots and battery swapping stations throughout the country.
Check out my playlist on EVs.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@Vulcan750L 50 -60 years is a looong time,usa is going to have transport problems 10-15 years if they don,t move quicker to electric and natural gas
reedy93 8 months ago
@reedy93
Considering we have plenty of oil for over 150 years, 50 or 60 years isn't a problem.
It is not going to happen all at once in 50 or 60 years. It is a gradual transitional process which started a few years ago with the Prius.
A few years ago, you had 1 or 2 EVs or hybrids to chose from. Now, you have about 2 dozen. Just about every major and minor auto manufacturer in the world has an EV, hybrid, or alternative fuel offering. A few auto companies ONLY make EVs.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
as reported by the BP Statistical Review. Renewables now appear in the 2010 globel energy use data, and account for 1.32% of total world supply of energy.cheap solar panels and windmills have a long way to go
reedy93 8 months ago
@reedy93
Renewables are on the increase, growing by leaps and bounds. New factories to produce wind generators, solar panels, and electric cars are being built all over the world to meet ever increasing demand.
China and the US are competing to be the world's supplier of renewable technologies and equipment. Green energy is growing exponentially.
Oil is finite and will soon be a thing of the past.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@reedy93
Solar, wind, geothermal, and other green alternative energies more than double every year. At that rate, within 50 or 60 years, they will be the primary ways in which we get our energy.
Also, within 30 years, we will have fusion power. Do some research on Fusion power and Cold Fusion. One or both of those will be available within 30 years.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@Vulcan750L wikipedia The ITER project was formally agreed to and funded in 2006 with a cost estimate of $12.8 billion.start date 2008 to end of project 2038.doubt you will see one working fusion reactor within 30 years,not worth talking and cold fusion. thorium-based molten salt reactor system may be do able in the time frame 10 to 20 years .solar, wind and geothermal are not planed to be are primary energy source, 20% max but who knows in 50- 60 years to far off to even guess.
reedy93 8 months ago
@reedy93
I mentioned a variety of alternatives, not just wind, solar, and fusion . . . "other green alternatives", ie. algae.
Geothermal will also play a much greater role in energy production borrowing deep drilling methods from the oil industry, allowing plants all over the country.
When I talk about solar, I'm mostly talking about solar panels on the roof tops of homes and businesses. Cheap thin film solar technology will drastically decrease demand on centrally produced electricity.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@reedy93
Whether or not Fusion comes online in 30 or 50 years, doesn't really matter. Five key current technologies can solve our hydrocarbon dependency by themselves, nuclear, "enhanced" geothermal, EVs, cheap thin film solar, and Algae fuels.
ENERGY PRODUCTION:
Rooftop (Solar Panels & Wind Generators) = 50%
Nuclear = 20%
Enhanced Geothermal = 20%
Solar Plants = 5%
Wind Farms = 5%
Algae fuels can be used for ships and planes.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@Vulcan750L Have a look at Gregor.us Don,t think the world is going green ,it,s turning to coal as is USA who are building a large number of coal fired power stations.
China has doubled it,s coal use in 8 years !
reedy93 8 months ago
@reedy93
China is growing exponentially in every direction. They are an emerging industrial power and are still in their infancy and have a long way to go before they are on par with developed countries. Renewbles are not enough to satisfy ALL their needs at the moment.
But, they do know that it is foolish to rely on an energy source that will soon be depleted. Once renewables have matured and become cheaper, more widely available on a large scale, they will replace the coal, oil, and gas.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@reedy93
"China has doubled it,s coal use in 8 years !"
Renewables double EVERY year.
Vulcan750L 8 months ago
@Vulcan750L How is obama,s renewables recovery act 2009 going ? that is to double renewable energy in three years ,a tall order as the last doubleing took 30 years
reedy93 7 months ago
another video to watch Powering the Future in a Finite World, by David Hughes
if you start watching 26 minutes in he talks about tar sands and reserves in the ground.worth watching all of it but not the most exciting talk
reedy93 11 months ago
@reedy93
He talks about Canada's production of oil from Tar Sands, not the US. His numbers assumed no new plants or investment to increase production. This is a bad assumption because Canada increases their output every year and plans to more than triple their Tar Sands production in 10 or 15 years.
He doesn't talk about the vast quantities of Shale and Tar Sands that the US has that we haven't even touched yet.
Vulcan750L 11 months ago
@reedy93
David Hughes' calculations don't include the vast quantities of coal that the US has that could be developed into oil for less than $2/bbl.
He assumes that the demand for oil is exponential. But ignores the exponential growth of green technologies and a worldwide movement towards renewables.
His calculations do not factor in the breakthroughs in cheap solar panels and electric cars.
Just more of the same crap!
Vulcan750L 11 months ago
@Vulcan750L Don't think you watched it as he talks about clean coal and carbon capture and say's it's better to burn the coal in a efficient plant then you can power your electric cars. he also talks about renewables as energy use grows it will grow but remain at same percentage of power mix.Don,t know where you get coal to oil at $2/bbl as only figure i have seen is $25 to $40 which is very doable at the expense of global warming and waste of coal.Just more of the same crap ?
reedy93 10 months ago
@reedy93
He mentions everything in his talk but ignores or downplays their significant impact and contribution as if they make no difference. Also like every other peak oil theorists, he ignores the explosion of green energies and technologies. He assumes everything is a linear progression. And he assumes demand for oil will only increase and supply of oil will only decrease coming to a cataclysmic collision point.
Yes, it is the same crap. Is he bringing up anything new?
Vulcan750L 10 months ago
@reedy93
You're right about the price. It's not less than $2/bbl. It's $1.20/gallon. Instead of nitpicking on all the irrelevant things, why don't you focus on the things that is relevant to our argument?
So Hughes mentioned that coal can be used to provide energy for electric cars. And??? What is the point of your argument? Just that he mentions it? Nitpicking on irrelevance.
Does Hughes understand that electric cars is the "game changer"?
Vulcan750L 10 months ago
@reedy93
The entire content of your last response was about whether or not Hughes mentioned the electric car or not, and the fact that I made an error on the price of synthetic fuel from coal. If that is what you are focused on then you're missing the entire point of our argument. What are we arguing about here?
Why don't you address all the relevant things that I mentioned instead of ignoring them and nitpicking at stupid shit!
Vulcan750L 10 months ago
Please watch The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8) then do your sum again
reedy93 11 months ago
@reedy93
And why was he only talking about coal? We also have vast quantities of Shale, natural gas, and heavy oil. All this combined we have well over 200 years at current consumption.
Given the exponential growth of green energies and technologies, it is not realistic to assume that our consumption of fossil fuels will continue to grow indefinitely. My guess is, our demand for fossil fuels will start to diminish in 10 or 20 years.
Vulcan750L 11 months ago
@reedy93
I've seen that video before.
The problem with his assertion is that he doesn't take into account the EXPONENTIAL GROWTH of renewable energies. Solar panels, wind farms,geothermal plants, and electric, hybrid, and bio-fuel vehicles.
Fusion power is also on the horizon, within 20 - 30 years, much sooner if we dramatically increase the funding.
Vulcan750L 11 months ago