@tothemax01 Your basing that on the assumption that there is an endless amount of material to run reactors, and that the technology of fusion will happen some time soon. How is an industrialized society that uses oil to plant, fertilize, harvest, ship, package and cool products survive without oil? At the very least it will drive food prices significantly higher, and that will be fatal for billions of people.
Oh give me a break. Let me correct your sensationalist, melodramatic bullshit. Oil is currently used because it is the best energy source. This will not persist. Nuclear will replace it as the primary energy source. Uranium fission with a traveling wave reactor gives us more than enough time to get to the next step - nuclear fusion reactors. At that point, the limit to growth is literally 'the universe'. Chill out.
@linghun What's widely ignored is the fact, that burning fuel needs more components than fuel alone. Its seems to be public opinion, that there is no oxygen involved in this process and the outcome is only one natural gas called CO2. Prof. Scheer stated that we should NOT burn our remaining reserves. So the 40 years are gone. Maybe we will have 10 years but not more. The energy consumption could easily be covered by geothermal powerplants. Solar and wind is not reliable enough and below 24/7.
@MarkProffitt There's a vast difference between improving energy efficiency and recovering lost heat from any physical process. And in fact one of the laws of thermodynamics states that you cannot achieve 100 percent efficiency.
If you can recover lost heat, that will mean that a cup of water sitting on a table can BY ITSELF become hotter and hotter, until it reaches boiling point. If you know of any actual example of such a thing, write back to me.
@panstriato2 very complex question, but given exponential drop in solar panel prices, it might take 20 years before we go 30% solar, while on fossil fuels we have some 40 years. The transition can be done, even if (ESPECIALLY IF) there is an energy crisis, which would prompt more investments. Nuclear power, carbon sequestration, geoengineering, biofuels, wind power and hydro can guarantee our survival until the 22nd century easily.
@S1587915G You don't need to break any laws of thermodynamics to recover wasted heat from industrial processes. It hasn't been cost efficient to bother with until recently and now that it is we are seeing that technology being implemented. And there is even technology being applied to cars which lose approximately 60% of their energy in heat. Efficiency is increasing faster than supply is decreasing, that is actually the natural of technological advancement.
This video ignores efficiency gains through technology. As Buckminster Fuller pointed out technology we are producing more and more using less and less.
Oil is great for transportation and use in different times of day. The energy used to get oil out of the ground does not need to be oil. So oil will still be pumped at less than 1:1.
New technology is increasing the amount of oil removed while using less energy to get it.
Thorium, geo-thermal, coal, thermal de-polymerization can replace oil
We (the US) need to change the way we live in order to sustain human life. It is obvious that we cannot generate enough renewable energy, with existing technology, to replace our current use. With the rest of the world trying to copy our lifestyle, the energy demand worldwide is only projected to increase. I have great concern for tomorrow.
@tothemax01 Your basing that on the assumption that there is an endless amount of material to run reactors, and that the technology of fusion will happen some time soon. How is an industrialized society that uses oil to plant, fertilize, harvest, ship, package and cool products survive without oil? At the very least it will drive food prices significantly higher, and that will be fatal for billions of people.
pvisserandorra 10 months ago
Oh give me a break. Let me correct your sensationalist, melodramatic bullshit. Oil is currently used because it is the best energy source. This will not persist. Nuclear will replace it as the primary energy source. Uranium fission with a traveling wave reactor gives us more than enough time to get to the next step - nuclear fusion reactors. At that point, the limit to growth is literally 'the universe'. Chill out.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@linghun What's widely ignored is the fact, that burning fuel needs more components than fuel alone. Its seems to be public opinion, that there is no oxygen involved in this process and the outcome is only one natural gas called CO2. Prof. Scheer stated that we should NOT burn our remaining reserves. So the 40 years are gone. Maybe we will have 10 years but not more. The energy consumption could easily be covered by geothermal powerplants. Solar and wind is not reliable enough and below 24/7.
MillyVanillification 1 year ago
@MarkProffitt There's a vast difference between improving energy efficiency and recovering lost heat from any physical process. And in fact one of the laws of thermodynamics states that you cannot achieve 100 percent efficiency.
If you can recover lost heat, that will mean that a cup of water sitting on a table can BY ITSELF become hotter and hotter, until it reaches boiling point. If you know of any actual example of such a thing, write back to me.
S1587915G 1 year ago
@panstriato2 very complex question, but given exponential drop in solar panel prices, it might take 20 years before we go 30% solar, while on fossil fuels we have some 40 years. The transition can be done, even if (ESPECIALLY IF) there is an energy crisis, which would prompt more investments. Nuclear power, carbon sequestration, geoengineering, biofuels, wind power and hydro can guarantee our survival until the 22nd century easily.
linghun 1 year ago
@linghun How much time does it take to remake energy infraestructure? How much do we have left?
panstriato2 1 year ago
@S1587915G You don't need to break any laws of thermodynamics to recover wasted heat from industrial processes. It hasn't been cost efficient to bother with until recently and now that it is we are seeing that technology being implemented. And there is even technology being applied to cars which lose approximately 60% of their energy in heat. Efficiency is increasing faster than supply is decreasing, that is actually the natural of technological advancement.
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
This video ignores efficiency gains through technology. As Buckminster Fuller pointed out technology we are producing more and more using less and less.
Oil is great for transportation and use in different times of day. The energy used to get oil out of the ground does not need to be oil. So oil will still be pumped at less than 1:1.
New technology is increasing the amount of oil removed while using less energy to get it.
Thorium, geo-thermal, coal, thermal de-polymerization can replace oil
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
you are ignoring the fact that the amount of Solar energy that hits the Earth is 10,000 times greater than our current global energy consumption.
linghun 1 year ago
We (the US) need to change the way we live in order to sustain human life. It is obvious that we cannot generate enough renewable energy, with existing technology, to replace our current use. With the rest of the world trying to copy our lifestyle, the energy demand worldwide is only projected to increase. I have great concern for tomorrow.
jmicucci5 1 year ago