Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You’re confused aren’t you..Our reactors are fission, scientists are trying to design/harness/produce fusion on planet earth. Most alarmists are usually against nuclear, yet they pay homage to solar panels.
Fusion is viable now….Nope, fusion will be viable one day. Progress is being made.
Nope. We’re for responsible use of nuclear power. Hydro, thermal and solar are all responsible use of nuclear power. Confined self self contained fission reactors are militarily necessary.Most alarmists are usually against nuclear, yet they pay homage to solar panels.
The sun is fusion? Get away. You should be a detective, nothing gets past you.You’re confused aren’t you..
Thats an uniformed comment. The sun‘s reactor is Fusion. We’ve had fusion bomb for decades. Every energy source we make is dependent upon a fusion reaction. So, No one here is against nuclear power. Maybe you should read more about the concerns with the fission reactors in the war zone in Ukraine.
Go and badger someone else with your slaver.Nope. We’re for responsible use of nuclear power. Hydro, thermal and solar are all responsible use of nuclear power. Confined self self contained fission reactors are militarily necessary.
Working fission power reactors in a war zone is not.
No sensible reply…you conceded again.Go and badger someone else with your slaver.
Seriously. You didn’t know the sun is a fusion reaction we’ve been depending upon since the earth was formed ? You don’t think nuclear deterrence is necessary in this world ? So yes, even liberals know there are necessary uses for nuclear power. Amazing how some one who worships and ass hole Putin blower should whine about someone elseThe sun is fusion? Get away. You should be a detective, nothing gets past you.
Yeah, a nuclear bomb is as useful as tots on a fish to plug your microwave into. You come out with the most useless shit.
You should read up on personalities to see if you can shake off your current retard arsehole one.
What do we agree on. Are we together on the fact that many scientists report oceans of oil on Titan? Are we saying that oil only comes from life? Can we think up any other explanation for Titan's oil other than live?I'm not so sure about that.
No idea about other planets. I can only comment on how on this planet commercial reservoirs have source rocks, seals, timing and reservoir quality rock.What do we agree on. Are we together on the fact that many scientists report oceans of oil on Titan? Are we saying that oil only comes from life? Can we think up any other explanation for Titan's oil other than live?
I won’t hold my breath.Scientists have repeated a fusion experiment where the reactor produced a greater output of energy than it's input. It's taken decades to get that far and they reckon fusion reactors could be up and running in 50ish years. So if you last the next 50ish years, then you will get to see it to believe it.
Fusion is viable now….
--and not only are you unwilling to find out about oil w/o life, you're maintaining your conviction that oil comes from life.No idea about other planets. I can only comment on how on this planet commercial reservoirs have source rocks, seals, timing and reservoir quality rock.
I worked in the oil and gas industry for 37 years.--and not only are you unwilling to find out about oil w/o life, you're maintaining your conviction that oil comes from life.
Sounds about par for what I'm getting on these threads...
Nah, not how it will go.
When Fossil Fuels Run Out, What Then? - MAHB
Obviously we continue ‘business as usual’ and are not concerned about using up our resources!mahb.stanford.edu
A worthy read, for anyone truly interested in the AGW issue. They get their facts correct, as near as I can tell without personally verifying each one. I disagree with some of their conclusions, which doesnt' make them wrong, but here I argue that some are wrong.
I'll point out in blue font what is fact and what is opinion/conclusions/predictions, etc, for those not quite sure of the difference.
LIMIT OF FOSSIL FUELS
Fact:
In this article we want to point out categorically the fact that there is a LIMIT to the fossil fuels on earth
Unless the current scientific understanding is way, way off, the existing fossil fuels took millions of years to be created by natural forces acting upon buried remains of living organisms. So, of course, it is finite and will run out if we are consuming it as we use is, which we are.
Creative License:
that we are gobbling up.
"Gobbling up," is supposed to be an emotive phrase, but that goes to show that the best scientists are not necessarily the best creative writers, because it just comes off childish.
Conclusion:
We are oblivious of the fact that there will be a time, measured in decades, when these fuels will run out.
I have no idea why the authors would think that they are the only ones who know that. I've known it since I was a kid during "the Energy Crises." So, it is an incorrect conclusion. But that is only a conclusion on my part.
Fact, but Incomplete
Because of global population rise, there is a growing demand for energy.
Yes, but not just because of the population rise. There is also the fact that developing nations are more and more blessed with industry, which is the only thing that will pull an agricultural-based population out of poverty. More industry = more progress, but also = more fossil fuels being burnt.
Conclusion with which I strongly agree:
Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Conclusion/Estimates - that make sense to me:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
So, let's say 30 to 50 years, give or take an unknown number of decades, depending on the breaks.
As far as I know, nearly everyone knows this. It isn't controversial.
From the standpoint of an AGW alarmist, that should be good news indeed. Finally, the long fossil fuel nightmare that started with the Industrial revolution will end.
Is it good news for energy companies? Think before uncovering the spoiler:
Hell, yes, it is!
Not only are energy companies fully aware of the finite nature of fossil fuels, they feel it in thier profit-motivated bones. First, they will make as much money as they can by harvesting and delivering the shrinking supply of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they will develop non-fossil fuels - known as "renewables" and start selling that renewable energy as soon as dwindling oil supplies make it more expensive than the renewables.
In that sense, the free market will not eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but will (for profit) efficiently facilitate the transition, as fossil fuels inevitibly run out. As so often, the profiteers will benefit most, but they will benefit by providing benefit to all.
The article goes on . . .
Nuclear energy
Fact:
As fossil fuels begin to disappear, nuclear power is becoming more and more prominent because it is the only alternative base system capable of providing electricity continuously 24 hours a day. It is carbon-free, vital to our clean energy future. It was first developed in the 1950s and since then its safety features have been much improved. Now over 11% of the world’s electricity is produced from nuclear energy. Nuclear grew by 3.3% in 2018 mainly as a result of new capacity in China and the restart of 4 reactors in Japan [17].
Yeah, say . . . anyone old enough to remember who it was that argued, lobbied, and protested to prevent the U.S. from developing nuclear energy, as France, for example, did?
Was it ultra-conservative radio talkers? No . . . no, not them.
Was it the Republican National Committee? Mmm, no.
Ah . . . was it Donald Trump? Well, not him either.
Here is a hint:
Twelve states currently have restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power facilities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
So, the only reason the free market has not already sharply reduced the use of fossil fuels is due to regulations, and the threat of regulations due to pressure from groups such as Friends of the Earth, International:
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is an international network of grassroots environmental organizations in 73 countries. About half of the member groups call themselves "Friends of the Earth" in their own languages; the others use other names.[2] The organization was founded in 1969 in San Francisco by David Brower, Donald Aitken and Gary Soucie after Brower's split with the Sierra Club[3] because of the latter's positive approach to nuclear energy.
What a surprise, the same people who want to end fossil fuels, also prevented development of the only currently available realistic alternative to fossil fuels. There always was a lot of overlap between people who wanted to stop nuclear power, and people who wanted the U.S. to dismantle its nuclear weapons. I was never sure that such groups actually knew the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Go and badger someone else with your slaver.
We have already begun the inevitable “ running out “ of crude oil. It doesn’t shut off like a spigot. It gets progressively more difficult to extract and refine. With easy access crude in areas like Texas and SA reaching their limits , we started off shore drilling and now extract the much dirtier shale oil. Next you’ll want to what, import it from another planet ? It has already been made more expensive for generating electricity….than the vast majority of renewables.When Fossil Fuels Run Out, What Then? - MAHB
Obviously we continue ‘business as usual’ and are not concerned about using up our resources!
A worthy read, for anyone truly interested in the AGW issue. They get their facts correct, as near as I can tell without personally verifying each one. I disagree with some of their conclusions, which doesnt' make them wrong, but here I argue that some are wrong.
I'll point out in blue font what is fact and what is opinion/conclusions/predictions, etc, for those not quite sure of the difference.
LIMIT OF FOSSIL FUELS
Fact:
In this article we want to point out categorically the fact that there is a LIMIT to the fossil fuels on earth
Unless the current scientific understanding is way, way off, the existing fossil fuels took millions of years to be created by natural forces acting upon buried remains of living organisms. So, of course, it is finite and will run out if we are consuming it as we use is, which we are.
Creative License:
that we are gobbling up.
"Gobbling up," is supposed to be an emotive phrase, but that goes to show that the best scientists are not necessarily the best creative writers, because it just comes off childish.
Conclusion:
We are oblivious of the fact that there will be a time, measured in decades, when these fuels will run out.
I have no idea why the authors would think that they are the only ones who know that. I've known it since I was a kid during "the Energy Crises." So, it is an incorrect conclusion. But that is only a conclusion on my part.
Fact, but Incomplete
Because of global population rise, there is a growing demand for energy.
Yes, but not just because of the population rise. There is also the fact that developing nations are more and more blessed with industry, which is the only thing that will pull an agricultural-based population out of poverty. More industry = more progress, but also = more fossil fuels being burnt.
Conclusion with which I strongly agree:
Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Conclusion/Estimates - that make sense to me:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
So, let's say 30 to 50 years, give or take an unknown number of decades, depending on the breaks.
As far as I know, nearly everyone knows this. It isn't controversial.
From the standpoint of an AGW alarmist, that should be good news indeed. Finally, the long fossil fuel nightmare that started with the Industrial revolution will end.
Is it good news for energy companies? Think before uncovering the spoiler:
Hell, yes, it is!
Not only are energy companies fully aware of the finite nature of fossil fuels, they feel it in thier profit-motivated bones. First, they will make as much money as they can by harvesting and delivering the shrinking supply of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they will develop non-fossil fuels - known as "renewables" and start selling that renewable energy as soon as dwindling oil supplies make it more expensive than the renewables.
In that sense, the free market will not eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but will (for profit) efficiently facilitate the transition, as fossil fuels inevitibly run out. As so often, the profiteers will benefit most, but they will benefit by providing benefit to all.
The article goes on . . .
Nuclear energy
Fact:
As fossil fuels begin to disappear, nuclear power is becoming more and more prominent because it is the only alternative base system capable of providing electricity continuously 24 hours a day. It is carbon-free, vital to our clean energy future. It was first developed in the 1950s and since then its safety features have been much improved. Now over 11% of the world’s electricity is produced from nuclear energy. Nuclear grew by 3.3% in 2018 mainly as a result of new capacity in China and the restart of 4 reactors in Japan [17].
Yeah, say . . . anyone old enough to remember who it was that argued, lobbied, and protested to prevent the U.S. from developing nuclear energy, as France, for example, did?
Was it ultra-conservative radio talkers? No . . . no, not them.
Was it the Republican National Committee? Mmm, no.
Ah . . . was it Donald Trump? Well, not him either.
Here is a hint:
Twelve states currently have restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power facilities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
So, the only reason the free market has not already sharply reduced the use of fossil fuels is due to regulations, and the threat of regulations due to pressure from groups such as Friends of the Earth, International:
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is an international network of grassroots environmental organizations in 73 countries. About half of the member groups call themselves "Friends of the Earth" in their own languages; the others use other names.[2] The organization was founded in 1969 in San Francisco by David Brower, Donald Aitken and Gary Soucie after Brower's split with the Sierra Club[3] because of the latter's positive approach to nuclear energy.
What a surprise, the same people who want to end fossil fuels, also prevented development of the only currently available realistic alternative to fossil fuels. There always was a lot of overlap between people who wanted to stop nuclear power, and people who wanted the U.S. to dismantle its nuclear weapons. I was never sure that such groups actually knew the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Yup, for the production of electricity, it has already reached that tipping point of being too expensive.,Nah, not how it will go.
Sustainable energy will get more and more economical, forcing the switch.
Fossil fuel use will be mostly relegated to developing countries with local resources, until even that is less economical.
Yes, I talked about that in the OP. Since it is inevitable, that we must stop using fossil fuels, what are you bedwetters so worried about?We have already begun the inevitable “ running out “ of crude oil. It doesn’t shut off like a spigot. It gets progressively more difficult to extract and refine. With easy access crude in areas like Texas and SA reaching their limits , we started off shore drilling and now extract the much dirtier shale oil.
Again, no. I don’t care where my electricity come from, as long as it is the cheap as possible. And I mean cheaper according to the free market, not with some ridiculous government subsidy that I pay for anyway.Next you’ll want to what, import it from another planet ? It has already been made more expensive for generating electricity….than the vast majority of renewables.
That’s wishful thinking. It just isn’t reliable and the scale will eat their lunch.Nah, not how it will go.
Sustainable energy will get more and more economical, forcing the switch.
Fossil fuel use will be mostly relegated to developing countries with local resources, until even that is less economical.
Because, using fossil fuel for electricity isn’t necessary…Yes, I talked about that in the OP. Since it is inevitable, that we must stop using fossil fuels, what are you bedwetters so worried about?
Not now..you‘re too fucking old to worry about being drafted to fight in wars that are always about fossil fuels. Wtf do you think the invasion of Ukraine is about ?Again, no. I don’t care where my electricity come from, as long as it is the cheap as possible. And I mean cheaper according to the free market, not with some ridiculous government subsidy that I pay for anyway.
So lets plant fission reactors all over the place then leave it up to idiot Trump and his buddy Putin to decide when to place civilians in nato as hostages to fall out. Nope, that kind of use has too many unnecessary draw backs..it’s an ignorant use of another dirty source.Sooner or later will wise up and start using more nuclear energy and then all this stress about high prices, and Destroying the planet will be ended. But some people stress out because they enjoy stressing out and whining about it. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will ever end.
apnews.com
