Long term OIL

[deisik]

Though I agree that uranium is not a renewable resource

Unlike the case with crude oil, Uranium resources are not going to get depleted anytime soon. We have enough Uranium for another 10,000 or 20,000 years. And we can use the spent nuclear fuel in the fast-breeder reactors. Even if the Uranium resources get exhausted, we can go for other types of nuclear fuel, such as Thorium and Radon.

This still doesn't make it a renewable resource

[STT]

The UK has a facility to recycle nuclear waste and allow it is to reused.   I presume its not perfect and eventually it will just be all waste.

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up.  Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though.  I believe they made great advances with solar power

Hydro power however is an strong intervention into the nature

Doesnt have to be, right now it tends to be done crudely.   Again its efficiency and just demand, we mostly have low demand low growth and lots of oil so easy they fight over it .   I would like to see Tidal power used far more, one of the worlds biggest tidal range schemes was refused because its just easier to burn Russian gas.  Why bother I guess

Wave power can also be harnessed, not many people looking to complain about sapping those poor waves.   But its hard to do all that and make it cheaper and definitely not easier then burning stuff

[el kaka22]

Yes, there is an increase in the number of gas-fueled engines. But there is a bigger increase in the number of petroleum-fueled engines.

The big oil companies also produce natural gas. They're also hedging their bets by investing in alternative energy technologies. They're diversified. Trading oil futures is dicey but going long on fairly valued big energy companies is ok.

Yes long run investing in oil could be profitable also, the markets are changing dramatically so it could be ideal to invest for the long run. You will not worry about the drastic change, alternatively might also generate a stable outcome.

[deisik]

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up.  Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though.  I believe they made great advances with solar power

The main problem with solar power is actually not related to the conversion of sunlight into electricity as such. We can reach the theoretical limit in the efficiency of converting the sunlight into energy, but this won't help at a world scale since we can't efficiently transmit electricity and still less can we efficiently store it up. Unless these two issues are solved in a fundamental way, the fossil fuels as well as pollution thereof will not go away and are here to stay indefinitely...

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)

[Barnabe]

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up.  Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though.  I believe they made great advances with solar power

The main problem with solar power is actually not related to the conversion of sunlight into electricity as such. We can reach the theoretical limit in the efficiency of converting the sunlight into energy, but this won't help at a world scale since we can't efficiently transmit electricity and still less can we efficiently store it up. Unless these two issues are solved in a fundamental way, the fossil fuels as well as pollution thereof will not go away and are here to stay indefinitely...

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)
 

Well transmitting electricity though high voltage lines is not lossless but it has quite good ratio. And for solar energy, why not invest more in solar thermic energy ? It's a way better technique for big power plants since it requires a lot less of rare elements and may even have a better efficiency.

[deisik]

Solar power also is flawed, one day the Sun will blow up.  Depends how picky we are being, efficiency is a big concern anyway though.  I believe they made great advances with solar power

The main problem with solar power is actually not related to the conversion of sunlight into electricity as such. We can reach the theoretical limit in the efficiency of converting the sunlight into energy, but this won't help at a world scale since we can't efficiently transmit electricity and still less can we efficiently store it up. Unless these two issues are solved in a fundamental way, the fossil fuels as well as pollution thereof will not go away and are here to stay indefinitely...

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)
 

Well transmitting electricity though high voltage lines is not lossless but it has quite good ratio. And for solar energy, why not invest more in solar thermic energy ? It's a way better technique for big power plants since it requires a lot less of rare elements and may even have a better efficiency

Many aspects of the solar energetics have already been calculated. For example, if we fill up the Sahara desert with solar panels, the produced electricity would fully cover energy needs of all of Europe (if I remember correctly) but for losses due to the transmission of energy. You cannot raise voltage ad infinitum since at higher voltages you risk corona discharges between the conductor and ground. Long-distance transmission is typically done at voltages up to 1,200 kV and with losses at around 1% per 100 miles...

Thereby, at distances over 1,000 miles these losses amount to a considerable percent until it becomes no longer profitable to transmit electricity that far

[Barnabe]

I know that installing power plants in sahara and transmitting it to Europe would be a bad idea. Europe should at least begin to use solar power to heat water instead of using oil and gas, southern countries have more than enough solar exposure to use this kind of process and investments required in this domain are quite low.

Small steps like these are IMO more effective in making a green society (oil free economy) than gigantic facilities and investments.

[bryant.coleman]

This still doesn't make it a renewable resource

OK. Then I'll call it a semi-renewable resource.

Many aspects of the solar energetics have already been calculated. For example, if we fill up the Sahara desert with solar panels, the produced electricity would fully cover energy needs of whole Europe (if I remember correctly) but for losses due to the transmission of energy. You cannot raise voltage indefinitely since at higher voltages you risk corona discharges between the conductor and ground. Long-distance transmission is typically done at voltages up to 1,200 kV and with losses at around 1% per 100 miles...

Thereby, at distances over 1,000 miles these losses amount to a considerable percent until it becomes no longer profitable to transmit electricity that far

Sahara desert is like..... 900 million hectares in surface area. Is it even possible to produce that many solar panels? I know that the raw materials for the construction of solar panels are quite abundant (quartzite, carbon.etc), but the manpower needs might even be beyond our imagination. Also, you need huge quantities of metals and insulators for the power transmission lines and towers. And what about the additional manpower requirement for  maintenance?

[deisik]

Many aspects of the solar energetics have already been calculated. For example, if we fill up the Sahara desert with solar panels, the produced electricity would fully cover energy needs of whole Europe (if I remember correctly) but for losses due to the transmission of energy. You cannot raise voltage indefinitely since at higher voltages you risk corona discharges between the conductor and ground. Long-distance transmission is typically done at voltages up to 1,200 kV and with losses at around 1% per 100 miles...

Thereby, at distances over 1,000 miles these losses amount to a considerable percent until it becomes no longer profitable to transmit electricity that far

Sahara desert is like..... 900 million hectares in surface area. Is it even possible to produce that many solar panels? I know that the raw materials for the construction of solar panels are quite abundant (quartzite, carbon.etc), but the manpower needs might even be beyond our imagination. Also, you need huge quantities of metals and insulators for the power transmission lines and towers. And what about the additional manpower requirement for  maintenance?

Okay, then I might have confused the whole world with tiny Europe, i.e. just the Sahara desert alone could actually power all of the world (and with a vengeance at that)

In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year

If solar is 20% efficient (as it has been in lab tests) at turning solar energy into power, we'd only need to cover a land area about the size of Spain to power the entire Earth renewably in 2030.

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

[STT]

Thats impressive so transmission of energy is the main drawback.   The ironic thing there is coal is one of the most efficient ways to transport energy, it has a higher calorific content then oil and does not degrade or pollute easily before its use so its very good to store long term.    The local coal power station might out rank the solar panel in the Sahara somehow.

The easiest scheme I ever saw was coke cans in a glass case, rotating with air passing bottom to top and it heated the air passed over them even on a cold day.  Almost free to make, the solar power also is free only the labour and small fan to pass air is what costs.  Everyone here can make one of those but we dont

At least, until we run out of coil (coal and oil, lol)

They warned well before the first world war, we'd run out of coal.   Peak coal is a thing
Also oil, we'd run out oil and that time we using whales so basically we just moved on.   I dont know what other types of oil there is but I guess we wont ever really use up either as we just find uses and sources especially one becomes difficult. Thorium is possible for us to use, safer even maybe but its easier not to bother at present?  Its not suitable for bombs is the main reason I read why

[bryant.coleman]

Thats impressive so transmission of energy is the main drawback.   The ironic thing there is coal is one of the most efficient ways to transport energy, it has a higher calorific content then oil and does not degrade or pollute easily before its use so its very good to store long term.    The local coal power station might out rank the solar panel in the Sahara somehow.

Deposits of high quality coal are running out at a rapid pace. If we increase the proportion of the thermal power plants which use coal as a fuel, then this shortage will be amplified even further. Also, coal is much more polluting when compared to the other fossil fuels such as natural gas and naphtha. Pollution from coal-powered plants alone causes more than 400,000 deaths every year in China.

[deisik]

Thats impressive so transmission of energy is the main drawback.   The ironic thing there is coal is one of the most efficient ways to transport energy, it has a higher calorific content then oil and does not degrade or pollute easily before its use so its very good to store long term.    The local coal power station might out rank the solar panel in the Sahara somehow.

Deposits of high quality coal are running out at a rapid pace. If we increase the proportion of the thermal power plants which use coal as a fuel, then this shortage will be amplified even further. Also, coal is much more polluting when compared to the other fossil fuels such as natural gas and naphtha. Pollution from coal-powered plants alone causes more than 400,000 deaths every year in China.

It may well be true. Coal is also radioactive since it contains uranium and thorium. In fact, coal ash can be even more radioactive than nuclear waste itself. "Ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage"

[Zaelle]

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

[deisik]

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

Electric drives are actually as old as an internal combustion engine technology (unless by a combustion engine you mean steam-engines which are also sort of "combustion engine"). The first electric cars appeared in the 1880s at the same time with the cars powered by internal combustion engines...





Find the difference

[Barnabe]

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

[deisik]

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

What about tritium (and other betavoltaic) batteries and their energy density (costs aside)? Could we expect at least cell phones that wouldn't need recharging at all?

[Barnabe]

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

What about tritium (and other betavoltaic) batteries and their energy density (costs aside)? Could we expect at least cell phones that wouldn't need recharging at all?

I haven't heard of this technology. It seems promising, I will read more about it !
The few informations I found, say that for now batteries are limited to nano watts (10^-9), which is very, very little. But the idea is very interesting and could be very interesting in mobile devices.

[deisik]

The main problem was, and still is the energy density of batteries versus gasoline.
Gasoline has more than an order of magnitude of energy density when compared to lithium batteries. (Even considering a 25% yield for petrol engines)
Lithium-air batteries might improve this a bit, but it would be still incomparable to gasoline. Industrial cargos will probably never use electric batteries because of this.

What about tritium (and other betavoltaic) batteries and their energy density (costs aside)? Could we expect at least cell phones that wouldn't need recharging at all?

I haven't heard of this technology. It seems promising, I will read more about it !
The few informations I found, say that for now batteries are limited to nano watts (10^-9), which is very, very little. But the idea is very interesting and could be very interesting in mobile devices.

Yes, but the power density should be high nevertheless since the energy source amount (i.e. the quantity of a radioactive isotope) is minuscule

[STT]

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

In a town constantly stop starting is a big point in favour of electric as they have good torque and are better suited to being idle alot of the time.  Crossing a country on a motorway is fine with petrol

Sechin Says @RosneftRu Worth Up to $130 Billion as Putin Mulls Partial Sale http://bloom.bg/28LNgtZ   via @business

Oil Merchant ‏@EnergyRosen  7h7 hours ago
Crude Production = 8.6 million bbls/day

Crude Imports (net) = 7.9 million

Crude Supply = 16.5 million

Crude Runs = 16.5 million

 
Oil Merchant
‏@EnergyRosen
1-yr ago:

Crude Production = 9.6 million

Crude Imports (Net) = 6.7 million

Crude Supply = 16.3 million

Crude Runs = 16.5 million

[bryant.coleman]

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car.
Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

For short drives (10-20 kms), these can work. The Lithium battery which you get for $2,000 runs out of charge after 20 km max. Then you have to spend 3-4 hours to recharge it. The batteries which last 400 km or more usually costs around $30,000. The invertor costs another $25,000 to $30,000. So if you are using the car mostly for long drives, then 98% of the time, you will be running it using gasoline.