"Deal With Reality or Reality Will Deal With You"

[Apoc]

I don't know if this has been posted and/or discussed before, but here it is. What are your thoughts?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[Glock23]

I did this once.

/me sits back and waits for show.

[BlindSite]

Lol

[Modest Genius]

Lolyeah, highly useful input there...

this has been discussed dozens of times, usually we get people bustlng about saying 'itll be ok, theyll find some more, or fusion will save us'

[nojmaster]

I reckon the world needs to start weaning itself off oil based products as much as possible in order to save it for the things you really can't make without it. Cars can run on electic for instance, slower sure, but they can run, while nuclear power is an alternative to oil or coal plants.

[Captain Colon]

I don't really care, I need to get out more anyway.


*E* All these peak oil doomsday prophecies are kinda stupid anyway because they all assume nobody is doing anything about it.

[[Political] Slayer]

They said the same thing years ago, I will believe it when I see it.

[M123]

I think it'll be a slow implosion when oil runs out. People will start using less energy and rely more on alternative means.

[ScAvenger001]

yeah, highly useful input there...

this has been discussed dozens of times, usually we get people bustlng about saying 'itll be ok, theyll find some more, or fusion will save us'
Well, fusion's kept us going for the last six billion years, it'll keep us going for a while longer. It's just not as readily portable as fossil fuels, and it's inconvenient to extract electrical energy from. Oh, and we'll have to give up on our fascination with plastics.

[Modest Genius]

i meant controlled fusion in a power plant, and you know it :p

[Bone_Vulture]

I reckon the world needs to start weaning itself off oil based products as much as possible in order to save it for the things you really can't make without it. Cars can run on electic for instance, slower sure, but they can run, while nuclear power is an alternative to oil or coal plants.

Like I've said before, there hardly are any sources of energy that could currently be harvested to substitute the daily consumption of energy in megawatts that all of Earth's oil-powered machines take. If someone could come up with an approximation of kwh created with oil, we could calculate how many coal / nuclear plants it'd take to cover that production.

The only "sustainable" source of energy I see is in nature's powers: tide generators, dams, windmills, solar panels, geothermal shafts. The problem with these sources are the unforseeable fluctuations in energy production (sans core heat), and both the expensive kwh/$ ratio and the limited lifespan of the machinery.

[Captain Colon]

Possibly...but like you said, some of them are pretty inefficient costwise, and most of them just don't provide enough/stable enough power to be primary sources. They do work quite well as supplements though.

I can't speak for anywhere else, but all the renewable energy plants in NY produce ~6000000kW (Half or more via hydro), which I believe is around 25% of the average daily load. Of course river dams usually have that nasty side effect of fucking up ecosystems, and reservoir dams (ie generating power during peak load periods by releasing water from a higher reservoir to a lower one, then pumping the water back up during low usage periods) can only run so long before they need to recycle the water.

[Agent Law]

I reckon the world needs to start weaning itself off oil based products as much as possible in order to save it for the things you really can't make without it. Cars can run on electic for instance, slower sure, but they can run, while nuclear power is an alternative to oil or coal plants.
Yes, but how many people are open to change? Most will only want change when it's absolutely necessary, and usually that's the aftermath of something.

[ScAvenger001]

Well, between Sol and gravity, we've got all the energy we'll ever need. The trick is changing it into a form we can use. Tidal action, after all, has enough energy to lift entire fleets, and something that can lift a hundred aircraft carriers 20 feet straight up has got to have some useful energy in it.

Also, with regards to fusion, we've got this idea about setting up sustainable fusion reactors that we'll set up like our current fission plants: big ol' boilers. But if you need energy and you want fusion, I've got it right here and its name is h-bomb. Consider, if you have a large body of water and you can build an "upstream" reservoir for it (possibly in this context meaning directly above it) you can use a nuke to blast the water from wherever it is now into the reservoir. Put some turbines in the middle, and the water will spin them on the way by. Drain the reservoir back into wherever the water was before, and it'll spin the turbines on the way by again (and it'll keep doing this for however many years it takes to drain the reservoir). When the water runs out, set off another bomb. Repeat until we're out of uranium. Obviously this is a non-trivial engineering project, but my point is that we're in no danger of running out of energy.

[Apoc]

Have any of you actually read the link?

[Bone_Vulture]

But if you need energy and you want fusion, I've got it right here and its name is h-bomb. Consider, if you have a large body of water and you can build an "upstream" reservoir for it (possibly in this context meaning directly above it) you can use a nuke to blast the water from wherever it is now into the reservoir.

You just won the "mad scientist of the year" award. REALLY.

[Bone_Vulture]

Have any of you actually read the link?

I read the first page. To me, all of this has been obvious for years.

[solidsnake]

Im just waiting for the ice caps to melt and for me to drown or freeze from the ice age.

[Moe_Rahn]

It's cool, because the oceans will all boil up in a billion years anyways, because the sun is heating up naturally as part of the maturing process of a star.

[Captain Colon]

Uh no the oceans are boiling away because of SUVs idiot :rolleyes:

[ScAvenger001]

OTF is one level up, colon.

[Modest Genius]

The problem with these sources are the unforseeable fluctuations in energy production (sans core heat), and both the expensive kwh/$ ratio and the limited lifespan of the machinery.thats actually an overrated problem. we already have two-lake storage systems, which pump water up to a higher lake when we have excess power, then let it fall down to drive turbines when were short. so long as we built enough of these 'batteries' constancy of supply isnt a problem

scav, thats the maddest scheme yet. and i dont remember anyone saying we were running out of energy, i seem to remember them saying were running out of easily usable energy in todays infrastructure

and even tokamak and inertial confinement fusions are decades away

[Ch33zy]

Well, my sister HAS started breeding hamsters...

[ScAvenger001]

scav, thats the maddest scheme yet. It's really not *that* crazy, it's just a new look at the "two lake" storage system with much larger lakes, an artificial lake bed or two, and a "pump" you need to be very careful with (but isn't dependent on this "excess power" thing). and i dont remember anyone saying we were running out of energy, i seem to remember them saying were running out of easily usable energy in todays infrastructure
Energy is energy. Usability is not an unsolvable problem.

[Lord Kelvin]

Also, with regards to fusion, we've got this idea about setting up sustainable fusion reactors that we'll set up like our current fission plants: big ol' boilers. But if you need energy and you want fusion, I've got it right here and its name is h-bomb. Consider, if you have a large body of water and you can build an "upstream" reservoir for it (possibly in this context meaning directly above it) you can use a nuke to blast the water from wherever it is now into the reservoir. Put some turbines in the middle, and the water will spin them on the way by. Drain the reservoir back into wherever the water was before, and it'll spin the turbines on the way by again (and it'll keep doing this for however many years it takes to drain the reservoir). When the water runs out, set off another bomb. Repeat until we're out of uranium. Obviously this is a non-trivial engineering project, but my point is that we're in no danger of running out of energy.
1. Wouldn't a nuclear explosion simply turn the water into high-energy plasma instead?

2. Wouldn't the fallout from the bomb cause all sorts of safety concerns?

Personally, I'd just be happier with nuclear power reactors (provided that they maintain strict levels of safety and hire only competent and qualified people to maintain them). After all, don't our aircraft carriers, 688- (Los Angeles) and 762-class (Ohio) submarines run on nuclear reactors?

[whuh?]

k water expands when it freezes right? So when Ice caps melt, they cause flooding even though the water is taking less space?

[Agent Law]

Ice caps and glaciers rise a few hundred feet above water level.

[Apoc]

I ask again: has anyone actually read the link? You might try doing that and then commenting.

[whuh?]

Ice caps and glaciers rise a few hundred feet above water level.

question: how much of the earth's water is ice caps and glaciers? and how much of it is Icebergs? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebergs)

I ask again: has anyone actually read the link? You might try doing that and then commenting.

Ive skimmed through it. Ive read something like that, but the guy directed into some other points.

[Agent Law]

question: how much of the earth's water is ice caps and glaciers? and how much of it is Icebergs? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebergs)
I don't know. I was just providing an example.

[ScAvenger001]

1. Wouldn't a nuclear explosion simply turn the water into high-energy plasma instead? If that happens, you're not using nearly enough water. A certain amount will get cracked into hydrogen and oxygen, but only the stuff immediately next to the bomb when it goes off should get turned into plasma (and it should be immediately cooled into a gas by the surrounding water).

2. Wouldn't the fallout from the bomb cause all sorts of safety concerns? Hence "artificial lake bed or two" and "non-trivial engineering project". I'd sort of envisioned it as being a completely contained thing, capable of withstanding a thermonuclear blast at ground zero without letting anything inside get outside.

[Speed_Limit]

Just looking at the language is enough to downplay the false-sense of severity that the article presents... words like: "x will almost certainly happen", "x could happen", "most likely", "probably", etc. The writer seemed to look for the worst possible scenario leading to the next worst possible in order to create a lasting effect (and it's apparently working-> "Preparations" (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Preparations.html) wtf?).

Although I'm very concerned about the future regarding oil-usage (it does bring up a couple interesting points), it's hard to see this as an immediate reality.

I see it as a mix of controlled energy source shifts in 1st world countries, and an increase in poverty in 3rd world countries that can't keep up.

"If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow."
haha

[Ch33zy]

If that happens, you're not using nearly enough water. A certain amount will get cracked into hydrogen and oxygen, but only the stuff immediately next to the bomb when it goes off should get turned into plasma (and it should be immediately cooled into a gas by the surrounding water).

Hence "artificial lake bed or two" and "non-trivial engineering project". I'd sort of envisioned it as being a completely contained thing, capable of withstanding a thermonuclear blast at ground zero without letting anything inside get outside.

So... It needs to be built out of unobtainium?

[Agent Law]

I ask again: has anyone actually read the link? You might try doing that and then commenting.
That article is two very long pages that basically sum up: No matter what, the economy is screwed when oil production starts going downhill.

So... It needs to be built out of unobtainium?
YSE!!!

But then you wouldn't need the lakes, and just weld giant copper wires to the material. :rolleyes:

[Bone_Vulture]

thats actually an overrated problem. we already have two-lake storage systems, which pump water up to a higher lake when we have excess power, then let it fall down to drive turbines when were short. so long as we built enough of these 'batteries' constancy of supply isnt a problem

That's a solution for storing a limited amount of excess juice from the grid. But I don't think there's enough rivers in the modern world to cover the production, at least not without fucking up the ecosystem in the process.

It's really not *that* crazy, it's just a new look at the "two lake" storage system with much larger lakes, an artificial lake bed or two, and a "pump" you need to be very careful with (but isn't dependent on this "excess power" thing).

I have a far more sophisticated solution.. Why not build reinforced spherical water tanks underground? You could detonate a tiny nuclear charge in there, and drive the steam from the tanks into the generators. After energy extraction, the steam would be recondensed and ran into another underground tank.

HAHAAAAA I'm a genius http://bonevulture.homestead.com/files/oh.gif

[Stig]

We'll figure something out when we absolutely need to. So, I'll let the people who think about those kinds of things think about those kinds of things, and I'll just continue to consume resources like I am.

[Milkman Dan]

When oil starts to run extremely low, inexpensive items such as plastics will become gold. We'll have to start developing new products, because a lot of modern day materials/products are some sort of byproduct of oil.

Also, fusion energy is probably going to be realized in our lifetime. The NIF is going to be done within a few years, and tests will begin on harnessing fusion energy. For those interested in the NIF or wondering what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility. There's a link to the homepage on there.

[Chris R]

The main thing I'm worried about, as far as our dependency on oil, is the wars that will get started when it starts to get more scare. Just because we live in an an age of diplomacy and all that good stuff doesn't mean that a country won't revert to old ways and invade someone else to obtain a essential resource such as oil. It's happened all through out history, however, I hope that by then the US will have little dependancy on oil and be able to bypass another major war over this.

[Ch33zy]

The main thing I'm worried about, as far as our dependency on oil, is the wars that will get started when it starts to get more scare. Just because we live in an an age of diplomacy and all that good stuff doesn't mean that a country won't revert to old ways and invade someone else to obtain a essential resource such as oil. It's happened all through out history, however, I hope that by then the US will have little dependancy on oil and be able to bypass another major war over this.

On the other hand, war has the tendancy to make tech jump decades... So in the end wars for resources may help reduce the dependancy on the resources were fighting for. Unlikely, but the potential irony is there.

[Chris R]

On the other hand, war has the tendancy to make tech jump decades... So in the end wars for resources may help reduce the dependancy on the resources were fighting for. Unlikely, but the potential irony is there.
True, as long as we don't get some trigger happy country with nuclear weapons that just says "The situation is desperate, launch them all!"

[ScAvenger001]

I have a far more sophisticated solution.. Why not build reinforced spherical water tanks underground? You could detonate a tiny nuclear charge in there, and drive the steam from the tanks into the generators. After energy extraction, the steam would be recondensed and ran into another underground tank.

That's actually pretty much what I'd had in mind, but since these tanks are going to be absolutely massive, I'd been referring to them as artificial lakes. Also, you'll get more mileage if you think of the water as being forced up a channel to the top reservoir rather than being vaporized. Again, if it's vapor or plasma, you're not using enough water.

[Bone_Vulture]

Also, you'll get more mileage if you think of the water as being forced up a channel to the top reservoir rather than being vaporized. Again, if it's vapor or plasma, you're not using enough water.

Sorry Scav, but I have a hard time believing that any amount of reinforcing will be enough to harness the massive pressure moving masses of water like that create.

[Modest Genius]

If that happens, you're not using nearly enough water. A certain amount will get cracked into hydrogen and oxygen, but only the stuff immediately next to the bomb when it goes off should get turned into plasma (and it should be immediately cooled into a gas by the surrounding water).

Hence "artificial lake bed or two" and "non-trivial engineering project". I'd sort of envisioned it as being a completely contained thing, capable of withstanding a thermonuclear blast at ground zero without letting anything inside get outside.have you considered the amount of energy required to build a decent nuke to detonate in the first place? im not sure, but i wouldnt be surprised if by that method you would have either no or very little energy gain
Also, fusion energy is probably going to be realized in our lifetime. The NIF is going to be done within a few years, and tests will begin on harnessing fusion energy. For those interested in the NIF or wondering what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility. There's a link to the homepage on there.Im quite familiar with NIF, and there is NO WAY that will solve ANY energy problems. There are two reasons for this: a) its a weapons research facility, not a power station (so has a pitiful energy output) and b) inertial confinement fusion is quite capable of obtaining breakeven, but it cant be scaled up. if you DO scale it up, you get scavs nuke-in-a-box

WHEN fusion does become a reality, its going to be in a tokamak, like a scaled up ITER. or at a very long outside bet, bubble fusion. inertial fusion has been around since the 50s, and there has never been any serious suggestion of making a power station out of it.
That's actually pretty much what I'd had in mind, but since these tanks are going to be absolutely massive, I'd been referring to them as artificial lakes. Also, you'll get more mileage if you think of the water as being forced up a channel to the top reservoir rather than being vaporized. Again, if it's vapor or plasma, you're not using enough water.power stations run on steam, and for a good reason. i thought you knew enough physics to realise that the efficiency of a heat engine (like a turbine) is massively dependant on the temperature difference between source and sink, so using 200C steam into a 20C lake is far more efficient than 30C water to 20C lake

oh and ever see that film (cant remember the name) with DeNero and Ed Norton, where they blow open a safe by adding water to concentrate the explosion? thats actually true, and youll be doing well to find a concave surface that can withstand what is effectively going to be a point blank fusion explosion

[ScAvenger001]

have you considered the amount of energy required to build a decent nuke to detonate in the first place? im not sure, but i wouldnt be surprised if by that method you would have either no or very little energy gain I'm confident that the energy required to manufacture a thermonuclear weapon is not anywhere near the energy released by said weapon.

power stations run on steam, and for a good reason. i thought you knew enough physics to realise that the efficiency of a heat engine (like a turbine) is massively dependant on the temperature difference between source and sink, so using 200C steam into a 20C lake is far more efficient than 30C water to 20C lake That's funny, I've been to my local hydroelectric dam a few times and I don't recall them having a mechanism for boiling the water before running it through their turbines.

Nuke-in-a-box, I'll have to remember that.

[Bone_Vulture]

I'm confident that the energy required to manufacture a thermonuclear weapon is not anywhere near the energy released by said weapon.

I wonder how expensive other fuels must be when it's economically viable to build and detonate nuclear charges that way... and I'm underlining the amount of energy that can actually be harvested from the full potential of each blast.

That's funny, I've been to my local hydroelectric dam a few times and I don't recall them having a mechanism for boiling the water before running it through their turbines.

Alright Scav, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[DunNa]

Proven and currently opperational methods of power production other than oil based ones that I can think of off the top of my head are, hydro, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, winds, and theres probably acouple others. The reason we haven't switched yet to any of these as our main sorces is because we're currently setup for oil usage its just the easist for us to use right now.

Not to mention oil barons and such probably buy most of the rights/pattents/whatever to ways of producing energy without oil so they keep there power/money. What they can't buy they can probably get ride of other ways. Once all the oil is gone (whenever that may be) I'm sure those oil barons will suddenly change all there oil fields to solar fields feeding large batteries or hydrogen collecting plants or whatever they want to say is the next big power source.

I happen to have some faith in humanities ability to adapt.

[Agent Law]

If you read the article, it states that alternatives do not have the energy density of fossil fuels. That hydrogen and nuclear power consume too much to put out well, and solar and wind are a very small fraction of the power produced within America.

[Modest Genius]

hydrogen isnt an energy source, its a storage medium

hydro isnt a heat engine.

[ScAvenger001]

hydro isnt a heat engine. Nor is what I'm proposing.

[Modest Genius]

yes it is, unless im missing something. you are proposing releasing energy from a bomb to raise water. how is this possible without invoking its heat output?

[ScAvenger001]

Here's an experiment for you. Fill a can with water, seal it, and connect it via a tube to an empty can. Now set off a firecracker in the can full of water (assuming you can find one that can detonate underwater). See how the other can now has a surprising amount of water in it? The explosive displaces the water around it, which raises the pressure, which is released by water flowing up through the tube into the other can. Now as the water drains back into the original can (assuming you've set it up so it will drain), pretend there are arrays of turbines in the tube being spun by the water. The fact that the water may be slightly warmer after being blown up really doesn't matter, as long as it moves from can to can.

[Lord Kelvin]

But if you do that too often without an outlet to the heat, won't the water eventually all turn to steam? And even if you do have an outlet for the heat, won't that all eventually contribute to global warming even more than oil does?

[Bone_Vulture]

I still think that attempting to displace water with explosives is the nuttiest idea around. I'd wager that in order to get enough of water moving into any direction, the charge would have to be so huge that it'd break whatever barriers are containing the water.

[theMIKKO]

I still think that attempting to displace water with explosives is the nuttiest idea around. I'd wager that in order to get enough of water moving into any direction, the charge would have to be so huge that it'd break whatever barriers are containing the water.

I agree with ol' Boner. The amount of energy released in a nuclear blast in closed area is so enormous that it would break any barrier around it and cause the cave to collapse.

edit: note to self: don't try to use too fancy words

[Ch33zy]

Not to mention the incredible wear and tear on all the parts in it.

[ScAvenger001]

Yeah, but we've been over that. I have a guess that if you have a large enough body of water and you set off the bomb more or less squarely in the middle, it will "cushion" the blast enough that the walls of the "lake" don't take too much damage, particularly since the pressure is being actively vented into the reservoir. I'm neither a materials engineer nor an explosives expert, though, so I have no way of backing that up, and it may be that it's an insurmountable problem with modern materials.

[nojmaster]

The water, being denser than air, would serve to amplify the blast, no?

[Milkman Dan]

Im quite familiar with NIF, and there is NO WAY that will solve ANY energy problems. There are two reasons for this: a) its a weapons research facility, not a power station (so has a pitiful energy output) and b) inertial confinement fusion is quite capable of obtaining breakeven, but it cant be scaled up. if you DO scale it up, you get scavs nuke-in-a-box
I never said it was a power plant, and it's not just a weapons research facility. It's going to be used for fusion energy research, too, if they attain ignition.

Plus, I wouldn't exactly say 500 terawatts of laser power is quite the pitiful output even if it isn't used in producing electricity.

[Bone_Vulture]

Plus, I wouldn't exactly say 500 terawatts of laser power is quite the pitiful output even if it isn't used in producing electricity.

500 terawatts for a fraction of a second, if I understood correctly. And still no guarantees that any of that energy can be harvested back.

[Lord Kelvin]

Even if the water cushions the shockwave, wouldn't these artificial lakes still be bitches to maintain? Such as, for example, replacing worn parts, preventing cracks from forming over time, etc.?

[Milkman Dan]

500 terawatts for a fraction of a second, if I understood correctly. And still no guarantees that any of that energy can be harvested back.
Well, the point of the ignition chamber isn't to harvest energy, but to study a self-sustaining reaction.

[Modest Genius]

Here's an experiment for you. Fill a can with water, seal it, and connect it via a tube to an empty can. Now set off a firecracker in the can full of water (assuming you can find one that can detonate underwater). See how the other can now has a surprising amount of water in it? The explosive displaces the water around it, which raises the pressure, which is released by water flowing up through the tube into the other can. Now as the water drains back into the original can (assuming you've set it up so it will drain), pretend there are arrays of turbines in the tube being spun by the water. The fact that the water may be slightly warmer after being blown up really doesn't matter, as long as it moves from can to can.except that no energy would be gained except that released from the pressure gradient. and why is the pressure higher in that can? because the water is at a higher temperature and/or there is a resevoir of gas to exert that pressure
The water, being denser than air, would serve to amplify the blast, no?indeed, as ive already mentioned
I never said it was a power plant, and it's not just a weapons research facility. It's going to be used for fusion energy research, too, if they attain ignition.yes, fusion research will get 10% of the time. which is doesnt change the fact that its a weapons research facility. think of it like using a bunch of tanks to study the behaviour of traffic. it can be done, but its hardly the best way of doing things
Plus, I wouldn't exactly say 500 terawatts of laser power is quite the pitiful output even if it isn't used in producing electricity.i would, given that that power exists for a fraction of a second, and requires more energy to generate than it releases

[-V-]

Well, rather then using Nukes, why not use a Fast-Breeder Reactor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor). The thing is a nuclear reactor, that produces fuel, essentially makeing it a perpetual engine, barring the rods literally decaying into nothingness (mass converted to energy).

[HarryB]

You know those drinking birds, the toys the when you tap their heads, they continue to swing up and down with their tails full of water, and never seem to stop? Someone should make a gaint one of those with turbines connected to one of the ends, get it swinging watch it go.

[Modest Genius]

Well, rather then using Nukes, why not use a Fast-Breeder Reactor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor). The thing is a nuclear reactor, that produces fuel, essentially makeing it a perpetual engine, barring the rods literally decaying into nothingness (mass converted to energy).do some more research. thats not what a fast breeder does at all

a fast breeder uses a core of u-235 as in a conventional reactor, but surrounds it with u-238. the neutrons released by the core convert some of it to pu-239 (or 238, cant remember which), some of which contributes to the reaction, but most of which has to wait until the fuel rod is spent and then reprocessed, at which point it can be used as a new core (of pu surrounded by u-238) and the process repeated

it requires regular reprocessing, at least as much as a conventional reactor. and it doesnt disintigrate into energy and more than a conventional nuclear reactor, the only thing that does that is matter-antimatter annihilation

oh and the whole process is a simple extension of the first reactors, whose entire purpose was to manufacture pu for bombs, only fast breeders use it for making more fuel rods

and fast refers to the fact that the u238 capture eliminates the need for a thermal moderator

[Bone_Vulture]

MG, from your description I gather that this type of reactor would be like a nuclear recycler, which would gather some of the radioactive energy that would otherwise go to waste as a side product of the reaction? :confused:

[Modest Genius]

yup, in essence

and it would waste less in the first place by not using moderators