What is the best way to end fossil fuel dependance?

[Red Iron Crown]

I still haven't been able to find the Orion (nuclear pulse propulsion) mod for KSP, despite having seen plenty of pictures and videos of people using it.

Link. Not sure if it's compatible with more recent versions of KSP, but the posts at the end of that thread make it seem so.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

From what I can remember from the video:

You have to understand that I saw this video quite a number of months ago so the details are very fuzzy. The "Core structure" was round and large. There were quite a few large pipes leading from it. The person narrating said that the "Core" could handle the splitting of the atom (the explosion). The structure showed no signs of needing to be cooled (of course, I could be mistaken). I believe that the heat produced was the source of the energy gained. They stated that the process "pays for itself" because they gained more than twice the energy than was needed for the entirety of the process.

This all probably sounds like nonsense but, again, it was a long while ago since I saw the video.

Anyone can narrate any video any way they want and put it on the internet. From what I can tell, you are just describing a fission reactor which have been around for more than half a century.

Edited May 20, 2014 by SuperFastJellyfish

[peadar1987]

Anyone can narrate any video any way they want and put it on the internet. From what I can tell, you are just describing a fission reactor which have been around for more than half a century.

Is anyone else a little terrified that "half a century ago" is 1964? The Fermi Pile was 72 years ago. On Sunday, I was teaching sailing to a kid who was born in 2005. When did it become the future without me realising?!

[rtxoff]

In your opinion, what fuel or way of generating power is the best for replacing our dependence on fossil fuels. Is it Nuclear or renewable sources. Biofuel or Hydrogen fuel cells. Discuss.

AFAIK nuclear fission power won't have a future forever. If the engineering is done correctly fission can be safe and clean. However there is always the factor "human beeing" which tries to save costs as much as possible risking the lives of us all. But even without the risks , if we do not find new sources of uranium it will deplete. As far as i remember for the remaining deposits known to us they will last another 20 years or so before they run out. Sooner or later the fission question will be nonsignificant. Maybe by then fusion will be ready which would be a big step forward towards security and without hazardous byproducts for which we still have no solution for final disposal.

[YNM]

To end fossil fuel dependance, you have to kill those companies selling them to you. Seriously. They make people say climate change isn't significant and make us see that the reserves isn't that low, actually.

Bio-fuels, although seems sustainable, will just create new competition between food and fuel. The place you used to grow things to eat, now you grow them to be burned...

Nuclear ? Somewhat cheap, but of course, dangerous. Even failures can be done at sites where it has ran for a loong time. Fusion is quite a far catch... maybe we just need solar panels to catch the product of sun's fusion.

Best option ? Keep all running, but remember which one is better to be utilized. Also, the best option is to convert everything to electricity first before used.

[Albert VDS]

From what I can remember from the video:ru

You have to understand that I saw this video quite a number of months ago so the details are very fuzzy. The "Core structure" was round and large. There were quite a few large pipes leading from it. The person narrating said that the "Core" could handle the splitting of the atom (the explosion). The structure showed no signs of needing to be cooled (of course, I could be mistaken). I believe that the heat produced was the source of the energy gained. They stated that the process "pays for itself" because they gained more than twice the energy than was needed for the entirety of the process.

This all probably sounds like nonsense but, again, it was a long while ago since I saw the video.

Don't you mean the machine that turnned nickel and hydrogen into copper?

[ThirdHorseman]

Rather than focus on what energy sources are better or worse, we should probably focus on the original question: What is the best way to end fossil fuel dependance?

Just having a viable alternative is not sufficient. I was hoping that the "end our reliance on foreign oil" movement would be a huge incentive to cut down on fossil fuel use and move to alternative sources like hydrogen or solar thermal, but it went the other way and instead ramped up domestic drilling and production. The military has recently made a push into electric propulsion by proposing a hybrid electric drive for the new ground combat vehicle.

I really don't see any of the stuff proposed in the last few pages (solar, hydrogen, thorium, etc) ending our fossil fuel dependence any time soon. When there are powerful people pushing to ensure the Keystone XL pipeline goes through, you think we are going to shift the energy policy of the United States to solar?

As I said before, unless you can prove a military benefit...or we run out of fossil fuels...you are not going to see the same shift from fossil fuel to renewable like you did in the early 20th century with the shift from coal to oil.

[Albert VDS]

The big problem is that humans naturally think in short term. It adds to that that oil is worth much more than the cost of drilling for it.

[Dodgey]

Jas I think this somewhat fits your description, albeit fusion and very expirmential your description of the machine seems similar to this.

http://www.dvice.com/2014-5-19/focus-fusion-looks-crowdsource-power-sun

[xcorps]

To end fossil fuel dependance, you have to kill those companies selling them to you. Seriously. They make people say climate change isn't significant and make us see that the reserves isn't that low, actually.

So the CEO of Shell in 2008 didn't say that all the oil in the world had been found and that peak oil was going to be reached by 2013?

Shell, Exxon, and BP didn't offer a climate policy to Obama that favored a carbon tax over cap and trade as a result of studies that they funded determined that global energy demand is rising, that the supply of conventional energy will not be able to keep up, and that climate change is both real and dangerous?

Those things didn't happen?

I'm not defending Big Oil, they are culpable for a lot of things including early funding of climate change studies that contradict the ISPCC (which is debatable anyway). But that doesn't mean you get to go around killing people. You say something like that and then demand that people take you seriously?

Do we also kill the truck drivers, secretaries, security guards, and the guy at the auto parts store that sells you a quart of oil? Or are you just focused on the Board of Directors?

Exactly WHO dies in your final solution?

Edited May 20, 2014 by xcorps

[Dkmdlb]

So the CEO of Shell in 2008 didn't say that all the oil in the world had been found... shortening for space... Those things didn't happen?

Do you have a source?

[xcorps]

Do you have a source?

Here's the Email that generated the news stories.

From: Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive

To: All Shell employees

Date: 22 January 2008

Subject: Shell Energy Scenarios

Dear Colleagues

In this letter, I'd like to share reflections about how we see the energy future, and our preferred route to meeting the world's energy needs. Industry, governments and energy users - that is, all of us - will face the twin challenge of more energy and less CO2.

This letter is based on a text I've written for publication in several newspapers in the coming weeks. You can use it in your communications externally. There will be more information about energy scenarios inthe months ahead.

By the year 2100, the world's energy system will be radically different from today's. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy too will have a place.

Mankind will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Indeed, the distant future looks bright, but getting there will be an adventure. At Shell, we think the world will take one of two possible routes. The first, a scenario we call Scramble, resembles a race through a mountainous desert. Like an off-road rally, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of "more haste" will often be "less speed" and many will crash along the way.

The alternative scenario, called Blueprints, has some false starts and develops like a cautious ride on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technical innovation provides for excitement.

Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.

As a result, society has no choice but to add other sources of energy - renewables , yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.

In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast.

Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption - until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.

The other route to the future is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. This Blueprints scenario sees numerous coalitions emerging to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation.

Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels.

As calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a cost on industrial CO 2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO 2 and store it underground.

Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will only know in a few years whether December's Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the beginning of a global effort to counter it. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi and Washington.

Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our grandchildren, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy and environment.

For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.

The sobering reality is that the Blueprints scenario will only come to pass if policymakers agree a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, mobility and buildings. It will be hard work and there is little time.

For instance, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries in 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, there are none. Since CO2 capture and storage adds cost and brings no revenues , government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the very least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.

Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.

The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driving seat. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for a bitter competition or a true team effort.

That is the article, and how I see our challenges and opportunities. I look forward to hearing how you see the situation (please be concise).

Regards

Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive

[Skyler4856]

Nuclear for large scale production of electricity, and hydrogen electrolysis for small scale domestic production. Water should be able to be ran in a closed looped systems, as hydrogen combusts it combines with O2, and creates H20.

[Everten P.]

Use solar panels and bring them to an elptical geosynchronous orbit while using microwave transmitters to broadcast th energy to th north and south poles.

[Seret]

I really don't see any of the stuff proposed in the last few pages (solar, hydrogen, thorium, etc) ending our fossil fuel dependence any time soon.

That's because it's not realistic to think that we could stop using fossil fuels any time soon. It's too much of a fundamental shift in the infrastructure underpinning our civilisation. Change will come, but it will take time, and we'll need to use transition technologies before we reach a really low-carbon system. This won't be done in a decade, or in ten decades.

[Nuke]

we cant stop cold turkey because that will cripple the economy that funds things like research into better fission, fusion, renewable, more efficient technology and so on. it would be nice if those things got more money though.

[YNM]

So the CEO of Shell in 2008 didn't say that all the oil in the world had been found and that peak oil was going to be reached by 2013?

Shell, Exxon, and BP didn't offer a climate policy to Obama that favored a carbon tax over cap and trade as a result of studies that they funded determined that global energy demand is rising, that the supply of conventional energy will not be able to keep up, and that climate change is both real and dangerous?

Those things didn't happen?

I'm not defending Big Oil, they are culpable for a lot of things including early funding of climate change studies that contradict the ]IPCC (which is debatable anyway). But that doesn't mean you get to go around killing people. You say something like that and then demand that people take you seriously?

Do we also kill the truck drivers, secretaries, security guards, and the guy at the auto parts store that sells you a quart of oil? Or are you just focused on the Board of Directors?

Exactly WHO dies in your final solution?

Alright, maybe those are old memories... But safe to say, that if they are actually aware of climate change and the shortage of fossil fuel, then... really, I haven't see any progress to stop (or slow down) oil production (shale oil is now on the rise too, mind you, which was not well utilized before) and try to search for new power source and alternatives (that needs drilling like say, geothermal powers, or maybe funding the development and use of electric cars). Most of their ideas are either baby steps or standard CSR talks.

Stop give us oil and things to burn, sell us what can replace them !

[Red Iron Crown]

Stop give us oil and things to burn, sell us what can replace them !

You can hardly blame them for selling what people want to buy. Weaning off fossil fuels needs to start on the demand side rather than the supply side, IMO.

[Seret]

You can hardly blame them for selling what people want to buy. Weaning off fossil fuels needs to start on the demand side rather than the supply side, IMO.

Tbh you need both. Demand definitely stimulates a quick response from commercial entities, but there's also a role for governments to play by forcing supply side changes through policy. You often get chicken and egg problems where there's a lack of demand due to a lack of supply. Individual suppliers also don't have a strategic viewpoint (and neither do consumers for that matter).

[phoenix_ca]

Best way? I had some ideas but after reading about Focus Fusion, if it works...that'd be the best way. It could indeed solve a whole bunch of problems with energy production in one fell swoop. The biggest impact of such an energy source wouldn't be on our lives either, it'd be on the lives of the people who don't have access to electricity, or can't afford electricity. Elevating the quality of life of people generally improves any situation greatly; if you're living comfortably and not threatened, there's not much reason to contemplate war or even small-scale conflict. Hell, it could even significantly shift how much sway extremist Islam has with people, if those people were enjoying electricity provided by a Western-made fusion reactor. A lot of the problems in the world are tied to energy production; we need it to keep so many of us alive, but the cost in conflict and drain on the economy is huge.

If it works. I hope it does, but it's still an "if" at this point. If they can prove that it can provide a net output of energy, then yes, the step to converting that to usable electricity is trivial.

To those talking about hydrogen as a fuel source for transportation, and brining up the storage issue, particularly whomever said it'd never happen, all we need to do is solve the storage issue. And that's already being done. I recall a paper on using feather down, burning it (in a high-temperature closed container), and using the resulting mass to efficiently store hydrogen at room temperature. It was actually quite impressive. It's not like we have any shortage of feathers. Fast food chains could even say "Eat fried chicken, support fuel cell cars" or something.

Edited May 21, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Red Iron Crown]

Tbh you need both. Demand definitely stimulates a quick response from commercial entities, but there's also a role for governments to play by forcing supply side changes through policy. You often get chicken and egg problems where there's a lack of demand due to a lack of supply. Individual suppliers also don't have a strategic viewpoint (and neither do consumers for that matter).

That's a good point, especially where electricity generation and distribution are natural monopolies that need careful regulation.

Elevating the quality of life of people generally improves any situation greatly; if you're living comfortably and not threatened, there's not much reason to contemplate war or even small-scale conflict.

I honestly think that's a bit naive. The "not threatened" part is entirely psychological, and the "living comfortably" part is relative.

[phoenix_ca]

I honestly think that's a bit naive. The "not threatened" part is entirely psychological, and the "living comfortably" part is relative.

I'm trying to condense very complicated problems down to a sentence; something's going to be lost. I could write thousands of words on why I suppose that to be true but honestly, I have other things to do with my time. My argument for that point of view is mostly based on the historical behaviour of ancient civilizations when they had abundant resources, and when they did not. The most peaceful ones had things like easy farming (flood plains), calm climates, and generally stable access to resources. The Indus Valley Civilization may be a good example.

[xcorps]

Alright, maybe those are old memories... But safe to say, that if they are actually aware of climate change and the shortage of fossil fuel, then... really, I haven't see any progress to stop (or slow down) oil production (shale oil is now on the rise too, mind you, which was not well utilized before) and try to search for new power source and alternatives (that needs drilling like say, geothermal powers, or maybe funding the development and use of electric cars). Most of their ideas are either baby steps or standard CSR talks.

Stop give us oil and things to burn, sell us what can replace them !

You are talking about changing the fundamental building blocks of modern civilization. It's not something that gets done in a decade or two. Remember all the justified skepticsim over the methodology of the IPCC? The splicing of data to match expected outcomes? Cherry picking station results? The hockey stick? The continued controversy regarding the "science" of the IPCC?

There's enough to do without shattering the worlds economy.

[peadar1987]

You are talking about changing the fundamental building blocks of modern civilization. It's not something that gets done in a decade or two. Remember all the justified skepticsim over the methodology of the IPCC? The splicing of data to match expected outcomes? Cherry picking station results? The hockey stick? The continued controversy regarding the "science" of the IPCC?

There's enough to do without shattering the worlds economy.

And yet 97% of peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists still believe we are having a drastic effect on the earth's climate with our emissions of greenhouse gases. The vast majority of "climate skeptic" arguments are poorly founded, or out-of-date. "In the 1970s scientists were talking about a new ice age" "There's been no warming since 1998", or "CLIMATEGATE", for example.

The world's economy wouldn't be shattered by a gradual transition to renewable and nuclear sources. The Stern report estimates a cost of about 1-2% of global GDP (against a cost of 5-10% caused by climate change if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we do now). In 2009, the recession caused the GDP of the United States to drop by about 3.5%, and although it wasn't brilliant, I'd hardly describe the current US economy as "shattered".

[xcorps]

And yet 97% of peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists still believe we are having a drastic effect on the earth's climate with our emissions of greenhouse gases. The vast majority of "climate skeptic" arguments are poorly founded, or out-of-date. "In the 1970s scientists were talking about a new ice age" "There's been no warming since 1998", or "CLIMATEGATE", for example.

The world's economy wouldn't be shattered by a gradual transition to renewable and nuclear sources. The Stern report estimates a cost of about 1-2% of global GDP (against a cost of 5-10% caused by climate change if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we do now). In 2009, the recession caused the GDP of the United States to drop by about 3.5%, and although it wasn't brilliant, I'd hardly describe the current US economy as "shattered".

I don't want to debate global warming.

I was merely putting in historical context the absolute mess the IPCC made out of it's findings and procedures, and why the skepticism was warranted at the time. At the time, it was not unreasonable for companies with a vested interest in industrial emissions to produce studies that disputed the IPCC. Since then, the major oil companies have found it to be better business to be more environmentally aware, and that's what they are doing. It takes more than a decade of work to change the fundamental energy infrastructure of the entire planet. It is unreasonable to scream and rant "BWAHHH BIG OILZ KILLING ERTH"

The world's economy wouldn't be shattered by a gradual transition to renewable and nuclear sources.

That's not the context of my posts. My posts are in response to "kill big oil" and "Stop give us oil and things to burn"

Edited May 21, 2014 by xcorps