I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:19 pm Post subject: Fusion Power; Blessing or Curse
In the arena of public discussion the pessimistic camp on the future of oil production is at a certain disadvantage, as people, particularly during good economic times, cannot fathom that storm clouds may be forming. Furthermore, it is generally more difficult to obtain a sympathetic hearing for a worrisome viewpoint than an optimistic one, as belief in progress, both technological and societal, seems to be universal. But I suggest we take it a step further, and take a hard look at what we think we want to happen, and why.
I admit to being an idealist. I would surely like to envision a world powered down to a sustainable level that wouldn't entail a constant crisis management, but realistically, I know it is futile. But, then again, it doesn't detract from the notion that a little backwards is better than more forward. To me, the issue is no longer how to solve the peak-oil energy crisis, but how to cope and live with it.
Now, this should get a response: To me, given our current cultural mindset, the worse thing that could happen would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy. We would doom the human race to extinction by making the planet uninhabitable through our wanton consumption. Now if we developed fusion and also reverted back to the population of the mid-1800's, did away with the "throw-away" society, recycled and downsized everything, instituted de-centralization, embraced environmental constraints, and generally practiced a conservation ethic, then that would be a good start—even in an entropy world where it all ends anyway. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Oct 05, 2004 Posts: 216 Location: Back France from Japan
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:01 pm Post subject:
I will answer about the predictible future about nuclear fusion as an infinite source of energy. I work in inertial laser fusion as a mathematician in numerical simulation.
But first I would like to talk about very basic thermodynamics because many use the word entropy around here and the only use of this word is supposed to justify so many things...
The first principle (conservation of energy) is most of time well used. For instance you will not get more energy from hydrogen burning than you used electrical energy to seperate oxygen and hydrogen in H2O (water).
The second principle is "the entropy of an isolated system can only increase". But you can diminish the entropy of a system using external energy... Earth is not an isolated system. Yes, the Sun gives Earth lot's of energy and the Nature use it quite well (photosynthesis for instance) to become a bit ordered. Simple example : you cut a tree, you burn it (then you got energy, you are happy), CO2 goes in the atmosphere, at the place you cut your tree another tree grows (photosynthesis) and capture roughly the same amount of CO2 you produced. This process transforms solar energy in thermel energy to heat your house. Of course YOU created entropy burning your tree, but Nature used solar energy to put everything in order. Conclusion : the entropy of the solar inscreased but this does not look like a big problem for now...
About fusion, this is still a long way to go. People laughing at scientists say it is always predicted to be ready in 50 years and this prediction holds for... 50 years now. They are right, it is more difficult as expected and the light at the end of the tunnel is still far but we make progress. But nuclear fusion used at a world scale as a major energy output... hmmm, 50 years why not but sounds optimistic. But to be honest, nobody can anticipate scientific progress for the next 50 years, so we'd better not predict anything. One thing for sure, it is at least a decade to produce just a bit of energy with controled fusion in a lab with hundreds of specialists around it. Such experiments frequency is low too and we are far far from industrial applications.
Finally, we need scientists (good physicists specially) but people who chose science are turning very rare recently.
Seb _________________ Not mother tongue. Sorry for the mistakes.
The root of the problem is human nature. In the 150 years that we have been using oil, we have advanced our technology, but not so much ourselves. We need to evolve to a point where we can be responsible with our growth and honest about our failings. _________________ "If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"George W. Bush loves poor people. He keeps making more of them." -unkn
The second principle is "the entropy of an isolated system can only increase". But you can diminish the entropy of a system using external energy... Earth is not an isolated system.
I guess the point of this thread went over your head, huh? Your response has nothing to do with it. But while I am at it, Second law applies to open, closed, and isolated systems. In the first two, entropy can be reduced, but only by creating even more entropy somewhere else. You fail to understand 2nd law if you feel this is not an issue. Your analogy was too simplistic. How did you cut the tree? What tool did you use? Chainsaw? Axe? How was it made? What materials were required? How much fuel? How did you transport the wood? A lot of energy conversions went on here to just burn a tree, and that increased a lot of entropy in the environment, which is a big problem these days. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 140 Location: sydney, australia
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Fusion Power; Blessing or Curse
MonteQuest wrote:
Now, this should get a response: To me, given our current cultural mindset, the worse thing that could happen would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy. We would doom the human race to extinction by making the planet uninhabitable through our wanton consumption. Now if we developed fusion and also reverted back to the population of the mid-1800's, did away with the "throw-away" society, recycled and downsized everything, instituted de-centralization, embraced environmental constraints, and generally practiced a conservation ethic, then that would be a good start—even in an entropy world where it all ends anyway.
I couldn't agree more. Humans are by nature wasteful and ignorant. While some people would argue that we are much more evolved than animals, i suggest that we are in some areas, but we are not in most areas. We are conscious of our bad decisions but if we can live with it (eg smoking, pollution, ravenous consumption of oil) then do not change our ways. Most of the time humans choose a path of least resistance and a path of least effort.
Without fusion, we might narrowly avoid causing the extinction of most of the complex forms of life on the planet. With fusion, i suspect it might be a certainty although it may just take a while longer. A change from hydrocarbons to a much cleaner form of energy would reduce the amount of global warming, ozone destruction and other environmental distasters humans are directly responsible for, but for the exponential growth in human population would only server to put additional pressure on what food supplies we have. Peak food has been well documented.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am Post subject:
I would say (being a doomer): Don't worry; fusion energy won't arrive at all because it is already too late. It is the other, more destructive type of fusion devices I worry about.
Quote:
but Nature used solar energy to put everything in order.
This is interesting. What is this Nature thing? How did it get here? How is it able to combat entropy? Nature as a reverse entropy vector? _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Joined: Apr 06, 2004 Posts: 257 Location: Sydney, Australia
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:25 am Post subject:
Crikey, enough with the entropy business! There are plenty of threads already... _________________ Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:39 am Post subject:
Quote:
Crikey, enough with the entropy business! There are plenty of threads already...
So if humans starve to death over the next 100 years due to a lack of fossil fuels and the population goes from 7 billion down to 1 billion, what mechanism will be more at fault? Entropy or Mother Nature?
What if people cut down and burn all of the trees becuase we ran out of fossil fuels? Then what happens? Will people burn tires to stay warm at night?
_________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Joined: Oct 05, 2004 Posts: 216 Location: Back France from Japan
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:01 am Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
But while I am at it, Second law applies to open, closed, and isolated systems. In the first two, entropy can be reduced, but only by creating even more entropy somewhere else.
My last answer about entropy since I suspect it is useless. Ok, physics is a bit more complex than basic classical thermodynamics. Sorry, I might look a little bit aggressive this way...
For instance, radiation cooling can reduce the entropy of a system. Of course it is not in book of thermodynamics because it is not thermodynamics. There are other ways that pure material transport to move entropy somewhere else. Now if you claim that Earth does not radiate, ok you are right.
Just consider how much entropy (and energy of course) come from Earth itself due to internal core process (heavy nucleii desintegration for example) or simply because of moon gravitational effect (yes, the oceans move every day due to that and this movement is a bit more that what it takes to cut my tree), and then you will see that natural production of entropy (not only energy) occuring after millions of years is far much more that what human beings produced. This entropy did not accumulated on Earth I guess. And if it did, then we add a neglectible amount to it. Entropy may look like a big word but it is not a problem for Earth itself.
Seb
PS: usually entropy is used to justify that complex process are not 100% efficient. Going to statistical physics (the mother of thermodynamics) we understand a bit more since entropy is defined mathematically from particule distribution. But this is related to temperature and temperature is affected by radiation which is not considered in statistical physics. _________________ Not mother tongue. Sorry for the mistakes.
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:58 am Post subject: Re: Fusion Power; Blessing or Curse
MonteQuest wrote:
Now, this should get a response: To me, given our current cultural mindset, the worse thing that could happen would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy. We would doom the human race to extinction by making the planet uninhabitable through our wanton consumption.
What is there to say? Yes? A qualified yes?
The 'qualified yes' would be something about being backhanded by the invisble hand of the market....how with inexhustible energy you could de-construct the wastestream of consumption, how once you assign a correct value to the wastestream the wastestream would be paid for.....et la.
Humanity has an 'inexhaustible' source of power - the Sun. It is not cheap to harvest however. It can't be tapped at will.
Would a 100% solar powered economy (because that is what we have....we are just using old solar power is all) be the adjustment you seek?
Would a 100% solar powered economy (because that is what we have....we are just using old solar power is all) be the adjustment you seek?
Yes sure indirectly we have a solar powerd economy even oil exists because of the sun.
But over the past 100-150 years we have been living off credit, our current economic paradigm believes that access to concentrated and cheap energy will continue forever what happens when oil production begins to decline?
How can you pay off a business debt or mortgage when growth is contracting?
Someone once said the stone age didn't stop because we ran out of stone. Absolutely correct, but guess what in a worst case scenario without any technological breakthrough those stones are still waiting for us _________________ "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
I think we need to concentrate on breeding fission or many-times-through cycle fission with recycling of spent fuel before we spend a lot more time on fusion.
For the record, I've studied entropy, and I understand it, but I don't fully agree with it. I will at least say that humans have greatly disrupted other living things on the planet. Many species who are highly vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation have gone extinct. Frogs come to mind. I don't feel the need to go into too much details, but we have certainly fouled up the world. The only hope for the long term survival of the atmosphere and general life on Earth depends on our destruction. I don't mean the entire human race, just most of it. _________________ "If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"George W. Bush loves poor people. He keeps making more of them." -unkn
So our long-term survival of our species depends on the majority of it dying? This is pretty scary . .
Quote:
I don't feel the need to go into too much details, but we have certainly fouled up the world. The only hope for the long term survival of the atmosphere and general life on Earth depends on our destruction. I don't mean the entire human race, just most of it.
So basically, nature is about to get its revenge on us...but i don't think i see a human die-off a positive thing, even if it means improving living conditions on this planet. Isn't it a bit of of a lose-lose situation? It's either we keep whoring environment for its resources to withstall a die-off for as long as we can (until we run out and die off anyways), or we just go cold turkey and have widespread famine, but improve the condition of the planet?
So there's basically no way out of this mess because we started too late fix this mess and overshot the population. Oh boy, i'm not going to look forward to this...
So there's basically no way out of this mess because we started too late fix this mess and overshot the population. Oh boy, i'm not going to look forward to this...
It's much, much worse than that.
Nobody has started to fix anything and it's far too late to do any good. The Club Of Rome was ignored and we're all going to face the consequences of our greed.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. .
