What are some reasons we use fossil fuels?

What does that have to do with science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As does all of the oil companies whenever they put up a oil well in the oceans of the world. There's over 50,000 oil wells in operation around the world in the oceans and they are owned by many oil companies that take the risk, as you say, to give us what we want, gas to run our cars. If other forms of fuel could be used then we will not be needing the oil wells any longer and that should be humanities goal in the near future. Until then we all knoiw that human error will always happen even with the best of science being used to prevent accidents from happening.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I came across an interesting bit of info that fits into this discussion in last month's issue of DISCOVER magazine. I only have the hard copy so cannot provide a link, sorry.

It was just a little sidebar note but actually explains a good deal about the problems of switching to 'greener' electricity.

It said that there were likely to be serious fluctuations in voltage and frequency if things like solar and wind power made up more than 25 to 30% of the power generated in a section of a power grid. The reason being that they are too susceptible to variations in weather variations (like clouds and wind) over such short periods of time that adequate adjustments can't be made quickly enough. And that's even with spinning reserves.

So the question that raises in my mind is, even with the advent of the so-called "smart grid", does that spell problems for the future? One obvious way out would be to provide huge reserves stored in batteries - but with today's storage battery technology, that's way to expensive to be practical. Will we have to wait for a quantum leap in batteries before true green power generation can become a reality?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The chances of getting the cooperation of all the world's governments? Considerably less than the odds of being able to transport the entire population to some distant star system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Especially when one considers that each country has it's own national agenda - which, buy the way, generally changes with each election/coup/whatever.

But why would it have to be an "all-or-nothing" thing? It wouldn't be completely impossible for a country like the U.S. to construct an installation of that nature that would provide a sizeable percentage of it's internal needs for electrical power. The only real roadblock I see would be getting our politician's heads out of the feedbags provided by special interest groups long enough to provide the focus and funding needed for such a project.

Then again, maybe the chances of that happening are just about the same as getting all the world's governments to work together.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Looks to me like like our best hopes are still nuclear. Fission for the near term and fusion in perhaps another 50 years or so. I do realize that many oppose both those approaches but I've yet to see anyone offer up a truly VIABLE alternative.

 

Zero.

 

Well you heard it here first. The economy will contract as energy becomes more expensive and difficult to extract. Housing development will center around dense communities. Our economic activity will center around food production and the car will become rare or non-existent as transportation. The standard of living will reduce to levels not seen since the 1920's. 24 hour electrical service will no longer be around, and thus the internet will possibly disappear. Medical care will likewise become primitive, and anyone with intensive medical or medicine needs will die off quickly.

 

Ordinary people and nature suffer all the way, they should be crucified and end up like homeless people because the worst it can happen to rich men to lost all the money and comfort.
None should risk that much especially when human lives and health are in question.

 

It really shows what science is all about.

 

Oil drilling isn't really science, it's technology. Big difference.

 

I was thinking of both science and technology. And modern technology seems to create new sciences.

 

There us plenty of fuel, we just have too many people. Put them in RVs and have them drive north or south to adjust heating.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The total amount of available fuel is not the relevant issue, it's peak oil.

 

Well yes, but we have been using the oil to raise crops and create human babies. All goes back to oil.

 

Indeed, what if the wind doesn't blow for months, and it stays cloudy that whole time. Site selection is a big factor but that affects availability, too. Solar farms will be most efficient in deserts and tropical areas not necessarily populated. Wind power would seem to do well down in Tierra del Fuego. Geothermal is best situated in calderas and hot springs, and so on.

It's a massive enterprise full of technology and safety hurdles in order to address the atmospheric losses of sunlight. Here, as above, transport is a huge issue. If it weren't for the remoteness of the energy source, a huge problem would be solved.


Do either of you remember this solar furnace in France? It's been around about 60 years. I remember that they were melting rock with it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here's a later version, now producing about a megawatt

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And down in sunny Spain they put the mirrors on the ground and the collector up on a tower. It's about 11 MW peak.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another approach to the availability problem you both address is try to solve the generation and transport problem together with the consumption problem.

A kibbutz or commune, set up as an experimental community, would serve well to try integrate all the renewable energy sources with efficiency and low consumption in design and as a matter of lifestyle. There would be little or no transmission loss by careful site selection.

I think a lot of people would be willing to be test subjects. This would have no immediate benefit but it would offer promise that a future world could move away from the high impact on the environment.

It's not hard to imagine a low impact site which is a self-sufficient community with lifelines back to the high impact world in case of emergency. It doesn't seem that practical now, but long from now there may be no other choice.

I think it would be a worthwhile project and an excellent way to apply all the genius and talent of DIYers and mainstream sources. I also think that by involving a mix of folks in the arts and sciences a pleasant livable community could be designed which people would not want to leave. Once successful, it's conceivable that it would spread.

It's hard to imagine a future that can sustain high impact.

 

What are some reasons we use fossil fuels?

Entertainment.

I remember a party at the trestle along the Des Plaines River in the Cook County Forest preserve back in the 80's. A group of us had a kegger and partied by the shelter. We had a fire. Every 1/2 hour or so, someone would throw a 20 ounce cup a gasoline into the fire.