/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10364825
>getting rid of it entirely
only through witchcraft

through some hidden rule of the universe that can create free energy

>>10364825
Carbon neutrality is what you'd really shoot for though. Accomplishes the same thing regarding the global climate.

>>10364825
I wouldn't.
We don't really have any technology fit to take over at this time. Batteries are nice for cars, but not so much for ships/planes. Hydrogen is nice but it can't deliver the power necessary unless you light it on fire, then you need a lot more of it. Methanol/ethanol is nice but production is a kind of a bitch, especially in the quantities required to replace fossil fuels.

>>10364825
ban airplanes

Algaefuel looks promising, but I doubt you could ever produce to sustain current oil use.

For example, in 2017 just the United States used 20 million barrels (43gallons per barrel iirc) per day. There won't be a shortage of oil any time soon including our lifetimes or our children's children's lifetimes. I can expand on that if you'd like.

For algae biofuel to replace fossil fuels you would need to invest very heavily in renewable sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc to offset need of oil or natural gas.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention nuclear. Installing new plants around the globe would be a godsend. Nuclear is a really great power source.

>>10364894
>Algaefuel
thats just fossil fuel made today instead of spending millions of years to create

Isn't it obvious? Burn it until there is none left. As a bonus, we're gonna solve our overpopulation problem while we're at it.

>>10364825
Shipping via sail power, as in the older times. Lots of new jobs for salty old sailors and sea captains would be created. As for air travel, solar powered blimps.

>>10364902
Do you know what a fossil is? Do you know why it is referred to as a "fossil fuel"?

And did you think I was unaware of what algae biofuel was composed of?

>>10364825
Nuke the entire Middle East and all of America until the land itself is glowing. Helpfully this would also solve about 99% of the worlds other problems too.

>>10364902
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

>>10364825
end of industrial society

>>10364825
wind an solar is super cheap, use excess energy to produce hydrogen, use gas turbines or fuel cells to power ships and planes
/thread

>>10364825
Fusion and asteroid or undersea mining to convert all civilian vehicles into electrics. High grade biofuels (probably from genenged crops) for planes. So basically not doable for about 50 years.

>>10365078
fusion is a meme, it may be ready in 100 years, but we need solutions now

Bio fuels, clean coal.

And clean Eco(tm) friendly consumer electronics like my Iphone and mac.

Also promote solar chargers for smartphones and computers.

>>10366692
>clean coal
Doesn't exist. There is no way to remove CO2 from combustion of coal except to try to sequester it underground, which is a very stupid idea that won't work.

>>10364825
> shipping

WHALE
CHARIOTS

Just imagine it.

Thorium and renewables.

>>10365070
Wind and solar are actually pretty expensive and wind in particular has a super high maintenance cost

>>10364825
Nuclear engines for the big tankers and electrical engines for all other ships. Abandon air travel altogether and invest massively in high speed railroads instead.

>>10364825
Kill everyone.

>>10364825
>what are biofuels

>>10366780
Actually wind and solar are much cheaper then almost everything else. Only natural gas can compete.

>>10366934
Biofuels are a scam. It's the choice to eat or ride your car.

>>10364838
>whats nuclear
dont tell me you can't use it for transport. use it to synthesise fuel

>>10368213
well i don't trust anyone with nuclear power so that isn't even an option to me

i think history has many examples as to why that is a bad idea, many people are crippled because of it

>>10366780
The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.

... on top of that, the trillions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost in Iraq Wars I & II.

>>10368202
Not when you look at the operation's and management costs listed in the source you are using and compare them directly to the output

>>10368229
Irrelevant to the statement that wind and solar are fucking memes

>>10368202
always love the disclaimer about transmission and intermittency. also the sun doesn't shine at night.

>>10368238
>i have no argument

>>10368243
I just made my argument, if you want to ignore it or reject it, that's fine, but it's sitting there in whatever color scheme you view this board in.

>>10368246
>money matters
26 bn bruh + trillions
>actually money doesn't matter

retard

>>10368250
>You ignored my non-sequiter so you don't have an argument

My argument is that Solar and Wind are expensive for what they are due to lots of costs that are downplayed while their efficacy is oversold exponentially. Though if you want me to address your argument, fine, I can do that.

If you say that it's a travesty that the US spends $26 billion dollars a year annually subsidizing fossil fuels then your argument is that the fact that the US spends that much money propping up an energy source is bad, right?

Alright, now what does that mean for Solar and Wind? Well let's just look at one of the meme's here, shall we?
https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-solar-energy-subsidies-cost-39-billion-per-year/

Oh, would you look at that, even MORE money gets pumped into Solar despite the fact that solar doesn't even produce a fraction of what fossil fuels produce. Are you arguing that is a good thing then?

retard

>>10364825
Do what France is doing. Switch to nuclear and recycle it

>>10368270
I'd be 100% behind this

>>10364894
Oil won't last another 100 years with the current rate of extraction

>>10368268
go to Iraq and die

>>10368277
I tried but I was exempt, so sorry dude but you're stuck with me being right.

>>10368268
Yes let's just forget the trillions

retard

>>10368288
The trillions of what?

>>10368268
You do realize those there are countries like Denmark and Scotland that are at >50% wind while having lower electricity bills than most of Europe?

The issue with wind and solar is not their cost, but storage. If cheap batteries come around, they will take over everything.

>>10368306
>Denmark has low electricity costs (including costs for cleaner energy) in EU,[111] but general taxes (11.7 billion DKK in 2015)[110] make the electricity price for households the highest in Europe.[112] As of 2015, Denmark has no environment tax on electricity.[113]
From Wikipedia

Can't say about Scotland because information on their programs isn't as detailed on Wikipedia. For all I know their wind program might be a resounding success. To be clear my argument isn't that it isn't possible to have an energy economy revolving around solar and wind, but that they are memes because they are ultimately more expensive and less effective than everyone says they are.

That said, as technology improves I agree that they will become far more viable. However, I'll also argue that the same is quite likely to be true for every other form of energy generation as well, and most other forms of energy generation are far more efficient and in many cases "cleaner" once you actually stop and consider the carbon and general environmental footprint of the materials required to actually setup and maintain the infrastructure required to sustain solar and wind projects.

>>10368292
short attention span huh?
lrn2read

>>10368332
Alright, if you're not going to humor me then I'll just lay out my counter and go to bed

A) I personally don't think that the Gulf War or the Iraq War were motivated primarily to secure oil resources, in fact the chance that engaging in these conflicts would destabilize the region and it's oil reserves further was a huge argument against these wars as they were being waged. I think that the argument that they were waged primarily for oil and in the most extreme argument only for oil is something that people who simply have no time to actually look into the big fucking web of global politics that surrounded the conflicts, as well as the joint histories of the US and Iraq.
B) Your argument that these wars are an effective "subsidy" for the resource in question and that as such it means that the resource itself is inefficient is blatantly moronic. Even if I was willing to grant that these wars and all the resources that went into them were waged purely to secure oil resources, which I'm not, then even then it has nothing to do with the actual extraction, processing, refinement, delivery, storage, and use of the product itself. It is still exponentially cheaper and more efficient than the alternatives that you are trying to push by implying that more money has been spent to "prop up" oil when that's demonstrably not the case by the numbers.
C) Even if I was willing to grant the conflicts were driven by oil AND that makes them in fact an effective subsidy then even then considering the amount of energy that oil has produced and still produces for the US then it STILL means oil is both a cheaper, more efficient, and safer resource than solar and wind because if I grant all of that then I would only be doing it under the guise that you would be willing to grant the hidden costs and safety issues with solar and wind, which you of course aren't going to do even though I already pointed them out in this thread.

There's my argument, have a good night.

A) of course, if ME exported just prunes, it would still all have happened
p.s. do you still believe in santa?
B) doen't matter what it's called - they are joined from the hip, when you choose oil you get wars with it
C) You have no idea what's coming down the pipe with GW if you think doing nothing to get off oil is the cheap way out.
grow up

>>10364825
synthetic hydrocarbon fuel powered by nuclear

THORIUM

Liquid Flouride Thorium Tractors (LFTRs)

The only reason we neither have them now nor is it even being quickly developed is because the public is needlessly fearful of it and the government has no interest in nuclear technology if it doesn't improve their capacity to wipe out our species.

The only way mankind has any hope to shake off the fossil fuel dependency is to drastically reduce energy consumption sice renewable energy is simply inferior in almost every way bar the whole renewable part.

>>10368223
It's weird how fossil fuels literally pose a threat to the entire human race through global warming and cause innumerable deaths through mining accidents and cancer caused by pollution yet it is nuclear that strikes genuine fear in brainlets.

>>10364825
>this also means shipping and airplane fuel as well.

Decentralization.

Our society is built around specialized units manufacturing goods in a centralized location then shipping it around the planet. It's unfeasible do this this without fossil fuels. Goods should never travel more than 100 miles to reach their end user. Means of production should be distributed among the masses to facilitate distribution and adaptability in future marketplace trends. Overspecialization breeds in weakness and is doomed to failure.

>>10370009
And Thorium is even better.

>>10364825
Fusion power, and better battery technology to store that fusion power for use in vehicles.

>>10370009
i am aware that nuclear is theorically safer than oil but it is not just nations like the japanese who use oil, it is the third world as well, and i don't really fancy the prospect of living in chernobyl because i know they don't follow any rules, i so much doubt they would be capable of handling their own fukushimas if those happen, this is what i mean by not trusting anyone changing all their grid overnight, the less people doing it, the less of a chance for an accident, and an accident represents an immediate danger as opposed to global warming

this is why i don't care for it, i know that shit happens

>>10370052
The US wouldn't even allow them to use such reactors. The US only invented then to make bombs. There are much safer designs that that the US would have no problem with and would never melt down.

>>10370052
It's not just theoretically safer, it's empirically safer. There's plenty of viable designs that keep getting the book whenever a natural disaster happens and they're forced to upgrade the designs to comply with new safety standards. Fukushima happened because it got hit by a fucking earthquake and then a tsunami. The reactor design used at Cherynobyl is no longer being built and all remaining designs in the Soviet Union were upgraded to prevent the same thing from happening.

Meanwhile radioactive coal ash (despite EPA restrictions) still exposes the population of the world and even the US alone to more radiation than there would be floating around if we'd switched to Nuclear. You can swim at the waste heat exchange of a Nuclear Power Plant near a body of water and you'd be exposed to less radiation from it than coal because of how well-designed and upgraded they are.

Unironically sterilize the <100IQ people

>>10370107
By the way:
>In 1990, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ranked the failure of the emergency electricity generators and subsequent failure of the cooling systems of plants in seismically very active regions one of the most likely risks. The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) cited this report in 2004. According to Jun Tateno, a former NISA scientist, TEPCO did not react to these warnings and did not respond with any measures.[35]

Fukushima got warned and didn't take action, meanwhile in the US the plant would be shut down for not obeying.

>>10370071
lol the US also did their little oopsies, you're looking at at least a million deaths because they intentionally ignored risks

i am never trusting monkeys with building, storing and maintaining nuclear reactors, it's a very surreal idea

>>10370107
well if they upgraded it and it is all running well then great, but people from around the world don't learn from their mistakes, you'd need to also design a little "angel" and attach it to their shoulders to tell them exactly what to do next because you don't want them neither not thinking for themselves or thinking for themselves

>>10370026
ya but that would make it much harder for elites and other kinds of assorted political asshats to specialize in hanging out on yachts with their hookers and blow.

the future is obviously nuclear plus batteries

>>10370141
Lean to read.

>>10370107
lol you're that same delusional fuckwit that thinks exponential human population and energy consumption growth can continue indefinitely if only we invest in renewables by taxing carbon.

>>10370191
God you sound like an insufferable faggot.

>>10370188
>lean
no thanks i prefer to sit on my chair

>>10370188
>>10370191
lets correct that to read "renewables"
since lunatics like you literally believe that nuclear to be "renewable", due to the fact that "there is nough uranium in the seawater to power growth for thousands of years" or some such idiocy.

>>10370141
>but people from around the world don't learn from their mistakes
So why should we pick being slaves to the oil industry instead when it's not even better for everyone involved? The oil industry's lobbying got us mired in the Middle East.

>you'd need to also design a little "angel" and attach it to their shoulders to tell them exactly what to do next because you don't want them neither not thinking for themselves or thinking for themselves

So in your previous sentence you admit people don't learn from their mistakes, yet you also think it's some form of proselytization/patrionization to demand that they be responsible enough to take measures to prevent incidents from happening in the first place?

>>10370195
It's a very long sentence. I understand how you could get frustrated attempting to read and understand it. My deepest condolences for you and your loved ones.

>>10364825
For the short term, go full nuclear. Invest heavily into fusion.
>Convert container ships to nuke power and start job programs for civilian nukes
>Aviation will be limited to small ultralight battery crafts and drones until alternatives can be made
>Only way to space is SLAM type missiles
>New age of MAD since SLAM is the only way to power missiles anymore
>World peace
>Within 50 years or less viable fusion power
>A new age of genetically engineered carboys and horsecock traps has dawned
>Earth becoming more dangerous due to SLAM fallout
>Time to build the first o'neill cylinder
>Expand into space
>Zeon crashes the o'neall cylinder into LA
Thanks a lot space rats.

>>10370211
he's saying people are fuck ups. and always will be. and whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, so why increase the stakes EVEN MORE.

>>10370211
>So why should we pick being slaves to the oil industry
i am not "we", i don't care about the US and their affairs. i just don't want the place i live to become a wasteland for thousands of years to come

>yet you also think it's some form of proselytization/patrionization
yeah if you could become omniscient like some sort of god then maybe you could prevent that kind of shit, but i don't think anyone has that kind of power, not even the US

>>10370141

Remind me, how many people have EVER been killed by nuclear power? How many people does coal power kill each year?

Which of these numbers is orders of magnitude larger than the other?

>>10370191
Thanks but that's not me.
>>10370229
Geopolitically and technologically we're going to be screwed if we don't find a better energy source. The stakes are already high, if the West loses its lead to countries which can actually build new designs to completion (like the Westinghouse reactors in China and India), we could be forced to put up with more and more foreign meddling and influence.
>>10370230
>a wasteland for thousands of years to come
That's a bit hyperbolic. Even Cherynobyl is overrun with plant and animal life now, and cleanup/containment has occurred at all modern disaster sites. People are fucking living in high density at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for christ's sake. We have the ability to clean up after accidents.

>yeah if you could become omniscient like some sort of god then maybe you could prevent that kind of shit, but i don't think anyone has that kind of power, not even the US
It's called rule of law and it's been pretty effective in most modern countries.

>>10370263
>new designs to completion (like the Westinghouse reactors in China and India
and when (not if) they turn their lands into radioactive wastelands and lose millions to leukemia the west can sit back and say "told ya so"

>>10370263
>China and India
are rivals. just wait and see how they butt heads when their energy comes mainly from such sources

>>10370107
How much do coals from different geographical regions differ in their uranic composition?

>>10370305
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR

France has been predominantly nuclear powered since the 1980s, and has some of the lowest energy costs for Europe.

https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html

As far as I can tell, neither France nor Germany have turned into radioactive wastelands.

>>10370315
Look it up on Google Scholar.

>>10370191
Are you really playing into the "there's not enough resources for all of us" angle? Because if that's the case you should be focusing on cutting aid to African countries and investing into nuclear energy to provide better ROI from humans in the developed world.

Also, the people who spout this argument are typically neoliberal and neoconservative types who don't give two shits about the people they govern. You should be focusing on ways to solve the problem, not to throw the towel down (and the lives of people who would actually do shit with that spare energy) and pretend like it's impossible to sustain growth.

>>10365070
>wind and solar is super cheap

Air and the sun might be free but the facilities to harvest them sure aren't you fucking dunce

>>10370248
lol that's fucktarded, it is what communists imply when they say that "capitalism has killed more than communism" and that "therefor we should be communists" (and totally not kill even more people in the process)

>>10370316
>neither France nor Germany have turned into radioactive wastelands
now try this same stunt on chinks and ooga boogas

>>10370323
I want you to do it for me, because I don't want to have to search through pages to find the type of study I'm looking for.

>>10370335
Reality is hard to deal with, I know.

>>10370443
China's already going for the record on nuclear plants as we speak, go try to stop them.

Develop hydrogen peroxide that is enzymatically synthesized in a photosynthetic organism

>>10370451
>go try to stop them.
i dont need to
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/

>>10370451
>China's already going for the record on nuclear plants

I feel like nuclear power is a poison pill that's shilled to countries you want to take down in 30-50 years. During economic upswing a country invests in their infrastructure and builds dozens of nuclear plants. Any economy that goes up, eventually must go down. And nuclear power plants become a financial drain once they become old. Once they've lived their planned lifespan and become obsolete they need to be slowly decommissioned over decades while producing zero output at all. They become big fat money sinks.

>>10370467
Even if that's not overstated they're gonna have like forty plants running anyway.

>>10368240
Energy consumption is also low at night so solar is perfect for peak demand at office hours.

Solar thermal with molten salt storage can produce energy 24/7 so we really could get all energy from the sun. Also electric car batteries are used as storage.

>>10368229
>The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.
The US doesn´t subsidize fossil fuels due to their inefficiency - it subsidizes them because they´re the only viable large-scale source of energy.

>>10366692
bait but also consumer electronics are such a tiny part of overall energy usage that its a joke

>>10364825
>build more nuclear reactors handled by white scientists
>no second fukushima/chernobyl
fin

>>10371319
retard

>>10364825
Solar power

>>10364825
By obtaining energy elsewhere, there is shitload of energy almost anywhere.

>>10371398
this post lmao

>>10364825

Nuclear, use as much renewable energy as we can with laws like mandatory installation of solar panels for new houses and subsidies for installing on older houses, invest a lot into R&D for nuclear safety so we don't chernobyl it up somewhere else, reserve fossil fuels for things that we just can't make go without yet, like planes and container ships. Wait for some smart guy to make cool new shit.

>>10364825
destroy all powered technology and return to the age of man and steed