/sci/ - Science & Math

No we arent, we have electric motors you idiot.

The oil won't just 'run out' - it will get rarer and rarer, more expensive to use until even exxon mobil realises it needs to switch to other forms of energy.

Of course this won't be helpful for limiting global warming.

Like 20 years ago, fusion power is roughly 20 years away.

>>2088609

Cool story, troll.

Cold fusion \o/

The faster the oil and fossilized fuels run out, the better. Then we can't pollute the world as much as we pollute it now. Sure there will be nuclear waste, but we can put it deep underground and let it cool down on it's own.

Once fossil fuels run out (or become too expensive), there will be a huge incentive to invent alternatives.

Fusion is now a materials science problem more than anything. It took some fresh new materials to go to space; it's gonna take some frickin' crazy materials to make a fusion a commercial reality.

We're in no way dependent on oil, or anywhere near as reliant as anybody makes it out to be. Oil is ubiquitous because its convenient, not because its necessary. There is no industrial process which requires if. If you can make power, you can make anything. And we know a whole lot of ways to make power.

To answer your question, the ITER and the National Ignition Facility are in a race to do better than breakeven. Both expect to do so by 2012.

>>2088645
But what do we use to make plastic among other materials? Tree sap is one possible alternative, but the process is much less efficient compared to using oil.

>>2088645
The cost of everything there is depends on the cost of materials, production, and transportation.

Getting materials requires energy.
Turning them into shit requires energy.
Moving that shit to the people who want it requires energy.

Yes, there are myriad other energy sources out there, but they are MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.

That depends on what you mean by 'power'. When Tsar Bomba was detonated, Earth's power consumption was temporarily 2% of the power output of the Sun.

That is to say, for a small time in 1961, we exceeded 1 on the Kardashev scale. In fact, even on the log scale, for a small time in 1961 we were closer to a Type II civilization than a Type I.

Guesstimation:
First commercial fusion power plants in 2050
widespread use in 2080
Before fusion, thorium reactors and breeder reactors become popular due to diminishing uranium deposits

>>2088667
>>2088663
>>2088661
>>2088633
>>2088623
>>2088622
>>2088614
>>2088609
>>2088590
samefag

We use oil for WAY more than just power. Roads, tires, pharmaceuticals, computers, everything. It's ubiquitous. There's people already calling this the age of petroleum.

Global warming is NOTHING compared to what happens when we hit peak oil production. That's the shit that keeps me up at night.

>>2088663
Hydro, nuclear, and solar thermal are all comparable or cheaper to coal and oil power. 10 cents a kWh is all you need.

>>2088684

How exactly is oil used in computers?

>>2088673
Do not question the hivemind of /sci/. We know what is good for you. You will do exactly what we tell you.

i'm pretty close, I'll let you all know when I find out

>>2088684
>mentions a bunch of stuff that can be synthesized currently from various sources of biomass

The difference is to do it synthetically means you have to pay the equivalent of $900 a barrel or more. Now, that's not a fun thing to think about, but it's not like the world is going to end. In most consumer devices the vast majority of the cost is in value-added, not raw-material value.

>>2088693
How many plastic parts are in your computer?

>>2088689
Don't forget biofuels
If Brazil can do it, so can we

>>2088693
I'm not well versed on the construction of integrated circuits, but I know a bit about building MEMS. Under the assumption they're similar, even though the final product is essentially 100% silicon, intermediate steps in its production use petrochemical baths, masks, and so on.

In addition to PCBs and magnetic discs and that.

>>2088715
Except Brazil is a retarded place for using foodcrops for fuel. And so is the United States if they go with corn. Ethanol is a 1st generation biofuel that's been obsolete longer than I've been alive (literally). Current 3rd generation fuels have much higher yields, are much superior in cost, and don't consume food crops or land where food crops can grow.

If it weren't for American farmers lobbying to sell their corn at higher prices, the world would be much better.

>>2088693

umm...nearly every single part.

>>2088716
>>2088707

>Forgets about plastic.
I went full retard. But there are alternatives to plastic in my defense, when oil runs out there will still be conventional computers.

As to the second poster, I'm not very familiar with the inner workings of computers, so I cannot debate that.

>>2088715
Biofuels are the reason for the 2008 international food crisis and the destruction of natural biomes all around the world.

>We're pretty much fucked when the oil runs out.
[citation needed]

>>2088735
Because they're using the wrong biofuels. Corn and sugarcane have literally been obsolete sources for biofuel longer than I've been alive. Fucking farmers trying to front their crops for more than their worth, essentially.

>>2088723
Well, I was talking about cheap
It was dawn cheap.

um solar cells are going to be the next energy source

>>2088986
inb4 superpowers monopolizes solar rays and solar power.

and nothing of vale was lost.....

>>2088986
no they are not, china is not selling their materials to make them and they arent exactly abundant.

>>2088645
>Oil is ubiquitous because its convenient, not because its necessary. There is no industrial process which requires if.
Don't be stupid. There are numerous chemicals that couldn't be manufactured without oil.

>>2089019

>he thinks the solar cells of tomorrow will STILL be made with rare earth materials, and not carbon nanotubes

>everyone on sci's fw

And nothing of value was lost.

>>2088684
SPOILER: We've already hit peak oil production

The truth is, we're completely fucked.

We need oil. There won't be enough oil. The only solution will be who wants to kill the most amount of people to keep the oil.

WW3 will be between the West and East Asia over oil - guaranteed. This war will not stop until sufficient people have died to mitigate the immense demand. All of those people need food, warmth and shelter, and the simple fact is, all of those things need oil.

First the economy will collapse, then the war starts. Let's face it, if our legislators cannot forsee the sub-prime mortage crisis precipitating the current recession, they havn't a hope in hell of predicting the massive, massive consequences of Peak Oil.

One of George W. Bush's Energy Advisors was asked what solution was available to us in facing the impending war, he said " I don't think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty".

Oh by the way he said that in 2003.

>>2089090

Massive societal controls will allow us to survive. An authoritarian state would allow us to make it through the bottleneck. Our addiction to freedom will be our deaths.

Stop worrying faggots, the engineers have got this.

>>2089100
Homosex our way to victory?

>>2089090
The Arctic still has fucktons of oil, as do the oil sands in Canada. Coal can be converted to oil, and we have plenty of coal. Also, biofuels. Sure, it's going to get more expensive as conventional oilfields are exhausted, but we're not going to run out of oil for a long time.

Yawn, old tech is old tech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

Running out of oil is a much smaller problem than climate change.

>>2088684
we've already hit peak oil more or less
the sky isnt going to fall
it'll just get progressively more expensive. not the end of the world.

Sustainability is more of a problem than oil.....

Peak Oil is not the main issue here. This could be replaced by nuclear powerplants and solarpanels. Cars could be using electric motors and biofuels if it weren't for one thing: metal and water scarcity.

These green technologies cost a lot of energy and to be quite frank, we don't have that many good mineral fields left. With worse grades, the energy imput will increase, making minerals more expensive decreasing the growth of green energy. which in turn leads to more expensive energy. The energy return on investments will only decrease.

The only way to solve this conundrum is recycling minerals and using the minerals that are abundant in supply, like magnesium.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3086 is a good article on peak minerals

We don't need fusion because there's a simpler method. We're a lazy frugal species that reliably follows the path of least resistance. When the best solution can't be used anymore we simply migrate to using the next best, and that's nuclear (I don't mean objectively best I mean from the "whatever is cheapest and easiest" standpoint.)

The only reason we're finally getting electric cars is because we already have hit peak oil. We hadn't yet in the 90s which is why the auto companies fought the legislation that made them build the prior generation of EVs, but whole governments in other nations are now acknowledging that cheap, easy access to oil is at an end and it will become scarcer and costlier from here on out, and consequently literally every nation on Earth is now aggressively buying/producing electric vehicles.

I dunno how we'll do planes, though. Cargo vessels aren't a big problem, the navy has a perfect safety record with their submarine reactors, the same reactors could be used aboard shipping vessels, though they'd need a full complement of marines to guard them against terrorists. Same problem with airplanes; they can't go nuclear so long as there are still Muslims in the world, even a small fraction of which wanting to crash nuclear airplanes into major cities.

>>2089133
Once other power sources become cheaper than oil it'll swing towards them, I reckon. Better to get the tech ready now.

We embrace a fascist trans-humans state, or we die.

>>2089207
Sad, nuclear airplanes are so awesome...

>>2089192
>>2089192
>>2089192
>>2089192

If we use oil ( to fuel trucks) to transport our food to shops, doesnt that mean that maybe people could be starving to death because they cant get a hold of food as there is no oil to fuel trucks.

But what amazes me is that governments are not worrying that much, which hints towards a factor to our problem that they already have something up their sleeves to solve our energy needs :/

>>2089233
I know the article is a frightening wall of text but it's really important to understand the core of the matter. Several kinds of minerals are running out and without them we can't switch from a oil based society to a green society.

>>2089268
>implying we need a green society

>>2089291
We most certainly cant go on with our fossil fuel addiction because the stuff is running out.

It really angers me when politicians don't care or are just ignorant about the coming resource scarcity.
The average Republican senator is following the mantra of Drill baby Drill, while the average democratic senator has megalomanic dreams about building millions of windmills, even though we don't have the metals for those plans.

We need to build thoriumreactors, and we need them fast. We should also start to consume less materials, by recycling and by producing durable products. The era of replacing your cellphone after six months, and buying a new tv every two years should end.

>>2089312
No i'm saying fuck it and leave the planet, or evolve to survive anywhere.

>>2089262

>>If we use oil ( to fuel trucks) to transport our food to shops, doesnt that mean that maybe people could be starving to death because they cant get a hold of food as there is no oil to fuel trucks.

That's actually something you can do with electrics. We'll need a greater rail infrastructure, but it's doable. Electric milk lorries have been in use for decades, and there are already several brands of electric food/mail delivery trucks coming on the market.

They're not far away from a self-sustaining fusion reaction using lasers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8485669.stm

>>2089333

The majority of electric power still comes from fossil fuel though.

>>2089338
There's no guarantee they will succeed. Thorium is a very good investment for energy security. With LFTRs, we can afford to wait as long as it takes for fusion technology to mature, even if it is 100 or 200 years.

>>2089359

>>The majority of electric power still comes from fossil fuel though

What? No it doesn't. http://www.getenergyactive.org/fuel/mix.htm

>>2088590
AMD fusion is released Q1 2011

>>2089364
Too bad the green movement is adamantly against nuclear power because it's "dangerous and bad for your health", while they support the production of windmills which cost tons of rare earth minerals. And these minerals are conveniently produced in China under terrible conditions, polluting the whole country and driving up CO2 emisions like a motherfucker.

We're forced to choose between the nonsensical green movement and the decrepit drill baby drill crowd.

>>2089371
Not sure if you're trolling, but natural gas coal and oil are all fossil fuels.

>>2089392

I propose a new, third way.

Announcing: The Nonsensical Green Baby Drill Movement.

I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I saw this... Peak Coal in China
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575617810380509880.html

itt: people confuse reserves with production rate......

billions of reserves means fuck all when the world uses 85 MBPD.

also, jevon's paradox. because humans are stupid.

>>2089392

>>Too bad the green movement is adamantly against nuclear power

It's what?

Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy to Boost Climate Bill
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9709897

Obama Moves Away From `Cap and Trade,' Seeks New Tools
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-04/obama-calls-cap-and-trade-just-one-way-northeast-carbon-mar
ket-falls.html

Obama ups nuclear investment for climate fight
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61F33V20100216


Even fucking Green Peace isn't anti-nuclear anymore.

Meanwhile, conservatives oppose the electric car because they associate it with environmentalism even though it would get America off of foreign oils and eliminate OPEC's leverage.

>>2089399

>>Not sure if you're trolling, but natural gas coal and oil are all fossil fuels.

Oil and gas are, but coal is not a "fossil fuel". Keep in mind, you said a majority.

>>2089404
Haha, good one.

But on a more serious note, the green movement is not realistic. They promote population growth, while this is the main cause for all the problems we're in.

Picture: Fertility rate in the world per year.

>>2089207
>full complement of marines
>nuclear cargo vessels

i dont have an appropriate reaction face for hoe GLORIOUS this will be. Imagine the enormous island-vessels we'll be using. Obviously with all the safety concerns it'd be much more cost-effective to guard a single GINORMOUS vessel than multiple medium-largeish ones.

Remember all those sci fi stuff with entire cities lost in a ship? well it might not be that big, but no doubt if this is the way things are headed, city-ships being used to transport stuff are very very likely.

that or ace-combat style superplanes. equally awesome.

>>2089422
Wat?

Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal and methane. Many of the coal fields date to the Carboniferous period of Earth's history. Terrestrial plants also form type III kerogen, a source of natural gas.

>>2089429

>>They promote population growth

The opposite is true, though. It's like you're just baselessly ascribing views to them that you disagree with.

Remember the Discovery Channel HQ shooter? He was an eco-terrorist upset with their promotion of "breeders" with shows featuring large families.

>>2089418
The zombies at Green Peace are still adamantly opposed to nuclear power.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

>>2089415
jevon's paradox is badass. But increasing the price of energy at the same time will do the trick.

>>2089422
you gotta be trolling...

>>2089418
greens are highly divided on the subject on nuclear power. For example, greens in germany are very anti nuclear.

>>2089433

Okay, that makes sense. I concede the point. You're right, I'm wrong.

Now let's discuss your original argument, here: >>2089359

Why do you think it's a problem for electric vehicles if the majority of our electric power still comes from fossil fuels? Do you realize it's still drastically cleaner to charge an EV from fossil fuels than it is to run a gasoline vehicle with them?

>>2089446

>>greens are highly divided on the subject on nuclear power. For example, greens in germany are very anti nuclear.

There, that's better. He portrayed them as universally opposed to it.

>>2089438
Most green parties favour international aid and food shipments to the third world. They may preach a halt of population growth in the developed world, but they don't do anything to stop the third worlders from reproducing like rabbits.

>>2089458
Oh man, food shipments are totally retarded. It destroys their economies.

The bigger problem is not the development of fusion power, it is the building on an infrastructure for that fusion power to be distributed through. Building such an infrastructure would have to be done with oil, so regardless of the date of fusion power accomplishment, there will still be a massive energy and population contraction between the peak of oil and the date of sifficient fusion infrastructure.

>>2089447
Electrical vehicles will most certainly be an improvement to fossil fuel based vehicles. The problem however is that in order to build enough electrical vehicles we'd need massive amounts of heavy rare earth minerals, cobalt, silver etc, while the minerals themselves are getting more expensive to mine.

The solution to this would be public transport and the production of durable long lasting vehicles.

>>2089458

>>They may preach a halt of population growth in the developed world, but they don't do anything to stop the third worlders from reproducing like rabbits.

They don't reproduce like rabbits. That sort of growth occurs in India and China, not in Africa.

Why does it seem that the people who most strongly oppose all things "green" and liberal are closet neo-nazis?

>>2089494

>>The problem however is that in order to build enough electrical vehicles we'd need massive amounts of heavy rare earth minerals, cobalt, silver etc, while the minerals themselves are getting more expensive to mine.

It's important to note however that despite what an anon said earlier, modern EV batteries are actually very clean. NiMH batts are the real offenders, as they make use of toxic heavy metals and must be smelted during manufacture, which is an emissions heavy process. Lithium is a soft, sticky metal which can be pneumatically extruded rather than smelted and which when refined into lithium carbonate for use in batteries is nontoxic. It is also harvested in part from surface salt flats, rather than just mined, as the metals used in dirtier battery chemistries are.

As for the metals used in motors, a Japanese firm is working on an alternative motor design that will not rely on rare earth magnets.

Having said all that, it would be better for basically everyone other than humans if fusion never worked and the human race went back to the stone age as suggested in op's pic. If there ever was an example of psychopathic grey goo, modern civilized humans are it.

>>2089489
I think you are over-estimating the difficulty of building the fusion infrastructure.

>>2089507

Define better and define everyone else.

>>2089499
On the contrary, I despise Nazism. But you have to be a realist, population growth of two or three percent per year is terrible. It will only lead to water and food shortages. The Western world is only making it worse by dumping practically free food in these countries.

Also African countries, and hellholes like Yemen and Afghanistan have the highest population growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_growth_rate_world.PNG

>>2089514
Cessation of destruction of ecosystems and almost every other species besides cockroaches and rats.

>>2089529
That is awfully pretentious. Why should ecosystems be inherently better. We make an arbitrary assumption that there are some ways for nature to be "better" than any other form of nature. Nature can only keep doing it's thing nothing is unnatural.

>>2089539
Now *that* is a pretentious argument. You're basically handwaving away any reason for anything other than one thing to exist. If you're going to be so morally subjectivist or nihilist, then no one will ever construct an argument to convince you otherwise, but sane people will recognize it as sociopathic self-justification.

>>2089539
The natural state of the ecosystem has allowed us humans to survive and thrive. Now that we have the opportunity to change things, we have a good chance we will destroy our habitats.

>>2089539
And technically, humans living in a concrete city with pigeons, rats, etc, is a fully functional ecosystem. It's just that the all the other species in their own ecosystems which were displaced (ie destroyed) to make the city ecosystem were/would be better off without that city ecosystem taking over.

NUKULAR

>>2089583
It's not a sustainable ecosystem because it needs massive amounts of fossil fuels to function.

>make massive solar panel satellite with a huge powercord back to Earth
> enjoy infinite free energy

bump