/sci/ - Science & Math

gas and coal

thermonuclear medicine

ionized dirt

solar, biofuel and eventually fusion.

oil will last until the very last drop is used up.
oil companies will make sure of that.

>>4675913
Oil will go strongly for a few more decades. and gradually be replaced by fuels like alcohol and biodesiel and other renewable energies surpass in cheapness (solar panels are quickly dropping, and the issues with LFTR are quickly being sorted.)

Also, Methane is cheap as all hell right now. The United states is quickly becoming the Saudi Arabia of methane.

coriolis energy

>>4675921

I lol'd. This was in response to that MD/PhD in nuclear meds yesterday, right?

hamster wheels

reverse vacuum implosion energy

Nuclear.

Pyramids

dogs

engineer anal fusion

>nuclear power infeasible
0/10
fuck you

>nuclear power is infeasible,
>thorium

Some of the technologies that are already in place slightly offsetting oil are wind, solar, biofuels (like corn ethanol unfortunately), and geothermal. Sugar cane ethanol is already doing great in south America, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that sugar beet ethanol could be just as big. There's also an algae that will scrub carbon dioxide from say coal fired power plants and produce jet fuel and diesel. This will become more common place in the future along with other forms of biodiesel. Consider gathering extra planetary power though, the moon base being entirely feasible, extra planetary solar will be in high supply by the end of this century and by then most of our bearings would be produced in space, along with superconductive materials. Theres also plenty of other ways "energy harvesters" (the proposed name for an inevitable future career) will pick up energy from things like people going down an elevator, or we could also sap energy from down escalators.

Theres also energy generation that will be arround pretty soon to gain energy from giant kites.

>>4675962
But those can only supply energy on small scale. They can't replace oil globally.

All the before-made claims are bogus. There's no economic replacement for petroleum's major distillates of gasoline, diesel and kerosene (jet fuel). Without those, your Western world and in fact world motorized transport simply comes to a stop. All alternatives to get those moving again are so uneconomic that most of the vehicles will never move again.

Once again, we see /sci/ is full of retards that never see the ECONOMIC reasoning behind the exploitation of technology. You're not going to have a coal car or a natural-gas car; those are either too impractical or too expensive for you to use.... hence you won't use them. By the year 2100 AD, most people will walk, bicycle or use horses. Without petroleum, the 20th and 21st centuries will be erased as if they had never happened.

>>4675967
Oh hai, RedCream.

>>4675967
if people can produce biooil at 100 dollars a barrel, then oil is replaceable at 10/ dollars a barrel plus profit

>We all know that solar and nuclear power are infeasible.

Both are incorrect!

While photovoltaic cells are indeed infeasible, they are not all solar is.

Look into solar thermal energy plants and heliostats! Cheap, effective.

>>4675967

>Herpaderpderp

Because electric powered cars are impossible, right? It's like you don't grasp the concept of electricity being generated and then used, through the use of batteries, in something else.

we should take the peak oil

and move it somewhere else

>>4676672
Think about how the electricity is produced. They use COAL. Coal is a non-renewable resource so eventually we will need a new source.

>>4676680
Coal isn't the only way to produce electricity.
In the province of Quebec, we use hydro-electricity.

>>4676683
The province of qebec is not gonna supply the global demand for energy.

>>4676685
I'm just saying that coal isn't the only way to produce energy.

>>4676687
And I'm just saying that on global scale there will be no replacement for oil and coal.

nuclear is feasible, provided morns don't oppose it

>>4676680
You dumb? Ever taken a basic high school physics class?

Electricity generated from solar/wind/whatever the fuck can be stored in batteries the same way electricity generated from coal can be. Electricity doesn't HAVE to be from coal, although most of the electricity nowadays is from coal.

Photovoltaic technology has been improving extremely quickly this past decade, it will be interesting to see where we are in terms of alternative energy in even just 10 years

Solar, wind, and water energy will replace fossil fuels. They're not feasible yet because oil and coal companies keep the government from subsidizing their research.

>>4676716
What if we reach peak wind, peak solar and peak water?
Remember these are limited resources as well.

>What energies will replace oil?
oxen

>>4676733
Oxen are limited too. It won't take long until we burned all of them.

>>4675913
Nuclear.

>Peak oil

Just report it people...

>>4676725
>peak wind and peak solar

LOL, I guess if you want to get very technical, yes, the amounts of sunlight and wind on our planet ARE limited to certain points.

I can't imagine you are using that as an actual argument, however.

What threads are going to replace peak oil threads?

>>4676742
Nothing, we will reach peak threads and peak information and eventually there will be no more threads or words on the internet ever again

>>4676740
>panic exodus of planet Earth, poorfags perish technologically

>>4676680

French here, i see your coal and raise you uranium.

We are past peak oil, there is less oil per person than there was say 10 years ago.

Best solution would be to build tidal dams (some capable of up to 500 MW) and these can provide very reliable power.

Wind, geothermal and solar power can be harnessed too but don't wind is reliable.

Thing with renewables is that you are at the mercy of geography. Solar can work for some place, tidal, wind and geothermal for others. Fusion will be only be a pipe dream even after 50 years. Thorium can last for a while but our energy demands increase with time (and almost exponentially)!

Earlier this year, a company called Solyndra broke to efficiency record for photovoltaics by reaching 34% conversion from light to electricity, and they've already got manufacturing centers being made to commericially produce them by late 2013. The future of solar looks promising indeed.

>>4676749
>Best solution would be to build tidal dams
>tidal dams
>best solution
Fortunately you are wrong.

>>4676756

Explain please.

fusion. And before that hydrogen.

The free market will fix it

hydrogen sourced from low voltage in water w a catalyst. I run it in my truck;)

why not just use hydrogen? they burn violently and they are the most abundant element in the universe

>>solar infeasible
Nigga please

>>4676761
Tidal dams are shit.
Not THE shit, just your old, regular, smelly shit.

The maintenance overhead is immense and the power density is awful, so what you end up with is a system which is difficult and expensive to maintain, and that you need to build huge amounts of to produce enough power.

NOT a good combination.

Fortunately, there are several technologies that are a lot better in every way, so it doesn't really matter that this one technology fails so badly.

>We all know that solar and nuclear power are infeasible.
Troll thread.

explodium and water

>>4676817
>not taking into account seasonal, daily and local variation, nor inefficiencies
Solar can contribute, but it will never be the main terrestrial power source.

>>4676972
Looks like someone hasn't actually run the numbers. Only fusion could outstrip it as a source of power on Earth.

>>4676983
>still not taking into account seasonal, daily and local variation, nor inefficiencies
Stop saying words if you don't know the handicaps that solar has.

>>4676992
I know the handicaps it has. It would require massive infrastructure costs, take lots of space, and then further infrastructure and space for energy storage.

You just haven't even tried looking at the actual numbers. The amount of solar power available is far greater than any other terrestrial power source.

Solar my friend.

>>4676994
>still...
It doesn't matter how much there is if tapping it is unfeasible or impossible.
Solar is competitive in a very, VERY few places around the world.

>>4677006
>It doesn't matter how much there is if tapping it is unfeasible or impossible.
It won't be. It's all a question of what is the next-cheapest source of power compared to cheap oil.

>Solar is competitive in a very, VERY few places around the world.
Currently.

>>4677006
>Satellites
>Satellites everywhere

>>4677010
>currently
>after peak oil, the weather patterns and climate around the world will magically change to accommodate solar and the world will be flat and there will be an eternal day
Sure, if that happens, solar will become the best source possible.
But I doubt the prerequisites will come to pass.

>>4677018
Where do you live? I get the impression that your estimates of how well solar power will work are colored by your local weather.

UK?

>>4677024
No, but you have been living in a dream-world if you think the amount of solar power intersected by the Earth is the only criteria by which solar power should be judged by.

If we went by just the amount of power that could POTENTIALLY be tapped, a small rock in my backyard could be said to beat solar power, since with total conversion you could get massive amounts of energy from it.

But like totally solar-powered Earth, total conversion is currently (and will be for the foreseeable future) a fairy tale.

>>4677042
>if you think the amount of solar power intersected by the Earth is the only criteria by which solar power should be judged by.
But I don't.
>>4676994

And I mentioned fusion. The main reasons I'm arguing this is
1) There's much more solar power than our current power usage (a lot more)
2) Most of the other alternative power sources are indirectly powered by the sun anyway (wind, water, hydro). Exceptions include nuclear and fusion.

>>4677048
>1.
Sure. But like I said, only a tiny fraction of it is economically feasible to exploit.

>2.
I doubt you meant that in the beginning, but instead thought it up to save your argument.

Yes, other renewables will pump up the amount of solar energy that we can tap, but at that point it's wild-eyed semantics. Go ahead and tell someone that you want to tap solar power by damming a river.