What happens when humanity runs out of oil & natural gas?

[Anonymous No.12356397]

>muh electric
So we just stop shipping and flight altogether? Batteries are shit.
>muh biofuel
We have already degraded our arable lands beyond repair just for food. There isn't enough arable land to support biofuel production to supplement billions of people.
>muh hydrogen
Impossible for aircraft fuel and a nightmare to store and transport.

[Anonymous No.12356441]

Good thread. I would add one more point: is it possible to mine and refine rare earths and other materials necessary for producing stuff like solar panels without using fossil fuels in any part of the process?

[Anonymous No.12356451]

the next big thing in shipping will be hydrogen fuel celled containerships.
t. chief engineer on container ship

[Anonymous No.12356457]

>>12356397
Nuclear battery

[Anonymous No.12356489]

Use Nuclear.
It's literally the only power source that could allow for space colonies. Both fission and fusion.

[Anonymous No.12356550]

>>12356489
fusion sounds terrible desu

[Anonymous No.12356564]

>>12356451
container ships are big floating targets the second that a war starts

[Anonymous No.12356565]

>>12356489
>just power a boeing with a nuclear reactor dude

[Anonymous No.12356568]

>>12356565
Unironically yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM

[Anonymous No.12356578]

>>12356568
what a fucking retarded concept. Nuclear reactors would be less retarded but still retarded.

[Anonymous No.12356586]

Some anon brought this up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel

We have a lot of natural gas and coal left, theoretically we could convert it to liquid fuel

[Anonymous No.12356587]

>>12356578
>clean
>safe
>cheap
>portable
>high output

>hurrr durrr what a retarded concept, I must save face on an anonymous forum
KYS

[Anonymous No.12356592]

>>12356587
literally explaining fission reactors

[Anonymous No.12356605]

>>12356550
>10x more powerful
>does not go in meltdown
>uses the most abundant resource in the universe as fuel
>terrible

>>12356565
That exists, bitch
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
It can fly for 2 years nonstop

The reason it does not exist is because there is not radiationshield that could protect the pilot

Soviet Union made one without radiation shield and the crew all died in 6 months.

I expect that we can use that technology for space colonies where you can just assemble to radiation shield on the ground

[Anonymous No.12356611]

>cheapest
>cleanest
>strongest
>safest
Anyone who does not want nuclear is absolutely misinformed and should be branded as an enemy of civilization

[Anonymous No.12356615]

Is thorium meme or not?

[Anonymous No.12356617]

>>12356592
No, fission reactors are not as safe, not as clean, not as cheap (per MW) and definitively not as portable as the proof-of-concept fusion reactor in the video. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Nice thread No.12356618]

There's gotta be an alternative technology

[Anonymous No.12356623]

concentrated desert solar pumped through high voltage DC?

[Anonymous No.12356627]

>>12356623
>20% efficiency
>battery leakage issues
>highest consumer of rare earth
>high deterioration rate
>lifespan of 20 years
Your renewables are a fucking lie.

[Anonymous No.12356633]

>>12356617
ill agree not as clean, but it is cheaper and safer and definitly more powerful. The one in the video is a fucking ploy to gain investors.

[Anonymous No.12356639]

>>12356397
capture carbon from the atmosphere and make it into fuel with nuclear power plants.

[Anonymous No.12356647]

>>12356633
Stop talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.12356653]

>>12356647
Bro you really telling me iter spending billions on a reactor that doesnt even work due to scuffed ass chinese conductors is better then fission that is tried and true since the 60's

[Anonymous No.12356670]

>>12356653
No, I mean that you are talking out of your ass because of your claim that fission is "safer" (Wrong, no meltdowns in fusion), "more powerful" (Wrong, 10 times higher output in fusion), and "cheaper" (Wrong, re-read the line above). You are clearly clueless about the topic.

The fact that fusion technology hasn't been fully developed is another matter altogether. Of course we need to develop it further and of course that takes money. The payoff would be immense though, which is why nobody argues for fission over fusion.

Fission is fine, I support it.
But your shitposting is akin to a 1950s person wanting to stick to coal because "all that research is expensive".

[Anonymous No.12356695]

>>12356627
solar furnace turbine?

[Anonymous No.12356716]

>>12356670
Man i dont think you understand fusion. Fusion is by nature much much more dangerous if something goes wrong. A meltdown is hard as fuck to occur when you have competent design. Safe is ill admit different in aspects but theyre both dangerous as fuck if handled wrong.
more powerful is wrong aswell since fission is just more dense and provides higher yield per input.
cheaper cant really be said but less money went into development into nuclear fission compared to fusion development.
I get your point in being kinda of a boomer but fusion is such a big amount of energy for such a small time, its pretty fucking wild to harness that energy.

[Anonymous No.12356733]

>>12356716
Not him, but if I were you I'd just stop posting: you've embarrassed yourself enough.

[Anonymous No.12356734]

>>12356716
Not him but he's right.
You clearly have no idea of what nuclear fusion is.

Fusion is absolutely incomparable to fission
It is absolutely not dangerous because its entire power relies on heating plasma to the point of nucleosynthesis
If anything goes wrong with the plasma, the key solution is to simply cool it down by expanding it.
0 waste, 0 danger, and more power

Fission is incomparable to fusion as its power relies on already unstable nucleon bonds that it would split into a continues chain reaction. It's power station relies on balancing the chain reaction to be self-sustaining without going out of control
The process producess nuclear waste which is basically the nuclear fuel itself that has become too diluted for a safe and predictable reaction. Also, the water used for cooling the rods can react with the nuclear rods, turning hem into 2H or 3H which are heavy water and radioactive.

[Anonymous No.12356776]

>>12356565
thinks you cant, what is a nuclear running submarine

[Anonymous No.12356829]

>>12356397
kill people obviously

[Anonymous No.12356856]

>>12356716
Peak mount stupid.

[Anonymous No.12356857]

>>12356397
Oh wow, this thread again.

[Anonymous No.12356999]

>>12356857
ok, now show nuclear on a graph adjusted for efficiency

[Anonymous No.12357025]

>>12356397

[Anonymous No.12357087]

The future is battery banks and solar.

And that's coming from a guy with a boner towards nuclear power. Solar and battery R&D has surpassed all cost forecasts decades ahead of schedule. You can say all your want about clean energy or fossil fuels. At the end of the day it is all kWh prices.

This is actually a terrible thing though. One of the major reasons that solar prices have been falling is because Chinese companies got ultra-subsidized to the point that other nations could not compete. The top performing solar companies are all in China. They have effectively gutted the competition. Go ahead and google 'solar company bankruptcies'. Now we are on track to be dependent on China for power generation.

[Anonymous No.12357094]

>>12357087
doen't help that china has a lot of the rare earths

[Anonymous No.12357193]

>>12357087
That literally depends on what country you're talking about
Also, no.
As far as operation cost, capacity, payback time, and durability are concerned, nuclear is impossible to match.

The biggest solar farm in China has a nameplate capacity of 200 MWp but already costs $500M
The Bruce Nuclear Station has a nameplate capacity of 6,430 MW and costed just $6B

That's a HUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.
Not including the fact that solar panels have a lifespan of 20 years and deteriorates fast. It's efficiency drops from 20% to 18% on the first hour alone

[Anonymous No.12357255]

>>12357193
>Not including the fact that solar panels have a lifespan of 20 years and deteriorates fast. It's efficiency drops from 20% to 18% on the first hour alone
Oh, hey it's a shill who still has the 90s talking points.

[Anonymous No.12357263]

>>12356489
the fuck is fusion?
i keep hearing about how it can solve our problems

[Anonymous No.12357266]

>>12357263
It's been only 5 years away from solving all our problems since 1995.

[Anonymous No.12357269]

>>12357263
Fission: U235 gets hit by a neutron and splits into Krypton, Barium, and 3 neutrons
.035% of mass is converted into energy

Fusion: 4 hydrogen or 2 2H or 1 3H+1H combines into 1 He
.75% of mass is converted into energy.

[Anonymous No.12357273]

>>12357263
Oh, if you're wondering:
Only .00000001% of mass gets converted to energy using coal.

[Anonymous No.12357277]

>>12357266
How to Enjoy the End of the World

[Anonymous No.12357278]

>>12356441
Yes. Well you can mine the stuff to make solar panels.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717795000719?via%3Dihub

[Anonymous No.12358529]

>>12356829
This, neutering campaigns when?

[Anonymous No.12358533]

if we hit fusion by then, nothing, if we don't - Great Filter, current levels of technology will never be possible again

[Anonymous No.12358551]

>>12356451
How big would the explosion of the hydrogen on a container ship be ?

[Anonymous No.12358618]

>>12357278
I always see this referenced thanks for posting the paper

[Anonymous No.12358647]

>>12358533
what if hitler had won?

[Anonymous No.12358704]

>>12356397
>nuclear reactors
>thermocatalytic synthetic fuel production
done!

[Anonymous No.12359161]

Humanity isn't going to "run out" of fossil fuels. That doesn't make any sense economically, especially considering there are already other (more expensive) options.
As oil becomes harder and harder to drill for, as there's less and less of it, it will become as expensive as other options. Researching better batteries becomes economically viable as the demand for them increases to cut oil costs. Eventually, running machines off of petroleum becomes economically unviable, and other options become cheaper.
It's easier to centrally produce power, via whatever method you prefer, so electric is the future.

[Anonymous No.12359172]

>>12356397
Fusion, eventually. But for now, Fission and Hydro power, along with better batteries will overtake oil when it becomes too expensive

[Anonymous No.12360002]

>>12357087
Pretty much this. "Anti-solar" panels generate power around the clock so they might be used as a base load to take some strain off the batteries, but they're sensitive to cloud cover so energy storage or supplemental power sources are still necessary.

[Anonymous No.12360008]

>>12356397
>We have already degraded our arable lands beyond repair just for food
earthworms fix all that

[Anonymous No.12360067]

>>12356397
>pro tip we never run out of hydrocarbons.

in known shale gas deposits(which are under-reported as they are state/corporate secrets and they only project for needs about 2/3 years out) there are almost 7 quadrillion cubic feet of natgas.

[Anonymous No.12360072]

>>12356397
>hydrogen
>Impossible for aircraft fuel and a nightmare to store and transport.

excuse me

[Anonymous No.12360074]

>>12360067
Don't they have to replace all that area with water though?

[Anonymous No.12360079]

>>12360074
Naw dawg, they just need the water to extract the shit. and with refracking they can get twice the hydrocarbons with the same amount of water

[Anonymous No.12360086]

>>12360079
Still, global warming renders further development and reliance on any fossil fuel a terrible idea, regardless of how much we have available.

[Anonymous No.12360103]

>>12356565
Synthesize carbon neutral fuels with nuclear energy.

[Anonymous No.12360104]

>>12360086
bingo, but we will always(well after our lifetime's runout) need hydrocarbons for chemicals.

the main problem with going green is batteries. If we took all lithium 3 atoms on the planet and made them into infrastructure batteries we would only be able to store the equivalent to what the US consumes in a week. now realise that batteries fry after about 2000 recharge cycles and add to that, most batteries do 3-5 recharge cycles a day and you realise that "sustainable development isn't actually sustainable".

[Anonymous No.12360110]

>>12356397
The only sustainable future if we start from November 2020 is to start the switch to complete nuclear power for the electric system, utilize mass transit as much as possible, limit passenger air travel except for overseas and emergencies, and use only fuel for shipping and mining.

[Anonymous No.12360137]

>>12360104
>we would only be able to store the equivalent to what the US consumes in a week.
Why would we need to do that? Just store enough extra electricity to prevent waste from generation sources. Besides, why would we every use lithium ion batteries for mass industrial/residential storage? It'd be easier to use the extra electricity for hydrogen production or something, or gravity batteries, something which scales better.

>batteries fry after about 2000 recharge cycles
Recycling? Batteries can be made better and more energy dense you know.

[Anonymous No.12360180]

>>12360104
flywheels?

[Anonymous No.12360235]

>>12356565
Use it as a "primary" energy source to generate a compact secondary energy source like a synthetic fuel. There is redundancy and energy losses but worth it for when grid energy and direct nuclear energy won't cut it.

[Anonymous No.12360245]

>>12356397
a return to slavery

[Anonymous No.12360253]

We're not going to run out anytime soon idiots. Stop listening to peak oil idiots and their amateur estimations.

[Anonymous No.12360559]

>>12360104
I'm questioning your math, I did the calculation for EVs and you could replace every ICE vehicle on the planet with a Tesla using only current estimated lithium reserves, that isn't even tapping into resources.

[Anonymous No.12360738]

>>12360253
Not gonna run out, yes
But it would be harder and more expensive to drill em.

[Anonymous No.12361124]

>>12359161
It makes sense energetically. At some point, extracting a barrel of oil costs as much energy as you gain from it, making the while thing untenable.

[Anonymous No.12361128]

>>12356397
We already did, science predicted that we'd run out a long time ago, so we did. You can't argue with science. Cars run on fairy dust these days.

[Anonymous No.12361164]

>>12360253
peak oil is the end of cheap oil, not oil

[Anonymous No.12361292]

>>12356451
Why not make hydrogen filled container ships using the global wind patterns to transport goods via zepplin

[Anonymous No.12361328]

>>12356397
>>muh hydrogen
>Impossible for aircraft fuel
please elaborate
>a nightmare to store and transport
just don't be a pussy and don't let women decide about it, I know how we had to purchase an H2 in-situ electrolytic generator for FID detector, because the "ladies" refused to be in the same room as H2 gas bottle because "hurr durr eeew that that thing's gonna explode nooo"

[Anonymous No.12361347]

>>12361292
based and Hindenburgpilled

[Anonymous No.12361368]

>>12356564
I actually worked on an oil tanker during the iraq-kuwait war, we got escorted by the royal navy. Missiles were fired at us but didn't hit. I got 3x my normal rate of pay, still wonder if it was worth the risk of death
>>12358551
Not much different than the explosion of all the LNG that an LNG carrier has, but its never happened. We store fuel in an inert atmosphere of 5% oxygen, too low for an explosive mixture to form. There have been accidents with oil tankers, which were pretty devastating, but it was caused by retarded human practices.
>>12361292
Water is denser than air, easier to float things on

[Anonymous No.12361385]

>>12356397
>What happens when humanity runs out of oil & natural gas?
Read this:
>>>/sci/thread/11348045

[Anonymous No.12361396]

>>12361385
That's some stupid ass fear mongering you just posted.

The hell was that thread and the hell was that book.
You can literally sum it up as
>Earth's resource is finite and we are doomed omg
Let me guess, the book never mentioned the massive option of mining space for uranium and hydrogen?

[Anonymous No.12361423]

>>12360559
>I'm questioning your maths
I like learning about this sort of thing so I read quite a bit about it, from multiple sources that are as unbiased as I can find. Sometimes I'll read a /sci thread to find the out-dated, made up and outright schitzophrenic take on the topic. It's fascinating that posters can write things like >>12361128, but also be competent enough to afford and use modern information technology. Really says something about society.

[Anonymous No.12361434]

>>12357255
Has the science changed since then? Are you refuting his point?

[Anonymous No.12361488]

>>12361396
>That's some stupid ass fear mongering you just posted.
That thread is ridiculing alarmist doomers (like the OP).
The weird thing is, people were seriously concerned 15-20 years ago that we would run out, so Goodstein and other alarmists were in good company.
But now? Why was this thread even created?
The energy sector has had the worst drawdown of any sector since 1928.
Peak oil now means peak oil DEMAND, not SUPPLY. We'll soon have little use for it, like coal.

[Anonymous No.12361503]

>>12356397
We die.
This is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.12361506]

>>12356489
>he thinks nuclear plant parts are produced organic compound free
There is no such thing. We'll be mining alternative organic compounds on other planets soon.

[Anonymous No.12361510]

>>12361506
That does not invalidate the power of Nuclear though

[Anonymous No.12361515]

>>12356565
I thought this already happens.

>>12356586
Farming fuel like this is probably the future. Our atmosphere will suck even in the next 10 or so years. We're already breathing in too much CO2 to the point where it's impacting human brain function. Just because dinos lived in high CO2 environments, it doesn't mean we can and maintain current working efficiency.
We are literally suffocating as a hive now.

[Anonymous No.12361520]

>>12356611
I literally drink irradiated desal thanks to retarded nuclear scientists. Fuck nuclear. Nuclear scientists are literal cancer to me.

[Anonymous No.12361522]

>>12361510
It totally invalidates it if the efficiency of it is not enough to compensate the amount of oil needed to maintain it.
Regardless, nuclear waste is always the big concern.

[Anonymous No.12361525]

>>12361520
Are you a fuck?
Deuterium costs $1 a gram. And Tritium costs $100 a gram.
That's a literal liquid gold you're drinking, mister.

[Anonymous No.12361543]

>>12361522
Yeah, that's a humongous """if"""
A single uranium pellet the size of your thumb holds the same power as 150 gallons of oil or an entire ton of coal.
Bear in mind that it's also the CHEAPEST source of non-renewable energy.

>nuclear waste is always the big concern.
There is an absolutely ZERO death from nuclear waste, storage, and transport. Ever.

>inb4
Chernobyl was deliberate.
Fukushima is the first real nuclear incident in 70 years and killed 1. The amount of people it displaced are nothing compared to oil spills that happen 8 times a year

[Anonymous No.12361544]

>>12361522
Also, coal plants are more radioactive than nuclear plants and kills 1M a year

[Anonymous No.12361567]

>>12361544
christ, what is up with natural gas vs nuclear here?
are they counting ancient nuclear reactors?

[Anonymous No.12361580]

>>12356441
No. Other than steam/water, fossil fuels are the only major source available to us in such quantities to allow development.

[Anonymous No.12361591]

>>12361544
Only because there are a tonne more of them than nuclear plants.
If you had nuclear plants everywhere and regular malfunctions (which are inevitable in ANY power plant) you would have fallout fucking everywhere. In fact I already drink it.

In fact I drink the fallout from both now and there is nothing I can do about it without exterminating most of the people on the planet.

[Anonymous No.12361597]

>>12361591
modern nuclear plants simply can not have fallout like chernobyl

[Anonymous No.12361599]

>>12361543
>Fukushima is the first real nuclear incident in 70 years and killed 1
Directly, yes.
Indirectly, definately not.

Do you know how many people drink desal?
Fukushima's radiation is everywhere. It's the biggest cover up in human history but it's quite obvious.
We have no alternative water source so these lies need to be maintained to prevent public hysteria. But everybody knows desal water is slowly killing you.

I welcome death, personally.

[Anonymous No.12361603]

>>12361591
Nigger shut up
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

>The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

>The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

>>12361597
Chernobyl literally cannot even happen if they didn't turn off all of its failsafes like what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.12361604]

>>12361597
You believe what major corporations pay for?
Remember James Hardie?

[Anonymous No.12361611]

>>12361603
Yeah, but what happens when a coal plant explodes and what happens when a nuclear plant explodes?
You can guarantee a failure of a certain amount of plants because you can never be 100% risk free with this shit.
But if you drastically increase the amount of nuclear facilities, you will see a dramatic increase in dying people.

It's very small for now, but it won't be if we continue to make these things.
We are tethered by the inevitable failures dues to the rate of risk with ANY plant.

[Anonymous No.12361615]

>>12361611
>what happens when a nuclear plant explodes?
does not happen
can not happen

[Anonymous No.12361619]

>>12361599
Dumbass
You're one of those who sees the word "radiation" and suddenly goes screaming the end is upon us.

Fukushima ground zero produces 8uSv/h.

That's literally 1/300 the radiation in a CAT scan and you can spend an entire month masturbating and your body would notice shit.

What's more is that WATER IS THE BEST RADIATION SHIELD, YOU NUTSACK!

Uranium is alpha radioactive. When it reacts with water, said water becomes heavy water of deuterium which you can literally drink without any damage. You can literally SWIM on the cooling pools

>>12361611
If a nuclear plant explodes, the control rods would instantly shut down and fall on the uranium rods, shutting down the entire facility like a lid on a candle wick.

Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.12361620]

>>12361615
What was Fukushima then?
A party popper?

[Anonymous No.12361622]

>>12361604
there are not really any corporations doing nuclear
most of it is government

[Anonymous No.12361624]

>>12361620
It withstood the 3rd most powerful earthquake in Japan's history, killing only 1 person. Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.12361625]

>>12361619
>Fukushima ground zero produces 8uSv/h.
And that's too much. I drink the fucking water, fuck you. You clearly don't rely on desal from the pacific/indian oceans.

[Anonymous No.12361626]

>>12361599
Fukushima was a set up, they nuked a fault line to start a tsunami and .deliberately compromised the reactor

[Anonymous No.12361627]

>>12361620
nothing happened (despite fukishima being one of the worst locations for one)
all of it was flood damage and none of it nuclear

[Anonymous No.12361629]

>>12361622
Dude, that's not how it works at all.
Think management.

[Anonymous No.12361632]

>>12361624
It's killed millions faster than they should have died and they won't even admit the damage.

[Anonymous No.12361635]

>>12361632
Fucking prove it.

[Anonymous No.12361640]

Either you support nuclear or you are completely misinformed

Oil tycoons spend billions spreading misinformation
and the media fearmongers because more fear = more views

Stop listening to the Jews

[Anonymous No.12361656]

>>12361640
does hydro exclude those burst dams here?

[Anonymous No.12361721]

>>12361635
It's so indirect, but it's inevitable.

[Anonymous No.12361724]

>>12361640
I disagree, Uranium mining tycoons are beginning to make things a little bit concerning.

[Anonymous No.12361727]

>>12356397
I don't know about the oil but the gas problem can be solved by hooking cows up to some kind of gas gathering machine and letting them fart on it. Will also solve the problem of meat industry producing too many greenhouse gases at the same time.

[Anonymous No.12361729]

The only solution to oil problems is switching to alternative versions of hydro-energy.
I'm talking chemical reactions, not just turning it into steam or exploiting tides/gravity.

[Anonymous No.12361732]

>>12361727
>I call it a "brap plant"

[Anonymous No.12361758]

>>12357087
>Chinese companies got ultra-subsidized
According to west everything in china is ultra-subsidized, from shipping to whatever. Where does that money come from? They can't just print it as burgers do? Maybe they're just more efficient and work for tighter margins?
As for solar/batteries yeah, those are so simple to build solid state devices. You can have fully automated lines just spitting out hundreds of miles of solar panels and millions of battery packs. Prices will further go way way down over time.

[Anonymous No.12361771]

>>12357193
Are you serious or just shitpost? Operational expenses?

[Anonymous No.12361786]

Research on both superconductors and batteries are making rapid progress. Now consider superconducting batteries with high energy densities beyond what we have now. Because they're superconducting, they could take a full charge in seconds. And because they have high energy density, they could for example power long range motor vehicles.

Then, imagine if the whole electrical grid is superconducting and nuclear powered, whether that's fission or fusion. Energy could be delivered over longer distances with very little loss.

[Anonymous No.12361830]

>>12356397
We'll just do FT and carbon capture memes

[Anonymous No.12362295]

>>12358647
Well we wouldnt have wasted decades on the spic-nig cycle, so you tell me

[Anonymous No.12362835]

>>12356397
Then the earth will have grown cold as the nuclear reactions that create hydrogen will have ended.
The better questions are ones of economics and price adjustments based on limited new supply of oil.

[Anonymous No.12362861]

>>12361786
> Research on both steam and pneumatic engines are making rapid progress. Now consider hyperbaric tanks. Because they have so much pressure, we could use them to power long range vehicles, reaching the astonishing distance of 50km.

Anon, you know that this is science fiction an there is no foreseeable future like the one you describe? If we don't have a paradigmatic energy shift, we're basically screwed as a species.

[Anonymous No.12362896]

>>12362861
Batteries and superconductors aren't science fiction. What I'm describing is the next step up in energy. It would lead to an exponential increase in energy, and a sharp decline in the price of energy.

[Anonymous No.12363261]

>>12360104
>2000 recharge cycles
Look at Jeff Dahn and other's research into lithium ion batteries.

[Anonymous No.12363801]

>>12356397
They start recycling ambiental heat.

[Anonymous No.12363930]

>>12361591
70% of France energy is nuclear
29% of S.Korea energy is nuclear
UK is 20%

You don't hear it because they never had any incident. Chances are you don't even know that Japan is 30% nuclear until Fukushima

[Anonymous No.12363946]

>>12361619
>When it reacts with water, said water becomes heavy water of deuterium which you can literally drink without any damage
ahahhaahahhaha
>deuterium which you can literally drink without any damage
hahahahahahaaha

https://www.h2-4you.com/the-science-behind-deuterium-depleted-water/

[Anonymous No.12363955]

>>12360180
too expensive ot mass produce. No ROI

[Anonymous No.12363960]

>>12356397
an hero

[Anonymous No.12363986]

>>12363946
Yeah, if you drank over 25% of your weight in heavy water.
It becomes too heavy for the body to process.

>Because it would take a very large amount of heavy water to replace 25% to 50% of a human being's body water (water being in turn 50–75% of body weight[45]) with heavy water, accidental or intentional poisoning with heavy water is unlikely to the point of practical disregard. Poisoning would require that the victim ingest large amounts of heavy water without significant normal water intake for many days to produce any noticeable toxic effects.

[Anonymous No.12363993]

>>12363986
% doesn't matter
What matters is drinking water with d2o leads towards more cell damage, and drinking water more absent d2o/dho leads to healthier cells.

[Anonymous No.12364003]

>>12363993
Also
Nah. Heavy water and radioactive water are 2 extremely different things
Deuterium is as harmless as eating dirt.
It only becomes radioactive due to tritium

>In 1990, a disgruntled employee at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in Canada obtained a sample (estimated as about a "half cup") of heavy water from the primary heat transport loop of the nuclear reactor, and loaded it into a cafeteria drink dispenser. Eight employees drank some of the contaminated water. The incident was discovered when employees began leaving bioassay urine samples with elevated tritium levels. The quantity of heavy water involved was far below levels that could induce heavy water toxicity, but several employees received elevated radiation doses from tritium and neutron-activated chemicals in the water.[47] This was not an incident of heavy water poisoning, but rather radiation poisoning from other isotopes in the heavy water.

>Some news services were not careful to distinguish these points, and some of the public were left with the impression that heavy water is normally radioactive and more severely toxic than it actually is. Even if pure heavy water had been used in the water cooler indefinitely, it is not likely the incident would have been detected or caused harm, since no employee would be expected to get much more than 25% of their daily drinking water from such a source.

[Anonymous No.12364010]

>>12356605
Have fun building massive billion dollar facilities just to light cores. Definitely better than just using thorium reactors which are much easier and cheaper to build and fuel.

[Anonymous No.12364012]

>>12364003
>Deuterium is as harmless as eating dirt.
It's not
Stop looking at "%'s of "heavy water"" and go look at the plain info on deuterium effect on cells and DNA

[Anonymous No.12364967]

>>12364012
Not a good idea as the body loses cells everytime but it boasts the capability to repair and restore. Something only becomes deadly when it destroys more cells than what can be repaired and replaced

Case in point, you're more likely to die of smoking than drinking a glass of deuterium a day

[Anonymous No.12365572]

>>12356605
Deuterium and Tritium (required for Fusion) are not abundant.

[Anonymous No.12365579]

>>12356397
Far in the future so it doesnt matter. But either nuclear or global war to control the hydroelectric spots.

[Anonymous No.12365603]

>>12365572
Not abundant on nature, yes.
But just dump nuclear waste on a pool and boom. You got your deuterium and tritium. Not on the right purity though

They mass produce deuterium by bombarding lithium ions on water

[Anonymous No.12365605]

>>12359161
>That doesn't make any sense economically
Nothing makes sense "economically" because economics is a retarded pseudo religion that bloated CONSUUUUUUUMERS need to rationalize the excessive rate at which they convert resources into waste.

[Anonymous No.12365637]

>>12359161
Modern economics literally only exists because people need an excuse to CONSUUUUUUME.

[Anonymous No.12365654]

>>12360086
Stay on topic