Future of oil

[Davo]

Ok so on the 25th June (I think) oil prices hit $60 US per barrel. Not exactly a pyro-related question but definately a science-related one. Where do forum members think energy use will be in a few years time? How much longer before a peak in oil production? What alternatives are there for automotive transport?

I've read about a chemical process for converting coal into hydrocarbons, known as the fischer-tropsch process. I think it was developed by the Germans during the second world war and also currently used by South Africa. I know Australia has plenty of coal, natural gas, and uranium, but our entire transport system is dependent on oil - about the only resource we don't have much of.

Would it be possible under current economics to convert coal into hydrocarbons using the fischer-tropsch process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process) ? If not, how come South Africa is using it. If it is, why the hell isn't Australia doing it?

We also have plenty of nuclear material, ideal for producing massive amounts of energy for cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen could then be used in fuel cells, currently much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. The main obstacle to this technology is nothing to do with resource limitations, environmental factors or economics, but loony anti-nuke activists. Nuclear technology could also considerably cut greenhouse emissions and provide desalinated water to much of our drought-crippled land


Where do other forum members think the future of energy would be heading, in particular, energy for transport?

+++++++

UTFSE to find a thread about 'Peak Oil' and you'll find the answers to your questions.

NBK

[Davo]

Ok so on the 25th June (I think) oil prices hit $60 US per barrel. Not exactly a pyro-related question but definately a science-related one. Where do forum members think energy use will be in a few years time? How much longer before a peak in oil production? What alternatives are there for automotive transport?

I've read about a chemical process for converting coal into hydrocarbons, known as the fischer-tropsch process. I think it was developed by the Germans during the second world war and also currently used by South Africa. I know Australia has plenty of coal, natural gas, and uranium, but our entire transport system is dependent on oil - about the only resource we don't have much of.

Would it be possible under current economics to convert coal into hydrocarbons using the fischer-tropsch process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process) ? If not, how come South Africa is using it. If it is, why the hell isn't Australia doing it?

We also have plenty of nuclear material, ideal for producing massive amounts of energy for cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen could then be used in fuel cells, currently much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. The main obstacle to this technology is nothing to do with resource limitations, environmental factors or economics, but loony anti-nuke activists. Nuclear technology could also considerably cut greenhouse emissions and provide desalinated water to much of our drought-crippled land


Where do other forum members think the future of energy would be heading, in particular, energy for transport?

+++++++

UTFSE to find a thread about 'Peak Oil' and you'll find the answers to your questions.

NBK

[meselfs]

Welcome to E & W!

I think, or at least hope, that fusion will be our source of energy. If a decent low maintenance power plant based on fusion is made there will be *no* more energy problem. Just think... it effectively runs on water and it's exhaust is helium, a useful, expensive gas. You can use fusion to electrolyze water en masse, piping the hydrogen all over as fuel.

Yes sir, I have no faith in solar, wind, or coal (but I do have faith in hydro; it's just not available everywhere). Nothing beats near free energy, and to our human knowledge only fusion will do.

I'm talking "hot" fusion, btw. As of today the otehr kind still fails to exist...



So, if you ask me, there should be much emphasis on material science, and there's a surprisingly small number of materials engineers; cuz as far as I know the main roadblock is coming up with a chamber that can contain the fusing mix. They say they can suspend the mix, but nobody's done that, so there must be a flaw.

[meselfs]

Welcome to E & W!

I think, or at least hope, that fusion will be our source of energy. If a decent low maintenance power plant based on fusion is made there will be *no* more energy problem. Just think... it effectively runs on water and it's exhaust is helium, a useful, expensive gas. You can use fusion to electrolyze water en masse, piping the hydrogen all over as fuel.

Yes sir, I have no faith in solar, wind, or coal (but I do have faith in hydro; it's just not available everywhere). Nothing beats near free energy, and to our human knowledge only fusion will do.

I'm talking "hot" fusion, btw. As of today the otehr kind still fails to exist...



So, if you ask me, there should be much emphasis on material science, and there's a surprisingly small number of materials engineers; cuz as far as I know the main roadblock is coming up with a chamber that can contain the fusing mix. They say they can suspend the mix, but nobody's done that, so there must be a flaw.

[megalomania]

Actually, meselfs, just a few months ago researchers successfully demonstrated a bench top cold fusion reactor at a repuptable research institution in a university. The details were just published in either Science or Nature. Don't get your hopes up, the device produces only very minute amounts of neutrons, and is not suitable for power generation since it consumes far more than it puts out. The announcement was made without fanfare since the scientists that created the device did not want a repeat of the last cold fusion announcement. For them it is just a physics curoisity to generate neutrons. The equipment is not really sophisticated, and other scientists have been able to replicate the results.

Search for Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, and Seth Putterman for more info.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7654627/
http://www.physorg.com/news3938.html

Ahh, here is the article:
The Journal Nature, April 28, 2005 "Observation of Nuclear Fusion Driven by a Pyroelectric Crystal"

[megalomania]

Actually, meselfs, just a few months ago researchers successfully demonstrated a bench top cold fusion reactor at a repuptable research institution in a university. The details were just published in either Science or Nature. Don't get your hopes up, the device produces only very minute amounts of neutrons, and is not suitable for power generation since it consumes far more than it puts out. The announcement was made without fanfare since the scientists that created the device did not want a repeat of the last cold fusion announcement. For them it is just a physics curoisity to generate neutrons. The equipment is not really sophisticated, and other scientists have been able to replicate the results.

Search for Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, and Seth Putterman for more info.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7654627/
http://www.physorg.com/news3938.html

Ahh, here is the article:
The Journal Nature, April 28, 2005 "Observation of Nuclear Fusion Driven by a Pyroelectric Crystal"

[meselfs]

Well, cold or hot, I think that fusion is the future :->

Nice info, Mega.

[meselfs]

Well, cold or hot, I think that fusion is the future :->

Nice info, Mega.

[kingspaz]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7573

[kingspaz]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7573

[nbk2000]

A non-nuclear means of generating neutrons would have some E&W applications, I'm sure. Perhaps an irradiator?

[nbk2000]

A non-nuclear means of generating neutrons would have some E&W applications, I'm sure. Perhaps an irradiator?

[Marvin]

The pyroelectric crystal system isnt cold fusion. It uses a high voltage on a needle in a neer vacuum as a source of high energy deuterons which are fired at a deuterium loaded target. Generating the high voltage needed to accelerate deuterons from a pyroelectric crystal was a neat idea and the experimental procedure is of a very high quality, but its the same fusion mechanism thats been known and used for a century now. Its good science, better showmanship but the same basic nuclear physics.

[Marvin]

The pyroelectric crystal system isnt cold fusion. It uses a high voltage on a needle in a neer vacuum as a source of high energy deuterons which are fired at a deuterium loaded target. Generating the high voltage needed to accelerate deuterons from a pyroelectric crystal was a neat idea and the experimental procedure is of a very high quality, but its the same fusion mechanism thats been known and used for a century now. Its good science, better showmanship but the same basic nuclear physics.

[Davo]

A non-nuclear means of generating neutrons would have some E&W applications, I'm sure. Perhaps an irradiator?

As a way of converting "fertile" elements such as Th-232 or U-238 into fissile elements perhaps? Bombarding Beryllium with alpha particles also yields neutrons, but only a small amount from memory (remember the David Hahn, the nuclear boy scout thread). A way of generating a large quantity of neutrons would be ideal for a radiological weapon of some description, like an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron or cobalt bombs). Also it may increase the possibility of an induvidual

Back to energy, I think fusion power is still a long way off, at least 20 years. ITER hasn't even begun construction and may take many years to build. Even then we're not sure it will work, let alone yield net energy production, and then produce a constant supply of energy. In the more immediate term, oil and gas are going to become prohibitively expensive, and people will become more concerned about global climate change. Of course we'll get the whining hippies saying we should make use of renewables, use less energy, carpool with other people etc, but in reality energy demand will skyrocket and that certainly isn't viable.

Probably we'll see more people convert to LPG or natural gas for cars first. Coal-rich/hippie-free countries may use coal gasification technology and the fischer-tropsch process to produce synthetic petroleum products once the oil price gets high enough. I'm not sure how much this costs but i've heard many conflicting reports, some saying it should be viable when oil hit $30 a barrel (obviously false) up to $200 per barrel. I'm guessing probably around $100 per barrel, depending on the cost of coal, and how many hippies are around to enfoce environmental regulations. In addition, many governments are starting to add ethanol to fuel. I'm not sure about the cost (or performance) of ethanol but it must be cheaper than petrol, but probably more than natural gas

in the mid-term (10-15 years) we'lll have hydrogen fuel cells entering the market. The hydrogen will most likely come from natural gas at present, but when that becomes expensive, it will most likely come from a nuclear plant, either fission or fusion, depending on the technology available

In the meantime, we will probably see a boom in nuclear fission plants around the world, as nations realize they cannot meet their Kyoto protocol targets without greater use of nuclear fission, at least until fusion becomes viable.

Mega I've been unable to open those pdf files you posted, saying I do not have permission to access them?

[Davo]

A non-nuclear means of generating neutrons would have some E&W applications, I'm sure. Perhaps an irradiator?

As a way of converting "fertile" elements such as Th-232 or U-238 into fissile elements perhaps? Bombarding Beryllium with alpha particles also yields neutrons, but only a small amount from memory (remember the David Hahn, the nuclear boy scout thread). A way of generating a large quantity of neutrons would be ideal for a radiological weapon of some description, like an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron or cobalt bombs). Also it may increase the possibility of an induvidual

Back to energy, I think fusion power is still a long way off, at least 20 years. ITER hasn't even begun construction and may take many years to build. Even then we're not sure it will work, let alone yield net energy production, and then produce a constant supply of energy. In the more immediate term, oil and gas are going to become prohibitively expensive, and people will become more concerned about global climate change. Of course we'll get the whining hippies saying we should make use of renewables, use less energy, carpool with other people etc, but in reality energy demand will skyrocket and that certainly isn't viable.

Probably we'll see more people convert to LPG or natural gas for cars first. Coal-rich/hippie-free countries may use coal gasification technology and the fischer-tropsch process to produce synthetic petroleum products once the oil price gets high enough. I'm not sure how much this costs but i've heard many conflicting reports, some saying it should be viable when oil hit $30 a barrel (obviously false) up to $200 per barrel. I'm guessing probably around $100 per barrel, depending on the cost of coal, and how many hippies are around to enfoce environmental regulations. In addition, many governments are starting to add ethanol to fuel. I'm not sure about the cost (or performance) of ethanol but it must be cheaper than petrol, but probably more than natural gas

in the mid-term (10-15 years) we'lll have hydrogen fuel cells entering the market. The hydrogen will most likely come from natural gas at present, but when that becomes expensive, it will most likely come from a nuclear plant, either fission or fusion, depending on the technology available

In the meantime, we will probably see a boom in nuclear fission plants around the world, as nations realize they cannot meet their Kyoto protocol targets without greater use of nuclear fission, at least until fusion becomes viable.

Mega I've been unable to open those pdf files you posted, saying I do not have permission to access them?

[another_number]

this site has about everything you need to know about the oil crash
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
unfortunatly coal production has peaked, hydrogen takes more engery to make than it gives (or relies on crude oil), nuclear wouldn't be enough because we don't have enough nuclear plants to cover our growing energy need and we'd eventually run out of uranium aswell. cold fusion still doesn't exist and to implement enough renewable sources it would take lots of energy (oil & $$) so it looks like we're going to go back in time 200 years, and lots of death

[another_number]

this site has about everything you need to know about the oil crash
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
unfortunatly coal production has peaked, hydrogen takes more engery to make than it gives (or relies on crude oil), nuclear wouldn't be enough because we don't have enough nuclear plants to cover our growing energy need and we'd eventually run out of uranium aswell. cold fusion still doesn't exist and to implement enough renewable sources it would take lots of energy (oil & $$) so it looks like we're going to go back in time 200 years, and lots of death