Question - germany and cheap oil?

what that's suppuse to mean? they had cheap oil and now they don't have it anymore? what is the story?

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 13.11.2015 at 03:51

what that's suppuse to mean? they had cheap oil and now they don't have it anymore? what is the story?

Higher oil prices lead to increase costs which leads to increased GDP. But the bigger question might be why we use decayed dinosaurs as a fuel source.

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 13.11.2015 at 07:49

Higher oil prices lead to increase costs which leads to increased GDP. But the bigger question might be why we use decayed dinosaurs as a fuel source.

The only thing that can reliably replace fossil fuels is fusion, and that miles away with current funding. Solar, wind and hydroelectricity and just too inefficient. You only have so much space for solar farms and wind fields plus not every river can be turned into a hydroelectric plant.

Well, that and the other technologies bought out by oil companies before they could be developed. My favourite is the gravity powered automobile (uses the same basic principles as hydro electricity, as gravity is abundant and easy to convert using turbines).

And speaking of hydro electricity, why isn't that used? Once the damn is built, the overhead is less than any coal burning source.

Why we dont use thunder to generate power?

Kirjoittanut Meester, 13.11.2015 at 08:09

The only thing that can reliably replace fossil fuels is fusion, and that miles away with current funding. Solar, wind and hydroelectricity and just too inefficient. You only have so much space for solar farms and wind fields plus not every river can be turned into a hydroelectric plant.

Facepalm.

Why would anyone build solar panels and wind propelers on the earth consuming space we desperately need when 3/4 of Planet Earth is oceans... Such logic.





If you spend efficiently - hydropower from dams can power half of country, no need for nuclear energy. But rivers must be checked and maintained with marine life because dams split their natural habitat.

Agree on environment, but the damage done by building a damn is far less than coal mining/oil drilling/polution etc. Damns just create a new ecosystem after a few decades, from river to lake... but only minimal pollution in contructing, and essentially nothing once up and running.

Everything we currently use is temporarily, atleast for Russia. Our goal is to get energy from Gamma-rays bursting, i think Kardashev found it back in USSR. With that power consuming you can fuel whole Galactic Republic.

Kirjoittanut Ghostface, 13.11.2015 at 10:51

...
I dont know about hydroelectricity , but i think our best option for now should be cars on electricity , house heating on natural gas , and the other stuff from nuclear energy.

Hydro is just the reality check. It is true the other technologies can be expensive to implement and aren't as efficient, so it's easier to suppress these by making the costs artificially prohibitive. But most people even with primary school education understand the basic principals of hydro electricity, and that there's essentially no overhead, and minimal impact to environment after the 'land' has been converted to a 'lake'. Energy is abundant... only by making it scarce can power companies, oil companies, etc make their huge profits.

All countries should follow Sweden as an example. It is already running on 50% (give or take a few) Eco-friendly energy (mainly nuclear). By 2030, Sweden expects to be COMPLETELY Fossil Fuel free. Nuclear energy is the best way to go as things rarely go wrong. While it can produce mass amounts of energy.

The ultimate goal would/is nuclear fusion (what the sun does). People not familiar with nuclear fusion, it's taking hydrogen and turning it into helium by essentially "combining atoms" allowing it to be burned. Humans have achieved this ability in Nuclear Power plants with uranium (not exactly the same, but similar logic but not as ideal), but we are still far away from replicating the suns nuclear fusion "ability" - but that is the end goal in a perfect Eco-efficient planet.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it take an insane amount of energy to create nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion is idk how many times as more 'powerful'. Even if we managed to replicate it it wouldn't be worth the energy it takes?

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 13.11.2015 at 13:03

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it take an insane amount of energy to create nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion is idk how many times as more 'powerful'. Even if we managed to replicate it it wouldn't be worth the energy it takes?

If we achieve Nuclear Fusion. 1 "plant" would be enough to sustain all life on Earth for very LONG time, until we run out of hydrogen to feed the plant (more hydrogen can be obtained from other planets - assuming in the future that's a possibility.). The sun, its creates more energy in 1 day (I think its something like that), than Humans have in our whole existence - if that helps to put it in perspective.

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 13.11.2015 at 13:09

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 13.11.2015 at 13:03

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it take an insane amount of energy to create nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion is idk how many times as more 'powerful'. Even if we managed to replicate it it wouldn't be worth the energy it takes?

If we achieve Nuclear Fusion. 1 "plant" would be enough to sustain all life on Earth for very LONG time, until we run out of hydrogen to feed the plant (more hydrogen can be obtained from other planets - assuming in the future that's a possibility.). The sun, its creates more energy in 1 day (I think its something like that), than Humans have in our whole existence - if that helps to put it in perspective.

Oh, well that's more promising. Go science go!

Kirjoittanut Ghostface, 13.11.2015 at 10:54

Ive read about Gama Rays and although seems revolutionary wouldnt a too strong Gama Ray wipe us out , but a too weak one be of no use ?
Getting hit by one would as we desire has a very low probability ?

That is true, but when we develop such technology to harness the energy produced by GRB (gamma ray burst) that mean we will just put one device near GRB and wait for it, then send back the energy to use for our needs. It doesn't have to be planet earth, it can be space station, spaceship or other planet. Since i assume when you have such technology for GRB - you will also have a 'relay', device to distribute that energy afterwards, so you don't have to be close to GRB.

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 13.11.2015 at 13:00

Nuclear energy is the best way to go as things rarely go wrong.

Rarely go wrong - but when it does it make 1/4 of country uninhabitable. That is the problem, that is its con. It does gives insane amount of energy - but if it fail it destroy our living space.

Not to mention that counties have nuclear weapon and civilian nuclear reactors which armies can target in war. So while Sweden doesn't have nuclear missiles, it still have nuclear reactors (civilians) and if that gets hit you will have explosion and radiation leak like if nuke hit you.

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 13.11.2015 at 07:49

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 13.11.2015 at 03:51

what that's suppuse to mean? they had cheap oil and now they don't have it anymore? what is the story?

Higher oil prices lead to increase costs which leads to increased GDP. But the bigger question might be why we use decayed dinosaurs as a fuel source.

why the oil prices in germany increased in first place?

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 13.11.2015 at 14:22

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 13.11.2015 at 07:49

... But the bigger question might be why we use decayed dinosaurs as a fuel source.

why the oil prices in germany increased in first place?

Fewer dinosaurs decaying, i suppose.

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 13.11.2015 at 13:03

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it take an insane amount of energy to create nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion is idk how many times as more 'powerful'. Even if we managed to replicate it it wouldn't be worth the energy it takes?

We've been able to replicate nuclear fusion in a reactor for nearly 30 years, and we have been able to cause nuclear fusion for 60 years (inconveniently only in insanely destructive nuclear weapons). For some reason no one seems to notice this...

They've been working on making it energy efficient for years now, and a new reactor is under construction in France, though it will probably be years before anything interesting happens. Theoretically, it should be possible for us to do it.

Kirjoittanut Kromn, 13.11.2015 at 10:31

Why we dont use thunder to generate power?

We could just use potatoes. Potatoes give off energy.

This might cause another massive Irish famine, but we can look past such minor problems.

Kirjoittanut Sheba, 13.11.2015 at 18:14

Kirjoittanut Kromn, 13.11.2015 at 10:31

Why we dont use thunder to generate power?

We could just use potatoes. Potatoes give off energy.

This might cause another massive Irish famine, but we can look past such minor problems.

im real on my question.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 13.11.2015 at 15:38

Kirjoittanut The Tactician, 13.11.2015 at 13:03

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it take an insane amount of energy to create nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion is idk how many times as more 'powerful'. Even if we managed to replicate it it wouldn't be worth the energy it takes?

We've been able to replicate nuclear fusion in a reactor for nearly 30 years, and we have been able to cause nuclear fusion for 60 years (inconveniently only in insanely destructive nuclear weapons). For some reason no one seems to notice this...

Those forms of nuclear fusion are much different than the nuclear fusion of the sun (what we hope to achieve). Here is what I said in my first post above, "Humans have achieved this ability in Nuclear Power plants with uranium (not exactly the same, but similar logic but not as ideal), but we are still far away from replicating the suns nuclear fusion "ability" - but that is the end goal in a perfect Eco-efficient planet".

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 13.11.2015 at 08:15

And speaking of hydro electricity, why isn't that used? Once the damn is built, the overhead is less than any coal burning source.

Hydroelectricity has a very high investments cost and a very low return profit. It would take years for it to pay for itself and this is something energy companies do not like.

Kirjoittanut Kromn, 13.11.2015 at 10:31

Why we dont use thunder to generate power?

Thunder is sound how you plan to harness this I can't even wrap my mind across.
If you mean lightning then lightning is high in voltage not current.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 13.11.2015 at 15:38

We've been able to replicate nuclear fusion in a reactor for nearly 30 years, and we have been able to cause nuclear fusion for 60 years (inconveniently only in insanely destructive nuclear weapons). For some reason no one seems to notice this...

They've been working on making it energy efficient for years now, and a new reactor is under construction in France, though it will probably be years before anything interesting happens. Theoretically, it should be possible for us to do it.

I believe your confusing fusion and fission. Fusion, the think we cannot yet do, is basically forcing 2 hydrogen atoms to make a helium atom. Where as fission, what we have been able to do for years, is speeding up decay of heavy radioactive isotopes like Uranium-235 and harnessing the heat released from the decay through a controlled chain reaction.

Problem with fusion is that its difficult to pull off, research in this field is very expensive and can only reliably be funded by governments something the EU seems to be the only ones working towards(ITER).

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 14.11.2015 at 08:17

but that is the end goal in a perfect Eco-efficient planet.

Wouldn't say its the perfect or even eco-efficient, pollution is minimized to a point where is nearly negligible but still will exist. Dumping tons of helium into the atmosphere is not a dangerous isn't ideal either. Besides to get a fusion reactor running you near helium-3 something that can only be found in large quantities on the moon.

The perfect eco-efficient planet would be harassing the planets own energy through geothermal vents, solar and wind farms. You would basically be using the kinetic energy stored on the earth to your advantage which would make you a type 1 civilization(we are type 0 now).

---

PS: Ignore Tito's bullshit on gamma ray burst. Even a small gamma ray burst would fry the planet let alone trying to harness it.

Kirjoittanut Meester, 14.11.2015 at 08:44

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

As you can see the first time humans produced nuclear fusion was a US thermonuclear weapon test in 1952 (this differed from previous nuclear weapons as rather than using fission as the primary source of the explosion, the fission device triggered a fusion reaction in some hydrogen, causing a massively more destructive weapon.
Also from above, you can see that the first time humans used nuclear fusion to produce a controlled net release of energy was 1991 in the JET reactor, 8 years after it had begun to cause fusion processes.

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 14.11.2015 at 08:17

Those forms of nuclear fusion are much different than the nuclear fusion of the sun (what we hope to achieve). Here is what I said in my first post above, "Humans have achieved this ability in Nuclear Power plants with uranium (not exactly the same, but similar logic but not as ideal), but we are still far away from replicating the suns nuclear fusion "ability" - but that is the end goal in a perfect Eco-efficient planet".

The're actually very similar - the nuclear fusion that we have so far produced is actually very similar - in the experiments we have done deuterium and tritium (two isotopes of hydrogen) have been fused to form helium. The sun carries out the same process (although usually with different isotopes of hydrogen).

Note that it is impossible to create energy from the nuclear fusion of uranium, so I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.11.2015 at 09:51

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 14.11.2015 at 08:17

Those forms of nuclear fusion are much different than the nuclear fusion of the sun (what we hope to achieve). Here is what I said in my first post above, "Humans have achieved this ability in Nuclear Power plants with uranium (not exactly the same, but similar logic but not as ideal), but we are still far away from replicating the suns nuclear fusion "ability" - but that is the end goal in a perfect Eco-efficient planet".

The're actually very similar - the nuclear fusion that we have so far produced is actually very similar - in the experiments we have done deuterium and tritium (two isotopes of hydrogen) have been fused to form helium. The sun carries out the same process (although usually with different isotopes of hydrogen).

Note that it is impossible to create energy from the nuclear fusion of uranium, so I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

Sources please?

Kirjoittanut Darkmace, 14.11.2015 at 09:52

Sources please?

https://www.euro-fusion.org/jet/research/
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fusion.htm


Here's some Physics

This graph shows the binding energy per nucleon for each element, with heavier elements being further to the left and the lightest (hydrogen) on the right.
This is a bit of a simplification, but in order to release energy from the reaction then the products must have a higher binding energy than the reactants, which means that the energy released when the nucleons bond together to from the new nuclei must be greater than the energy it took to break the old nuclei apart.
Therefore for a reaction to produce energy it must change an element lower on the graph to something higher.
You can see that uranium is down near the far end, so you can split it to make smaller elements. and move it up the graph
You can also see that hydrogen is the other side of the peak, so to release energy you gotta fuse it to move it up the graph
Iron (Fe 56) on the graph is at the top so you can't use it for fusion or fission to release energy.

(the graph is from wikipedia btw)

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 14.11.2015 at 09:44

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

As you can see the first time humans produced nuclear fusion was a US thermonuclear weapon test in 1952 (this differed from previous nuclear weapons as rather than using fission as the primary source of the explosion, the fission device triggered a fusion reaction in some hydrogen, causing a massively more destructive weapon.
Also from above, you can see that the first time humans used nuclear fusion to produce a controlled net release of energy was 1991 in the JET reactor, 8 years after it had begun to cause fusion processes.

Interesting I never actually knew this. Though from what I read the fusion process could not be sustained long enough to start a chain reaction in a reactor. The energy output from JET reactor was not even remotely efficient to current form of energy either, however since it being reused in the ITER project I expect this to change soon. Thanks for the info.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 13.11.2015 at 10:35

what would be even easier is using space we dont need like deserts or tundra.

but you're right, 100%

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 14.11.2015 at 11:27

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 13.11.2015 at 10:35

what would be even easier is using space we dont need like deserts or tundra.

but you're right, 100%

He's wrong actually you can't have these solar and wind farms too far off the coast or you would be losing too much energy to resistance.

Kirjoittanut Meester, 14.11.2015 at 19:46

He's wrong actually you can't have these solar and wind farms too far off the coast or you would be losing too much energy to resistance.

well, okay, he's 50% right, one should try to use the ocean doe

Kirjoittanut Meester, 14.11.2015 at 19:46

He's wrong actually you can't have these solar and wind farms too far off the coast or you would be losing too much energy to resistance.

I'm not wrong, you're just butthurt for god knows what reason, you are following me around forum lately calling me names and discredit my posts as bull****. Nice going moderator.