Oil's well inspired ideas

[Darthvoorhees]

Ok, given that the Civil Protection episode "Oil's Well" brought up one real-life problem. (It's even said somewhere. The only episode Ross planned to do with a "message") And the solution Ross presented was actually a good one, focusing energy on Hydroelectric dams and switch to electric cars, but it does have it's problems.

 

*Anyone with more knowledge in this stuff, please either provide constructive feedback to ideas or let me know if wrong*

 

A switch in Hydroelectric dams will be good, but it will alter the environment where the dam is placed. However, I don't think that the damage will be anywhere NEAR as bad as what we're doing to the environment now with "coal burning pollution" or the occasional oil spill.

 

One user in the comments for the episode on youtube suggested that we build a bunch of solar panels in the desert to also alleviate energy needs. This doesn't seem like a radical environmental altering solution.

 

And then I also thought, what's another way one could use an inhospitable place for energy? Geothermal energy. If that itself is not a pipe dream, civilization could also use that for energy.

 

My solution: A combination of all 4 ideas. Hydroelectic dams, switch to electric cars instead of gas guzzlers, large array of solar panels in the deserts, and geothermal energy wherever possible.

 

Feel free to critique this idea.

[danielsangeo]

By far, the biggest polluters aren't cars, though they are a not-insignificant contributing factor. The biggest problem comes from industry (coal-burning power plants, manufacturing, and so on). It is not just the United States either; China and other countries are big factors as well. We in the United States cannot tell China or other countries how to run things, but that doesn't mean we're completely powerless to influence them.

 

My idea is to tell these countries that we're more likely to buy from manufacturers and such that try to rein in pollution and less likely to buy from manufacturers that pollute with abandon. "Vote with your dollar", y'know?

 

Indeed, we in the United States can do something about cars and power-production in the United States, but we can also influence other countries with our money (private and public). McDonald's is changing their menus in response to customer demand. If we, as customers, demand that companies buy from nonpolluters, these companies will respond....or face losing money.

 

We, as a society, need to act.

[BTGBullseye]

*Anyone with more knowledge in this stuff, please either provide constructive feedback to ideas or let me know if wrong*

Well since I have some information concerning many of these topics, I will provide it.

 

A switch in Hydroelectric dams will be good, but it will alter the environment where the dam is placed.

Already done to the most that we can in the USA. This comes directly from the Army Corps of Engineers. (my Dad still has friends from his time in the Navy)

 

One user in the comments for the episode on youtube suggested that we build a bunch of solar panels in the desert to also alleviate energy needs. This doesn't seem like a radical environmental altering solution.

Not efficient enough. We use more energy making the solar panels than we make by using them.

 

And then I also thought, what's another way one could use an inhospitable place for energy? Geothermal energy. If that itself is not a pipe dream, civilization could also use that for energy.

This would be the best, but since it has such a high initial cost people are unwilling to do it.

 

There is another that I think I mentioned earlier... Natural Gas. We have an infinite supply, it burns clean, and it's extremely cheap to transfer over from gasoline to CNG. Less than $1000 per car for a full conversion, and it's already piped to most houses in the country. (meaning you could gas-up your car at home)

 

I don't think that the damage will be anywhere NEAR as bad as what we're doing to the environment now with "coal burning pollution" or the occasional oil spill.

Most coal plants are now doing 'clean coal' burning, which produces no pollutants at all. Oil naturally leaks from the various deposits, and many species would be extinct if it ceased. Don't fall for all the environmentalist propaganda.

 

Feel free to try to poke holes in what I've said if you want.

[danielsangeo]

We use more energy making the solar panels than we make by using them.

 

That's a myth, actually. Sure, it takes a lot of energy to make solar panels, but, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, assuming a 12% efficiency, the payback period is 3.5 years. The lifespan of the typical solar panel is 20-30 years. Therefore, for the first 3.5 years of usage, you're "paying back" the energy needed for the solar panel but after that, you have a net positive energy yield.

 

If you're looking for immediate net positive energy yield from a solar panel, you're doing it wrong.

 

Also, there's no such thing as "clean coal". It's an oxymoron.

[BTGBullseye]

That's a myth, actually. Sure, it takes a lot of energy to make solar panels, but, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, assuming a 12% efficiency, the payback period is 3.5 years. The lifespan of the typical solar panel is 20-30 years. Therefore, for the first 3.5 years of usage, you're "paying back" the energy needed for the solar panel but after that, you have a net positive energy yield.

Except the efficiency level of the best panels is only around 6%, more common panels only have an efficiency of 3.5%. (this is common knowledge in Arizona, lots of solar farms there)

 

If you're looking for immediate net positive energy yield from a solar panel, you're doing it wrong.

Of course.

 

Also, there's no such thing as "clean coal". It's an oxymoron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

[danielsangeo]

That's a myth, actually. Sure, it takes a lot of energy to make solar panels, but, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, assuming a 12% efficiency, the payback period is 3.5 years. The lifespan of the typical solar panel is 20-30 years. Therefore, for the first 3.5 years of usage, you're "paying back" the energy needed for the solar panel but after that, you have a net positive energy yield.

Except the efficiency level of the best panels is only around 6%, more common panels only have an efficiency of 3.5%. (this is common knowledge in Arizona, lots of solar farms there)

 

Not quite. Today's photovoltaic cells have an efficiency between 10-20% with a theoretical maximum of 34%. New technology on experimental cells exceed 40%. And, if we were to go the nanocrystal approach, we could get upwards to 60% efficiency.* The point here is that the technology is still in its infancy. Oil energy still gets subsidies from the federal government so...

 

* SOURCE: National Academy of Engineering

 

Also, there's no such thing as "clean coal". It's an oxymoron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

 

I know the term. It's still nonexistent and propaganda with no basis in fact. In fact, to make coal "clean" requires a bunch of energy to 'scrub' the pollutants. The pollutants are still there, even, and still have to be disposed of. AND there's only a finite amount of coal in the Earth and the extraction of such is highly damaging to the environment.

 

No, sorry. I don't buy into this notion of "clean coal".

[Michael Archer]

Although Mike rips on them, apparently the oil sands have a lot of untapped oil. I see a lot of commercials about the Alberta oil sands here in Canada. Of course, this is just speculation.

 

Whatever source, the environmentalists will always bash any form of acquiring oil.

[Razor235]

What about nuclear energy?

Before you bitch about radiation, here's a fact: Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear ones. Annually, coal plants release an average of 15,000 TONS of radioactive particles into the atmosphere; nuclear plants release about 10,000 tons of material that does not get into the atmosphere (barring accidents). And the radioactive waste from a plant is contained, unlike the radiation in the gases from the burned coal.

 

Solar panels are a great idea, but until we can manufacture a near-perfectly efficient panel, there is no fucking way we will provide the energy needed for the world between panels, wind farms, hydro, and a couple of other sources combined without covering the entire earth. And nobody wants their precious lawns covered with those things.

 

So, right now, nuclear is the way to go.

Oh, and as for waste disposal: 97% of the waste is recycled into reusable fuel.

[Ross Scott]

Although Mike rips on them, apparently the oil sands have a lot of untapped oil. I see a lot of commercials about the Alberta oil sands here in Canada. Of course, this is just speculation.

 

Whatever source, the environmentalists will always bash any form of acquiring oil.

Well the problem with oil sands is that the EROEI is way lower than normal oil extraction. Even if we removed all obstacles and extracted as much as possible, it would never meet even our daily level of consumption. It will buy some time, but it's nothing resembling a solution.

 

What about nuclear energy?

The most immediate energy problem we'll be facing will be from oil, not from electric power generation. The majority (about 2/3) of oil goes towards fuel. What I think is likely to happen is we could start having a real oil crisis because of a decline in production, but still have the ability to produce plenty of electricity. Not that electricity generation in the future isn't an issue, but I consider it a separate and less immediate one.

[Lord Sinister]

I am certainly know scientific expert, but isn't fusion power a possibility for the future, assuming there's funding?

 

The main issue with it from how I understand it is that so far prototypes have mostly required more energy than they've produced.

[Vapymid]

But once you have enough electric power and high enough demand for liquid fuels (= high price) then CTL (coal) and GTL (gas) processes can be used to produce synthetic oil. We will still have large reserves of both available for many years.

 

Longer term solution will require fusion, solar from orbit. Also, moving some industries off-planet (e.g. metal smelting) will help to reduce per capita energy needs on Earth.

 

Regards