Topic: Peak Oil (Read 6980 times)

Xeno Ghost · « **on:** February 10, 2004, 08:33:12 PM »

Wasn't sure as to whether post this here or Anarchy, but then this is the "serious" topics forum. So, here ya' go.

I think the dude is kind of like the people who go out and buy duct tape everytime Rumsfeld says we're going to be attacked. A little eccentric and exaggerating. Probably does NOT have a law degree like he claims. This whole thing may be stupid and false.

But, one thing I think we can all agree on is that our natural oil supply will not last forever. And we have to be getting a little close about now in running out of it.

The problem I see is the fact we don't have safeguards set in place for such an event. It just seems like when it happens, the whole world will go out like a light. Not that I'm complaining. It'll get simple and Apocalyptic. But simple is nice. hah.

Anyone ever see the global timeline of the world where you just watch like a map of the world and for every light it represents a million people and then, when the Bubonic Plague hits, like half the world's lights go out? Yeah. Kind of like that.

I am just surprised that after the Carter administration we haven't already started limiting our oil use. But we haven't. We increased it. What, are the people fucking stupid? Did they not get the hint? *sigh*

Here: Another Doomsayer

xolik · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2004, 12:00:31 AM »

Wait a minute. Do you mean I shouldn't have ran out and bought all that duct tape? Well that's just great. Thanks.

Binoboy · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2004, 07:29:59 AM »

Bloody duct tape. And as for the oil, "we r teh gratest cuntry in teh wurld we can uze as much oil as we want; anthyign esle is unamercna n teh terrrrists win!1!11!1"

(Note: Xolik is looking buff, omfglololololololol!11!11!111!!!)

Law · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2004, 09:10:21 AM »

I'm pretty sure coal, uranium, the sun, rivers and whatever else MIT is working on will keep us quite comfy when the world runs out of oil. Mind you, that's probably several generations away, but...

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2004, 10:42:29 AM »

I think we'll be just fine once I get this perpetual motion machine of mine working.

It still has a couple of bugs that need to be worked out.

Stupid laws of thermodynamics!!!

hackess · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2004, 10:51:15 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

I think we'll be just fine once I get this perpetual motion machine of mine working.

It still has a couple of bugs that need to be worked out.

Stupid laws of thermodynamics!!!

Maxwell's Demon?

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2004, 11:44:42 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

I think we'll be just fine once I get this perpetual motion machine of mine working.

It still has a couple of bugs that need to be worked out.

Stupid laws of thermodynamics!!!

Hah, my first girlfriend and I could've taught you a couple of things....

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2004, 11:50:54 AM »

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

Quote from: Demosthenes
I think we'll be just fine once I get this perpetual motion machine of mine working.

It still has a couple of bugs that need to be worked out.

Stupid laws of thermodynamics!!!

Hah, my first girlfriend and I could've taught you a couple of things....

Weird Tingly Feeling was that supposed to mean???

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2004, 05:47:08 PM »

I think it was hitting on you.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2004, 05:57:42 PM »

That's what I thought, too.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2004, 07:47:56 PM »

Zoinks!

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2004, 07:51:38 PM »

Actually, *sigh*, I was thinking about my ex, that's why I wrote that.

Despite your efforts, Demo, I told you no.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2004, 09:38:40 AM »

Are there hidden posts in this thread that I'm just not seeing or something?

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2004, 12:44:49 PM »

....That'll teach you something about hijacking threads.

So, anyway, what does everyone think will be the next source of our massive energy demands?

I personally think that as far as electrical energy is concerned, nuclear power plants will take over control. For cars... I just have no idea. I think we'll probably have electrical cars powered by companies that own those nuclear power plants and transport the massive amounts of electricity to "gas" stations.

Now, if we do have nuclear power plants, the topic that's on most people's mind is, "What if something bad..." Yeah. I don't think we're going to want many Cherynobles in the US. So, we should put them some place where it doesn't matter. Like in the US desert area.

----

Or! The Middle East! [/sarcasm]

Demosthenes · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2004, 01:44:31 PM »

It's not possible for us to have a Chernobyl-type disaster in the US.

Chernobyl's main reactors are all fast-fission U-238 cores using light water as a coolant and graphite as a moderator.

Such a design is inherently unstable (and prone to unpredictable neutron flux power spikes, which happens to be exactly what caused the Chernobyl core to melt down and blow off its own closure head) and are totally illegal in pretty much every country on the planet. For obvious reasons.

Most of the cores operating in the US today are thermal fission cores using regular water as both a coolant AND a moderator, so are inherently stable because of the thermal properties of water where neutron attenuation is concerned.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2004, 06:59:50 PM »

Either you looked that up just now, pulled it out of your ass, or you're a physicist... Which one?

In any case, a meltdown is "always" possible. That's the problem with you hard scientists... In my line of work, social sciences, we admit that there is always a margin of chaos that does not make our theories completely accurate, but you guys just totally say you're 100% right until something screws up. Then it's big time news because everyone is actually shocked because it's so engrained in everyone's skulls that you scientists could never be wrong and when you are it's epic...

*out of breath* Sorry, just some pent up, scientist hostilities there.

----

Edit: BTW, what do you think will replace oil when that time comes? No one answered that...

dcrog · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2004, 08:56:00 PM »

I'll bet you ten bucks he didn't have to look it up.

DC

Demosthenes · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2004, 09:57:44 AM »

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

Either you looked that up just now, pulled it out of your ass, or you're a physicist... Which one?

I have a degree in Nuclear Science. It's the only real thing on Earth that I can claim to be "an expert" in and be able to back up with legitimate credentials.

I know a lot about a lot of other subjects, but when it comes to Physics and Nuclear Science, I can back it up.

Quote

In any case, a meltdown is "always" possible. That's the problem with you hard scientists... In my line of work, social sciences, we admit that there is always a margin of chaos that does not make our theories completely accurate, but you guys just totally say you're 100% right until something screws up. Then it's big time news because everyone is actually shocked because it's so engrained in everyone's skulls that you scientists could never be wrong and when you are it's epic...

Okay, hot shot. You tell me exactly what will happen in a thermal fission U-235 core that can make a meltdown EXACTLY LIKE THE CHERNOBYL INCIDENT.

I'm here, right now, telling you that that is not possible. There are myriad reasons, not the least of which is design:

The Chernobyl cores use a fast fission fuel for their core. Most US cores do not.
The Chernobyl cores use a coolant dispersal method for heat removal that necessitates there being over 900 pressure boundaries in the core vessel. Most US cores have fewer than 5. This means that in US cores, there is a very small incidence of leaks because there are fewer components that are present that CAN leak. In the Chernobyl design, coolant leaks are not only more likely, they are inevitable.
The Chernobyl cores use graphite as a moderator, which when heated produces a positive coefficient of reactivity. Most US cores use water as a moderator, which when heated produces a negative coefficient of reactivity (in layman's terms, the more you heat it up, the less effective it becomes at reflecting and thermalizing neutron flux back into the core, which means that as it gets hotter, power goes down instead of UP, like in the Chernobyl cores)
Fuel matrix geometry: US cores by law cannot be designed in a way that allows them to be critical (meaning: in a state where there is a self-sustaining chain reaction, i.e., "operational") while half the control rods are at the bottom of the core. This means that in case half of your control rods become stuck, you still have enough negative reactivity in the other half of the control rods to shut down the core. The Chernobyl cores' fuel matrix geometries preclude negative reactivity states even with 90% of their control rods fully inserted. Accident waiting to happen.
Speaking of control rods, US reactor cores have control rods for one primary purpose: emergency shutdown. Chernobyl's design of reactor core actually used the control rods to directly regulate the fission rate in the core. Direct regulation is an inherently unstable method of controlling any kind of fission reaction, mostly because it's impossible to be able to react quickly enough to prevent a supercritical event, even if the rods are controlled by computers (which, in Chernobyl's case, they weren't). US cores' fission rates are regulated by the coolant temperature itself, not rod position. This kind of design is referred to as "inherently stable". Any kind of spike in power is automatically regulated by the corresponding rise in coolant temperature, which causes power to go down almost instantly.[/list:u]In over 50 years of nuclear power being used by the United States to produce electricity for civilian and military/naval applications, there has never been an incident anything like the Chernobyl incident.

There are very, very good reasons for that. We do things differently where nuclear power is concerned. From the ground up, there is almost nothing comparable between US reactor plants and Soviet ones.

Quote
*out of breath* Sorry, just some pent up, scientist hostilities there.

Oh yeah. Nothing quite like a rant from someone who is all pissed off concerning something he knows nothing about. :roll:

Law · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:15:50 PM »

Did anyone else hear a distinct *smack*ing sound?

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:01:46 PM »

Demo, have you ever heard of those people who so over-analyze something the read that they miss the point entirely? Well, you missed something, and I think it is called "the point."

Hey, I'm pretty sure I wasn't pissed. If I was pissed, you'd know. And when has "not knowing something" to the extent of having a BA ever stopped anyone? Especially in a thread? So, that's kind of stupid point to argue. I don't believe anyone here is a Political Science professor either, so why even bother?

Now, over analyzing aside...

hackess · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:21:45 PM »

Xeno, I'm no social scientist, and no nuclear physicist either, but I've read this thread through three or four times now. I think I have a pretty good idea what your point was. You asked what we all thought the next major energy source would be, and suggested that it could be nuclear power. You then said that nuclear plants should be put in the middle of the desert to avoid Chernobyl-like events (by the way, how does geographic location prevent meltdown, exactly?). Demo then told you exactly why a meltdown on the same level as Chernobyl isn't possible. He's not overanalyzing anything. You just got your panties in a twist because you've got some beef with hard science and scientists. Just the facts, ma'am.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:33:32 PM »

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

Demo, have you ever heard of those people who so over-analyze something the read that they miss the point entirely? Well, you missed something, and I think it is called "the point."

You're right. I must have missed "the point".

I was under the impression that you were making claims about nuclear power that pointed to what can only be your sheer ignorance of the subject.

I countered by demonstrating precisely why you were incorrect.

And now you respond by changing the subject and claiming that I'm missing "the point".

On second thought, I think "the point" is quite clear here.

Quote from: Xeno Ghost

Hey, I'm pretty sure I wasn't pissed. If I was pissed, you'd know. And when has "not knowing something" to the extent of having a BA ever stopped anyone? Especially in a thread? So, that's kind of stupid point to argue. I don't believe anyone here is a Political Science professor either, so why even bother?

Gotcha. It's okay to blindly bash something when nobody's an expert. But when flaws in your argument are pointed out, suddenly there's a problem with the discussion? So "why bother"?

Nice backpedal, dude.

Anonymous · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:51:20 PM »

I learned the hardway not to pick an argument with Demo. He'll wipe the floor with you.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:57:27 PM »

My wife is still bugging me to try to get into a good law school.

Personally, I think we need to worry more about things like house payments and paying back a loan from her parents that I was 100% against.

Oh, by the way Xeno: If your "point" was to try to make claims regarding chaos theory, you might want to re-think that approach as well. Chaos theory is an accepted part of Quantum Mechanics, and guess what Nuclear Science deals with on a huge level?

xolik · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2004, 02:59:56 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

My wife is still bugging me to try to get into a good law school.

What type of law would you be doing if you were going to go that route? /derail

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Peak Oil (Read 6980 times)

Anonymous