/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't give a shit.

>>10982609
All the uranium will only get us through 53 years? I don't think so.
But, if that's really the case, and if there will be no smooth transition, considering the industrial strength of the human race by then, it will be a matter of about 3-5 years to switch to 100% renewable energy.

But remember, if there is still uranium left, uranium shall be used.

>>10982609
The oil crash supposed to happen in 2015.
Guess what they invented fractionating and all is fine.
Same thing it will happen on the next energy crisis they will just make up something else.

>>10982632
REEEE NUCLEAR BAD MUH WIND AND SOLAR WILL WERK BECAUSE IGNORE NIGHT TIME REEEE

>>10982632
But imagine the price spike in third world countries. Yeah sure the 1st worlds can convert to Electric energy pretty smoothly but the effect on the smaller countries will be huge

>>10982651
I'm going to be completely honest, who gives a fuck about 3rd world countries? Seriously.

They have the highest populations, most pollution, most backwards societies. Leave them to destroy themselves. If I had my way we'd glass all of Africa and most of Asia.

>>10982609

The fossil fuel age is ending and the renewable/fusion age has started.
In 30 years internal combustion vehicles and fossil fuel energy plants will be few rare and mainly old ones still running and a few specialized exceptions.

>>10982662
>fusion
based
>renewable
lame

>>10982651
well, fuck third world countries
and fuck niggers

>>10982609
EU is in the process of outlawing manucture of gasoline cars by 2030
Most factories are at least partially retooling for electric and/or hybrids by 2020.
Hybrids are the best option imo, 98% of the time you'll be fine with just 60km range on battery and the 2% special occasions when you're visiting folks, you can feasibly use biofuels.
Long range electric are kinda stupid if you ask me, the batteries double the cost and weight and are nowhere near as practical.

>>10982609
Actually, we have centuries worth of coal.

>>10982651
>But imagine the price spike in third world countries

It’d be cheaper, not more expensive.
Also third world countries don’t exist. This isn’t the fucking Cold War anymore

>>10982609
There's plenty of co2 to make synthetic fuel, though.
Yes, efficiency is shit. Yes, it's a huge waste of energy. But they're going to do it anyway because they're lazy.

>>10982642
ANON WE JIST BILD BIG BATTERIES TO STORE EXTRA POWER.

>>10982609
the stone age didn't end for lack of stones.

>>10982700
>Also third world countries don’t exist.
anon...

>>10982792
The “third world” is a term from the Cold War that referred to countries not aligned with NATO or the USSR. As such, it’s worthless now. Just say “developed” and “undeveloped” and “developing”

>>10982632
Uranium isn't a fossil fuel you absolute fuckwad

>>10982816
It isn’t renewable though

>>10982823
The OP isn't about nonrenewable reserves as a whole, it's about fossil fuel reserves.

>>10982823
It's virtually renewable since it can be extracted from seawater, which is reflected constantly by the Earth's crust. There is far more uranium available to us than human civilization could ever need.

>>10982823
the sun's energy is not renewable also, eventually it will burn out brah, bam pwned

>>10982609
We have bigger problem right now. If we manage to get through the next 53 yeras without another war I'll be impressed.

>>10982656
3rd world countries have the least pollution

>>10982609
>t. economic brainlet

>>10982609
>le reddit meme format

>>10982842
Not true. Renewable resources are ones replenished on human-relevant timescales, so solar is renewable

>>10982847
>muh co2 per capita
niggers live in literal trash

>>10982912
>human-relevant timescales
>not thinking on the timescale of 10 billion years
Sad!

>>10982609
When you write down "oil reserves" you should specify "oil reserves that can be extracted fro $X per barrrel." Even if those run out in 53 years, there will still be plenty of oil out there that can be extracted for $(X+1) per barrel.

>>10982632
Uranium supply chain involves fossil fuels. Mining and transport are not viable without the practical slave labor of petroleum and petroleum accessories.

>>10982981
You know what also uses fossil fuels to make? Wind and Solar products.

>>10982609
>>10982611
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

This is why America is bombing the shit out of sandy assholes and drilling the fuck out of the US.

>>10982981
yeah but nuclear fission energy could be so bountiful that one could power lots of electric vehicles or even do carbon capture to clean up the carbon emissions

but noooooo muh fukushima built on the shore of the ring of fire proves nuclear bad >:( noooooo

If we actually use our reserves before transitioning to sources that don't emit CO2 we're going to be so fucked it won't even matter.

>>10983097
>Law of diminishing returns don't real
Bring back subterrenes before any of those.

>>10982998
cool thing is as your transition more sources away from fossil fuels you consume less, really the only hard one for turbines is steel production, but there are processes that consume significantly less coal. Solar is even easier as panels require virtually no petroleum to produce, you can actually just power a PV production plant with a solar farm, it's great.

>>10983097
blame the free market, nuclear is only viable in socialized grids.

>>10983106

Naw.

I'll blame the Greenpeace beatniks who said nuclear will cause a million Hiroshima and muh China Syndrome.

Then the leftists who preach cataclysmic climate change and advocate for eating bugs over nuclear.

The issue of the lack of nuclear development for power in the west is entirely political.

Just look at the German government shutting down nuclear. You'd be hard pressed to not consider their electric grid socialized.

>>10982609
I don't care too much about how our fossil fuel reserves are going to run out in fifty-three years. We're human beings who, for the most part, operate off of monetary incentives. Corporations with large stakes in the game will more than likely come up with a solution to the problem.

A more significant issue is the OP's total disregard for the blatant grammatical errors present in the picture. Put a comma before the and, and drop the 'is' for an 'are' for crying out loud.

>>10982698
Sure, at current levels of consumption since we don't use very much. Switch to coal as a main fuel source and you'll be out in a decade

>>10983114
Greenpeace has zero political power compared to any corporation, if nuclear was profitable we would have so many ad campaigns and straight up lies convincing us nuclear was the second coming of Christ, there would be laws requiring schools to have their own reactors. But nuclear is an absolute money sink no investor wants anything to do with. So no one cares about public opinion.

>>10983101
We did.

>>10983114
>Meanwhile, in France
>the socialized grid hooks up to another nuclear power plant
>more are being built

>>10982609
there will be more fossil fuels in a billion years
quit your fearmongering

>>10983129

Nuclear is profitable.

It is literally political will and misinformation campaigns shutting down reactors early and preventing new ones.

And ones being built are always being postponed because no one has the political will to secure the loans because "muh nuclear" despite being the safest method of energy production.

>>10983163

Agreed.

It's all about political will to not be a fucking anti-nuke science denier.

>>10983229
No, it's about laws and profitability. Get outta here Cletus, this is a science board.

>>10982609
In 53 years time it will be a nothingburger.

I don't spend much time here. What's the general consensus on /sci/ about climate change?

>>10982916
at least they see it and don't just ship it to a remote location

>>10983263
This. Where do these fucking climate denying chuds come from? These "peak oil" conspiracy theories are pure pseudoscience.

>>10983263

Fake graph doesn't take into account subsidized alternative energy.

I don't care what your graph says because that's not even what the source intends.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

>>10983348

Not from a single source of unverified data that says unsubsidized but then takes into account subsidies for relative costs of energy.

>>10983354
>>10983359
Are you aware that fossil fuels receive 10 billion dollars in subsidies from the US every year? That's $10,000,000,000. How much are these renewable energy subsidies that you're complaining about?

>>10982609
Market worshipers aren't concerned.
They know that the market finds a way. The market drives innovation, therefore resources are effectively infinite. Humans truly are now in possession of power rivaling the gods. Believe.

>>10982609
Why do threads concerning resource scarcity become filled with absolute retard teir pseudo-religious dogma so quickly?

Good thing we'll have nuclear fusion by then.

>>10983411

Agreed that fossil fuel subsidies are garbage, but that doesn't change the fact that investment wind and solar always leads to producing less energy because of latency and the greater percentage of energy coming from fossil fuels.

Germany unilaterally pulled out of the Paris Agreement and Kyoto after they shut down nuclear power to "go green."

>>10983423

>market treats resources as scarce and allows competition between buyers and sellers to determine allocation

>therefore marketfags are treating resources as effectively infinite

Hoo boy.

>>10983589
Oh please please spout more pseudo-religious dogma from the Good Book of Economics to reaffirm that you're a true believer.
I really want to hear it.

>>10982981
>>10982998

>Hur dur you can only power trucks and trains with oil

>>10983639
This implies there’s about thirty other “consumer” images or more. I’m interested

>>10983693

>>10982609
>53 years
That's more than enough time. How young are you, zoom zoom?

>>10983693
fattie anon is pretty hardcore, don’t provoke him

>>10984152
>*sip* yep doesn't matter what happens after I'm dead haha my children and their children can go fuck themselves alright
You should be tortured to death by a mob of angry brown skinned people.

>>10983423
>>10983639
>>10984095
more fatties pls

>>10984158
>>10984154

>>10984166
I used to know people like this. It’s hilarious in jpeg but less so in person

>>10984182
ya I don't think the matter of the CONSUUUUUUUUMERS is all that funny either desu

>>10983224
wrong, there's no situation where running a nuke plant is better financially than fossil fuels or even renewables, even with huge subsidies nuclear companies are going bankrupt left and right.

>>10983354
>historical mean subsidized LCOE values
are you fucking retarded?

>>10983354
>historical mean unsubsidized LCOE values
are you fucking retarded?

>>10984493
okay idiot. externalities like the oil-shill government regulating the nuclear power industry to shit for no good reason disprove nuclear energy

but WAIT NO WE NEED TO UPGRADE OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL BECAUSE MUH MILITARY because science only works for weapons and the massive amount of energy they produce is ONLY FOR MUH MILITARY

>>10984523
de regulate nuclear and I'll meltdown a reactor in DC just to prove a point. I'll probably even get china or iran to pay for it too.

>>10984523
yeah there's no effective nuclear energy lobby because they can't make any money because it's a dead end financially. if it was actually profitable big oil would have become big nuclear decades ago.

>>10982664
fusion is a renewable

>>10984605
i'm not saying deregulate, i'm saying make the regulations reasonable. plenty of plants operate very safely in the US, but nothing has been built in the last 20 years because of the anti-nuclear woo that "environmentalists" (who apparently prefer fossil fuels) pushed

>>10984611
it's a dead end financially because of regulations. and those regulations mostly come from the bought-out politicos who run washington, who happen to have been bought out by oil companies.

just look at the current situation. Mike Pompeo was funded by the oil tycoon Koch brothers (at least one of them died a few weeks ago, but the remaining one is still monsterously powerful)

>>10983579
>Producing more energy produces less energy
Let me guess, you misread something about the duck curve?

>>10984630
what regulations are unreasonable and can be removed without effecting safety in any way? please give me links.
And also tell me why it's a financial dead end in every free market economy in the world, only usable in socialized grids?

>>10984642
>what regulations are unreasonable and can be removed without effecting safety in any way?
basically if anyone, even the government, wants to build a nuclear power plant, then that means years and years worth of oversight by the EPA, the DOE, fucking every department you can think of, so there is a sunk cost of TIME that amounts to 10 years. the system in theory could be streamlined if it weren't for the infinte anti-nuclear shilling that is mostly coming from oil industry shills

>And also tell me why it's a financial dead end in every free market economy in the world, only usable in socialized grids?
i honestly don't give a fuck about that. energy is energy. nuclear energy, once it comes online, is highly efficient, clean, and profitable. whether your grid can handle it or not is a problem that could be solved without needing infrastructure changes

>>10984653
>the system in theory could be streamlined if it weren't for the infinte anti-nuclear shilling that is mostly coming from oil industry shills
in theory, right so you have no idea and are just talking out of your ass.

>profitable
every free market in the world disagrees with this.

>>10984667
thanks oil anon, we appreciate your content-free replies.

what is your solution? muh solar that turns off at night but muh miracle in batteries will fix it?

more likely you are another oil shill who wants to shut down anybody who thinks nuclear could work. because you know in your heart nuclear CAN work but it would bankrupt your oil exec employers.

sad cope

>>10984674
I wouldn't be against completely socializing the energy sector in the US, and using a combination of renewables + nuclear when it makes sense.
this will never happen so it's looking like renewables are our only option. They're only getting better and solar + storage is actually at parity with nuclear in terms of cost already. and is much more viable from a business perspective as it has much lower upfront costs and doesn't require a mercenary army to secure and transport fuel.

>>10984511

Read your fucking source instead of a graph from a nobody pandering firm that flies in the face of every other study on energy AND real world rubber-meet-road situations.

Even THEY don't agree with their own graph.

>>10984633

>producing less energy produces less energy and no one will actually want to freeze in the dark so you end up firing up coal plants using brown coal, but then the greens storm your mines and shut them down leading to rolling brown outs on your country.

The UAE spent a fraction of what Germany spent on renewables to denuclearize their grid and got much more out of it to power their giant indoor skiing resorts in a desert.

>>10984692

>parity in cost

There is no reputable study where renewables + storage is cost competitive with anything, including nuclear, and that's assuming we even have enough of the required materials to MAKE the required storage (we don't).

>>10984700
so post another study genius
>Even THEY don't agree with their own graph.
how so?

>>10984718
true. the “storage” idea is completely a meme, at least for a couple decades. we need a reliable CLEAN energy source and nuclear is the only extant technology that fits the bill

>>10984718
>required materials to MAKE the required storage

citation fucking needed, theres enough lithium in reserves to make approx 250 million teslas, there's 50 times that in easily tapped reserves.

>>10984735
already more profitable than nuclear.

>>10984723

>do my homework because I relied on a single source from a bunch of lobbyists

Get fucked. I've spent 10 minutes ITT and I have enjoyed literally none of it talking to you.

>>10984758
got it no source, your opinion can be safely discarded, bye.

Why can't fusion energy be a thing already? What's holding it back?

>>10984772
look up ITER. physicists are working on it, it’s not easy, considering the funding they have. if there were a “Manhattan project” for it though, things might be different, but unfortunately governments don’t seem to think it is a priority

>>10984748
oops my source for lithium in a tesla batter was wrong, it's closer to 2.5 billion telsa batteries.

>>10984748

https://energypost.eu/roadmap-to-nowhere-the-myth-of-powering-the-nation-with-renewable-energy/

If we took all the lithium from 2016,we could provide about a minute of storage.

At the cost of an entire nuclear grid.

>>10984713
That sounds like a single specific event that revolved around poor planning. There's enough energy represented by renewable sources to power all of humanity several hundred times over, so complaining that renewables displace nuclear is a nonargument.

>>10984852
>he continued cost declines for solar PV and onshore wind, to the point where they will be substantially undercutting even the cheapest new source of fossil fuel-fired electricity by 2020, complemented by declines in the cost of dispatchable CSP and battery storage technologies, improvements in grid operation and an emerging suite of electrification technologies in end-uses (from electric vehicles to heat pumps) will see low-cost renewable electricity generation increasingly underpin the energy sector transformation to 2050.
nice source I like this article more though

>https://energypost.eu/cheaper-than-coal-irenas-comprehensive-report-on-cost-declines-all-renewables-categories/

>>10982609
sneed

>>10982609
Reminder that "fossil fuels" aren't real, and the term was only used to promote the idea of scarcity, so they could artificially restrict supply and jack up the prices. The hydrocarbons are continually produced in the mantle, and can be found literally anywhere if you dig deep enough. It's why you have methane pouring from undersea vents. It's why you have apparent oceans of methane on other planets.

>>10982609
They said that in 1970 too.
And in 1990
And in 2005

>>10982609
Mad Max soon bros

>>10982609
the shitty thing is we need that for steel and other materials. pretty stupid to waste it all on driving around a 2ton weight if you ask me.

>>10985122
god damnit, is this bait or are you actually retarded?

>>10985165
If you're so certain it's wrong, then explain why oil wells seem to refill over time, and how methane is pouring from volcanic vents.

>>10985134
1970 population was 3 billion