OIL - History Lesson (warning - wall 'o' text)

Monkeynut · 6 Mar 2011 at 22:59

Greenlizard0 said:
That's the trouble and why I don't think everybody appreciates just how dependant we're on oil.

It's not just petrol or fuel, it's e.g. plastics and loads of other chemical processes that require a fraction of it (think that's the right word).

When you get your oil to your refinery you use fractional distillation which is a tower with the hot part at the bottom and the cold part at the top. The different fractions have different boiling points and so come off at different points. However, depending on where you get your oil from you will often have too much of a fraction and too little of another. If you have a fraction with a longer chain length you can "crack" it which is where you use energy to break bonds in the chain and create two shorter chains.

AS Chemistry.

badcompany · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:03

teaboy5 said:
Nothing like a little doom.

How about stop posting some doom and gloom videos and give us your opinion on the matter.

And them video's relate to peak oil not some random protests in the middle east.

Go read this thread, I am not going to repeat my thoughts of the last 2 years!!

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18077535

LOL random protest will mean supply drops which will then result in Peak OIL

as you well know PO is supply not meeting demand, NOT that the oil is running out but you know that already right?

GreatAuk · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:03

badcompany said:
Have you not noticed us in the West are skint ! Fusion is still a long way off.

We aren't skint, we just decide to spend money on other stuff. Our governments may have spent more money than they had coming in, and the new government may have decided to cut back a bit, but even the government is certainly not skint. Compared to the majority of countries in the world we have oodles of cash, we just decide to spend it on other stuff.

Scubascorpion said:
We've been working on it for 30 odd years already and are not any closer to making it a reality

Not any closer?

Steady progress has been made since in fusion devices around the world. The Tore Supra Tokamak that is part of the Cadarache nuclear research centre holds the record for the longest plasma duration time of any tokamak: six minutes and 30 seconds.

the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 70% of input power.

http://www.iter.org/sci/beyonditer
- The website of a new effort, set to do even better than those that preceded it.

I don't see how you can claim that no progress has been made in 30 years. There has been a huge amount of progress, and while commercial fusion power is still a way off, there is no evidence that there is any barrier to producing power in this way.

badcompany · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:04

sigma said:
When do you think all this will happen?

Do you think any of this will happen in the next 5-10 years?

everyone is going to be doing the same how long will the wood last?

sigma · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:06

badcompany said:
everyone is going to be doing the same how long will the wood last?

I could wear 3 layers of socks.

We will simply have to adapt. People will die, people will live. So be it, I'll worry about it when it happens and in the mean time hope that (or try to influence) developing technologies will develop at a rate that is good enough.

Posting/worrying about it on a forum isn't going to change things, although I did find the OP an interesting read.

Edit - people manage to survive in the arctic, I'm sure we could survive in the UK.

Jokester · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:07

The fundamental issue with fusion is that we still don't have a material to make the reactors out of that will last long term.

teaboy5 · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:15

badcompany said:
Go read this thread, I am not going to repeat my thoughts of the last 2 years!!

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18077535

LOL random protest will mean supply drops which will then result in Peak OIL

as you well know PO is supply not meeting demand, NOT that the oil is running out but you know that already right?

I am well aware of what PO means, and it doesn't apply here because the supply issue here is only temporary and will of course come on-line again.

Well PO is going on the theory that demand will be far greater than we could ever match due to production and oil well issues.

And to be fair all you do in that thread is post more doom and gloom videos and link to articles on the web.

teaboy5 · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:16

sigma said:
I could wear 3 layers of socks.

We will simply have to adapt. People will die, people will live. So be it, I'll worry about it when it happens and in the mean time hope that (or try to influence) developing technologies will develop at a rate that is good enough.

Posting/worrying about it on a forum isn't going to change things, although I did find the OP an interesting read.

Edit - people manage to survive in the arctic, I'm sure we could survive in the UK.

There are a little less people living in the Arctic than in the UK.

The people with this country is most of the people alive today barely know where they food comes from never mind having to grow their own and live on a little less.

dowie · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:19

sigma said:
When do you think all this will happen?

Do you think any of this will happen in the next 5-10 years?

Nope - there is plenty out there at the moment - most of the world's supply is artificially controlled anyway. (or at least it is supposed to be except various opec countries don't stick to their agreement's and just export more).

sigma · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:26

teaboy5 said:
There are a little less people living in the Arctic than in the UK.

The people with this country is most of the people alive today barely know where they food comes from never mind having to grow their own and live on a little less.

So?

It's not like oil will run out tomorrow. People will have to adapt, they won't have a choice.

dowie said:
Nope - there is plenty out there at the moment - most of the world's supply is artificially controlled anyway. (or at least it is supposed to be except various opec countries don't stick to their agreement's and just export more).

My point exactly.

I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it. It is an interesting and important subject but we'll be relatively fine!

Anyway, badcompany, you don't believe in exponential growth - lack of oil will only be a good thing, it'll reduce the population size.

[TW]Fox · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:27

Scubascorpion said:
After the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) discovered oil in Iran etc

Could you please link us to the source, for context

mattjd · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:27

Jokester said:
The fundamental issue with fusion is that we still don't have a material to make the reactors out of that will last long term.

Artificial Diamond?

Monkeynut · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:32

The problem seems to be primarily population. The less people you have the less resources you require and the longer those resources will last. Problem is, how would the public react if one of our leaders came out and said "we are going to reduce the population"? In a developed country like ours the population will gradually decline if it were not for immigration as seems the trend across most well educated countries.

WingZero30 · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:32

GreatAuk said:
.... Fusion!

Should chuck some more billions at that and hurry it up a few decades, generate limitless power yo.

Fission can keep us going until we get there.

Fusion is the answer but it is nigh on impossible atm. I was amazed about it when I studied the concept of nuclear fusion back in A level Physics. The concept is wonderful as I think you need water as the main source of fuel.

sigma · 6 Mar 2011 at 23:40

Monkeynut said:
The problem seems to be primarily population. The less people you have the less resources you require and the longer those resources will last. Problem is, how would the public react if one of our leaders came out and said "we are going to reduce the population"? In a developed country like ours the population will gradually decline if it were not for immigration as seems the trend across most well educated countries.

They'd probably do it indirectly by allowing the elderly to die and reducing immigration or making people disappear!

GreatAuk · 7 Mar 2011 at 00:05

Jokester said:
The fundamental issue with fusion is that we still don't have a material to make the reactors out of that will last long term.

So far, yes it seems that long term any material used would have to be replaced at some point, so there would probably be a period of downtime. However, there is plenty of research going on into materials that could be used, and in the end, even if substantial amounts of time were spent resurfacing the reactor it would probably be worth it. I think one potential material was a lithium-6 coating, that would produce tritium and helium when neutrons hit it. Even if it turned out blocks of graphite were the best material, you could just have individual sections that could be removed and replaced at every service by a robot, probably rather quickly once the techniques are established.

WingZero30 said:
Fusion is the answer but it is nigh on impossible atm. I was amazed about it when I studied the concept of nuclear fusion back in A level Physics. The concept is wonderful as I think you need water as the main source of fuel.

Fusion itself is definitely not impossible - many test reactors have demonstrated it successfully. The challenges are sustaining the reaction over long periods of time, whoch, partly leads to the other big one - getting out more energy than you put in. JET got 70% back out again, but scientists are working on ITER which is supposed to be able to get out more than is put in, so the technology is definitely developing.

The deuterium in water is the bit they would use, and it is extremely plentiful. Tritium could be produced in the reactor: http://www.iter.org/mach/tritiumbreeding

rypt · 7 Mar 2011 at 00:49

Fusion will be with us eventually, but Fission is a technology we have now and with enough fuel to power us for thousands of years, going into millions once we start to use seawater to get uranium.

Are we doing anything in the UK though? NOPE!

Cold_And_Miserable · 7 Mar 2011 at 01:53

On the topic of fusion: How far away are we from fusing deuterium (hydrogen-2) or hydrogen-1 as opposed to D-T ?

I don't like the idea of creating tritrium (hydrogen-3) out of lithium since lithium is rather rare and valuable.

Andrew_McP · 7 Mar 2011 at 02:55

In order to go about our 'normal' live we have to be able to ignore most of the bad things which might happen. Our collective psychology is fundamentally optimistic. Which is why we make progress and also why anyone studying history will easily see the huge mistakes we, as a species, make.

Many advanced civilisations have vanished and left big gaps in the history books. However collectively we continue because there's usually someone left to learn from the mistakes, and this will be no different.

Personally I am persuaded than by 2020 the world will be a substantially different place. As soon as a real oil supply squeeze starts -- which, barring round 2 of the ongoing financial collapse, could be any day now thanks to Chinese & Indian growth -- energy prices of all types will soar back towards the historically very high levels we've forgotten.

But while sustainable fusion will remain a scientific wet dream for the foreseeable future, the good news is that new fission reactors can be built in five years *if* our elected representatives (of all parties) grows some testicles. And although uranium supplies could be squeezed very heavily by an energy crunch (and the end of the programme to convert Cold War warheads to fuel), there's plenty of thorium to fall back on.

Renewables will be nigh on useless if we want to maintain anything like our current levels of energy use. I remember the power cuts in the 70s though, so I'm prepared for candle powered evenings and a lot of squinting at paperbacks if necessary. Fortunately this time I won't be doing my homework by candle light. :-)

It would be nice if the current financial mess had been used as a good excuse to invest in a new wave of social housing to solve one human crisis, and energy supply to protect us from supply problems ahead. But now that eveything which matters has been privatised, only market forces (in this country) will be allowed to solve any of these issues.

Which is why I am psychologically prepared for energy bills tripling within perhaps five years. The markets will protect us from the end of modern civilisation, but they will wring every penny they can out of us in the process. Anyone fancy an Apple iFuser? Your very own 6V cold fusion energy source for only one million of your puny English pounds. Adaptor for charging your electric scooter will be extra. Proprietary lead to connect the adaptor will also be extra. Lead to connect your iPad will, however, be free. ;-)

Andrew McP... realist in most matters, but very socialist when it comes to fundamental necessities like energy and housing.

Angilion · 7 Mar 2011 at 08:50

Andrew_McP said:
[..]
Renewables will be nigh on useless if we want to maintain anything like our current levels of energy use. [..]

Wave and tidal power on UK coasts could generate quite a lot more electricity than the UK uses. The 1.2GW of generating capacity currently being built in Pentland Firth is a decent capacity for a power station and it's just an initial test for different methods. We could get 20GW from Pentland Firth alone. That's not a wildly optimisitic estimate - those go as high as 50GW.

It's not a panacea, but it's not nigh on useless.