lex

peak oil was in 2005 I think.

edit: from wikipedia:
Kenneth S. Deffeyes argued at one point that world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005.[5]

Sadad Al Husseini, former head of Saudi Aramco's production and exploration, stated in an October 29, 2007 interview that oil production had likely already reached its peak in 2006,[7] and that assumptions by the IEA and EIA of production increases by OPEC to over 45 MB/day are "quite unrealistic."[7]
2004 U.S. government predictions for oil production other than in OPEC and theformer Soviet Union
World Crude Oil Production 1960-2004. Sources: DOE/EIA, IEA

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens stated in 2005 that worldwide conventional oil production was very close to peaking.[102] On June 17, 2008, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pickens stated that "I do believe you have peaked out at 85 million barrels a day globally,".[103] Data from the US Energy Information Administration show that world production leveled out in 2004, and reached a peak in the third quarter of 2006,[citation needed] and an October 2007 retrospective report by the Energy Watch Group concluded that this was the peak of conventional oil production.

Vladi

What oil refineries use to get the petrol and diesel fuels? Electricity of course. What gas stations use to to get that fuel int our cars? Electricity of course. I am not so sure that fossil fuels are more efficient in transportation than full electric of hydrogen-electric method.
Fossil fuels are here to stay unfortunately but at least we can cut them off from use in transportation and housing.

I strongly believe geothermal power is the way to go to generate electricity sometime in the future.

Och

iTrader: (3)

But do you understand that whatever electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels? And yes, of course electric engines are more efficient than ICE, probably 3-4 times more efficient for that matter, but still the electricity they use was once produced by inefficient method.

Habious

I think a big part of the problem with going away from fossil fuels is exactly what we're seeing here...it should be electricity...no...hydrogen, no...nuclear...wait, geothermal...how about solar?

What's the answer? What's the ONE TRUE answer? No one knows.

Who wants to invest trillions of dollars into what might NOT be the next big energy thing?

Anyone want to invest some money in HD-DVD?....how about the DIVX format (no, not the codec)?...we could all pool our money and buy Betamax players...Memorystick media...or the MiniDisc.

The question of "Will fossil fuels last forever?" is a very easy one to answer. The question of "What's the next dominant energy source going to be?" is not so simple.

The G Man

There are viable alternatives, just not one that is cheaper than oil at this point. All of you have seen how cheap these oil companies can sell thier oil and still make a profit, there is simply nothing out there with the same BTU that can compete with oil dollar for dollar, well, maybe coal, but that can get messy in the fill up station

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

30% of US reactors are fueled by recycled Soviet warheads. New generation reactors produce a lot less nuclear waste and can use the nuclear material longer. Current nuclear rods last about 18-24 months. If you want sheer output you cannot match a nuclear reactor, the highest power density of any generation source. To keep costs down a company should design a nuclear plant, get it working good and you just duplicate the heck out of it, instead of designing a new plant from the ground up each time. Duplication would save a lot of money.

France is already buildings its first generation III reactor, and a second is being planned, the newest reactor type. Why the US cant do this but France can is beyond me. France is doing everything we should be doing.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html

The G Man

You are forgeting about the nuclear waste, the spended rods. Those plutonium nuclear waste sits underground and stays radioactive for over 100,000 years.
Nuclear, much like hybrid cars are not the answer but a stop gap, we need to find a way to produce fusion energy instead of fusion.

MR_F1

This is exactly the answer. Nuclear power whether fission of fusion should be used to generate electricity. I can't fathom why fossil fuels are still being used to do it.

OT: Exxon mobile is full of crap. Obviously there is money to be made off oil so they won't look for an alternative. Idiots.

MR_F1

Hasn't a solution to recycle/reduce radioactivity of nuclear waste been (or is being) developed? Could have sworn I read something about that

The G Man

If you are talking about Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology, it reduces the amount of the nuclear waste generated from the power plant and the waste have a decay time of a 1000 years as oppose to over 100,000 year. It is still in the laboratory stage and need large scale testing. It is certainly a step forward but by no mean a solution to the nuclear waste problem.

SLegacy99

I think you mean fusion instead of fission. Hopefully one day it will work.

UDel

You can blame the environmentalists and alarmist who have way too much political influence why we are not allowed to build any more nuclear powerplants. Alarmist seem to think nuclear technology and safety have not progressed since Chernobyl and 3 mile island and it is impossible to make a safe new nuclear powerplant with new technology even though we use them everyday in newer mobile subs and aircraft carriers. The environmentalist don't want any kind of new plants or refineries built because they say it takes up too much land and damages the environment which is a major reason our energy costs are so high and we depend so much on foreign oil. These environmentalists complain so much about oil companies and burning fossil fuels but then are totally against nuclear power even though new nuclear plants would be cleaner and use much less resources then coal or oil plants and would greatly reduce our need for foreign oil. These environmentalist seem to be living in some world where we can solve all our huge energy needs with just windmills, solar energy, or maybe just use their favorite plant hemp to solve all the worlds problems. If we could get most of our electricity from nuclear plants that would make a huge impact on our fossil fuel consumption and there would need be a great need for hybrids or more and more fuel efficient cars.

The G Man

We can built a a safer nuclear power plant but not a 100% safe one, I would not want one in my backyard, how about you Homer?

SLegacy99

My parents live on a lake in South Carolina with the Duke Power Nuclear plant less than a mile a way. Doesn't bother us any. Frankly, the energy is cheap and its clean.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

I want power whether the sun isnt shining, the wind isnt blowing, or not.

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