It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jgbjgb
And then there is fuel from low grade coal,
For interest sake check this out:
"We operate the world's only coal-based synthetic fuels manufacturing facility at Secunda in South Africa, which uses unique Sasol Fisher-Tropsch technology to manufacture synthesis gas from low-grade coal. This is converted into a large range of petrochemicals"
I do not think we will have a fuel problem in my lifetime - just hope the ones with the nukes does not destroy "our" planet too soon
Originally posted by TorusCoal is NOT a viable alternative to the complete loss of extracted oil and gas. There has to be alternatives. Have you ever seen a strip mine operation? Just take a trip to Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, to see what it entails. Enjoy, and check your constitution at the door. You have NO idea what mining on this level encurs. NONE. And I don't give a damn what pappy said. Work it to see it, and seeing is believing.
Originally posted by Off_The_StreetNonetheless, none of that stuff is going to happen in the near future; the only way I can see our society being preserved (and I believe Mr. Edsinger will agree with me)is to attempt to educate the people on nuclear fission and start to build the plants.
Mr. jgbjgb, I think you miss Mr. Torus' points.
Whether you can get coal out of the ground is not a question; you can.
Whether you can refine coal, tar sands, etc. into oil or even gas, is not a question; you can.
Whether you can build plants or retrofit existing ones to burn that oil or gas cleanly while still producing power is not a question; you can.
The question is whether you can do it cost-effectively.
Originally posted by sardion2000Well this is some out of the box thinking hear so plz don't flame my ideas and keep an open mind
Originally posted by instarIsnt the great American idea, to spend billions now for long term acheivement? (see deep probe thread] Surely thats a better way to spend 420 billion a year than defence! So much for planning for the future, America must think the rest of the world is coming to get them, so paranoid.Solar power and other alternate non fossil fuel power could easily be developed, but the worlds ecomomy is based on oil. Imagine the upheaval if oil was suddenly worthless, geez then America could pull out of iraq eh!
Originally posted by Torus
Not true my friend. The Sandia rapid fire thermo-nuclear explosion and Z-pinch experiments? The power output of a Z-pinch? 80 times the entire power out-put of the entire planets power facilities combined (in X-ray watts) at any given moment. All fired from a machine plugged into a wall outlet (with the assitance of a few capacitors....HUGE capacitors).
Oil is by far the cheapest, most abundant, and cleanest source of energy we have. Nearly every advantage we enjoy today can be traced back to the energy provided by the petroleum industry. Yet the men and women who make our civilization possible are too often treated as pariahs who are damaging the environment. This is a shame. The environmental impacts of petroleum exploration and production are virtually negligible in comparison to the benefits they provide.
We all want to preserve and protect the natural environment, but much of the modern environmental movement is based upon the myth of a primitive harmony with nature that has never existed. Life without oil and technology is a life that is short, dark and impoverished. Let us give thanks that we have been lifted out of darkness and poverty.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweetnow let me ask, why are you concerned?
The Sandia rapid fire thermo-nuclear explosion and Z-pinch experiments?
I think you better go back and tell me how they intend to control and harness the energy? remember the fuss over cold fusion a while back?