Is abundant energy a passing fad?

Is abundant energy a passing fad?

People live with the expectation that the human race will move forward with regards to science and technology. What if free energy-soup is a condition for our high-tech society?

Gee, looks like we'll have to move on to non-fossil fuel.

It is, but conveniently we're using our brief time with it to develop more long lasting sources of energy (nuclear, renewables, etc.). Remember, there has NEVER been a technological dark age. Even when empires fall, the technology and scientific progression is saved.

Liquid thorium reactors should do us for a good 100,000+ years. I don't like to think about the longlonglong-term though, it's depressing. Hopefully there's a God.

Like what? Is there even a viable option? When's the last time you saw an electric panamax freighter? Cargo truck? Aircraft?

What about petroleum-based fertilizers? Plastics?

Have you though about the amount of infrastructure that would need to be replaced if we should switch to nuclear as a primary source of energy? It's almost everything. Meanwhile we are past the golden age that built all this stuff in the first place. You really think we're gonna make it?

>Remember, there has NEVER been a technological dark age. Even when empires fall, the technology and scientific progression is saved.

As far as we know there's never been a high-tech age before, more importantly there's never really been growth either. Strange that the only period of significant growth should coincide with the only period of fossil-fuel use.

>we will run out of energy meme

Nope. We are already too good at harnessing other energy sources to be completely sent back to the stone age. We used fossil fuels as a launching mechanism (energy wise) for civilization but their use is coming to an end regardless of how much is leftover.

TLDR: Our tech for harnessing other energy sources is advancing far faster than fossil fuels are depleting.

>advancing far faster than fossil fuels are depleting

not to mention we discover and are able to use each year more fossil fuel reserves.

Is the sun a passing fad?

Or the molten core of the earth?

How about the way that weird moon thing keeps draging down the rotation speed with literally tidal forces?

Is there anything that can stop the Eternal Sven? Not even muslims and cucksheds?

Yep.

Its likely that we've barely scratched the surface (literally) of fossil fuels on Earth.

As our ability to extract deeper materials becomes more reliable, there are entire pools of untapped resources that suddenly become useful.

Not only are we on the brink of making fossil fuels worthless, but there are also massive reserves that are untapped only because of how deep they are.

>2 sentences
>tldr: 1 sentence
Oh okay.

Civilization existed long before fossil-fuel use began.

>the global production system can function on solar and geothermal

How do you figure? Please explain.

^ See above.

The amount of fossil fuel on earth is probably limited don't you think?


Please read some of my posts before you make yours. Can you really run tens of thousands of cargo freighters on nuclear, solar or geothermal? Can you run aircraft? Can you keep agriculture going without losing a single % in efficiency?

Something's gotta give people!

>Its likely that we've barely scratched the surface (literally) of fossil fuels on Earth.

Geologist can estimate the amount of undiscovered reserves. I suggest you take a look at that.

>Go deeper

The more energy that is used to recover the fuel, the less energy is left for humans to use. At a certain point the energy in the fuel recovered is less than the energy used to recover it, making the practice unviable.

Not only is the amount of oil to recover declining, so is the net energy gain of recovered oil.

>the global production system can function on solar and geothermal

>explain

Hmm, its almost as if all fossil fuel energy came from the sun in the first place.

Sweden is letting refugees use the internet now?

Geologists don't know anything.

They've been screaming peak oil for decades.

They actually haven't been right about anything at all related to fossil fuel estimates, ever.

You're like more than double-spacing. How is this not a climate crime?

All these newlines oy vey! It's a shoah on my eyes, what's left of them! I can't find my bagel!

>The amount of fossil fuel on earth is probably limited don't you think?

Yes it is limited, but there is a shit ton not discovered and a shit ton that was not accessible just 20 years ago.
Another thing is technology coal liquefaction was only big in WW2 when the german ran out and was forgotten, since the late 2000s early 10s they are now actively researching it again and china builds a shitload of liquefaction plants.

China has known coal reserves to sustain the worlds energy demand for the next 100 years or so.

you're an idiot. nuclear power plants tie into the electric grid just like any other power source.

Not really. You have to lead or follow the frequency to mediate the current draw and have fun trying to start it back up without an incoming beat frequency.

Current reserves alone are 200 odd years of oil and coal.

That's without touching nuclear.

The main problem we have is the production of worthless consumer goods.

I believe it. As oil deposits and other fuels are depleted, the rising costs of production will decrease the energy surplus which powers everything.
Everything should be fine if we manage to reach more advanced and lasting energy sources. But if we decline instead, we might never be able to climb the hill again without cheap fossil fuels.

200 more years of nuclear has terrible ROI considering the going trends of pollution and lack of brainpower for genetic re-engineering and the like.

It's like how stupid the cryptography people are when they forget to DUH consider time as a dimension.

Nuclear and electrical generators. Cars and smaller vehicles could be powered by electrical generators while trains traveling on electrified rails have been a thing for a while.

>there's never really been growth either.
What is the Roman Empire, what is the European Renaissance.

>Hmm, its almost as if all fossil fuel energy came from the sun in the first place.

What the fuck? And you're gonna turn solar into petroleum without expending any energy? Stay in school.

>Geologists don't know anything.

And yet they are the one's we rely on to keep recovering oil at a low cost...

I'm keeping it simple for the crowd. Also I thought I was responding to another poster.

Yeah, I expect we have about a 100 years of coal at current levels of growth. The big problem before then is that when inefficiency occurs in the production chain (like the need for coal liquefaction) THAT INEFFICIENCY COSTS ENERGY.

So losing petroleum and needing to substitute a bunch of infrastructure and processes in order to output the same important materials as an impact on a bunch of other production chains, and ultimately on total fossil-fuel reserves.

Economic growth at all these times was stagnant. It didn't even make sense to analyze the economy back then in terms of growth. Nowadays yearly % growth is considered bad, or a "mature economy", but it was unheard of before industrialisation. And that's not even comparing with the performance of developing countries, like which maintained 10% for years

Okay so you're gonna replace the entire transport & airline industry with new electrical vehicles. The entire chemical industry with electrical and non-petroleum sources.. You have to do it with the remaining fossil fuel and keep the efficiency of the fossil-fuel system, good luck.

shhh don't remind them about how much the pharmajew petrochemical industry relies on it

they might stop taking drugs

Maybe, but just think of the stuff that has to be replaced if we change to electric. And you have to build a shipping fleet of 100k strong with, I guess, nuclear reactors?

Also consider the amount of materials that are made from petroleum sources or with petroleum used for the processes, change all that out..

At the end of all that you will have switched us to another fossil fuel and increased the use of that one by many times, and the clock starts ticking again.

We should capture the heat from torching cucksheds. That was the mistake we made when Alberta was burning out of control.

I believe the considerations about nuclear freighters have more to do with security, politics and the "globalist" nature of the merchant navy.
Russia already has plenty of nuclear icebreakers, which need to be much more powerful. Neopanamax ships are around as big as the nuclear Nimitz class, and we'll likely see even larger ships in the future as the canals are expanded and other sea lanes become more important. Nuclear freighters might be more efficient by then. That is, if they aren't already, but not built because of other reasons. For example, I know that New Zealand forbids nuclear ships from docking.

We better learn to live on light or something, get busy meditatin'.

Either that or we are officially playing population freeze-out, blinds go up every 10 years until we're back to 1 billion.

We really just need to gas the kikes.

I'm fairly certain we are going to hit a wall and probably regress at some point. Take a look at how we live post recession as compared to before. We have regressed socially and in terms of quality of life and will continue to do so.

energy the least of our problem, ignorant humans are more problematic, far more problematic.

In the absence of fossil fuels, the only viable alternative for international shipping would be nuclear power. That is, if you wanted to maintain the status quo. I work at the ports here in Vancouver. This week we are getting a ship at Deltaport so large that we are going to have to turn it around so that the gantries can discharge the starboard side. If you want to maintain this capacity, you can only go nuclear.

Of course, a combination of solar power, sails and batteries could possibly do the trick for much smaller vessels... This would increase the size of the fleet by a huge margin, or not. The increased cost of shipping will definitely see a contraction in the economy and reduce our quality of life.

Shipping capacity is disintegrating as major lines build super Panamax and higher vessels that displace smaller vessels in the fleet. We are witnessing a consolidation of global shipping under a handful of lines, most of which are forming alliances to fend off Maersk.

I'm not sure what it all means. But I do feel that we are reaching an apex and it will either lead to a plateau or a decline... Hanjin is just one example of a failed shipping line in many. The Scarlett and the Vienna are still bumming around Vancouver with nothing to do.