When will technology kill the oil industry

When will technology kill the oil industry

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I
youtube.com/watch?v=LUvPTJ6-RWo
shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2015/shell-to-install-nationwide-network-hydrogen-vehicle-fuelling-pumps-germany.html
youtube.com/watch?v=VzupfyrWiew
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

When the Oil Industry stops having money. Which is probably never.

When the ((((old men)))) who own the oil operation have finished buying out all the alternative energy sources.

Thanks to based Elon Musk, you will soon be able to harness solar energy from your roof tiles and it will look and feel good.

It will look good because they look just like regular house tiles, and it will feel good because your energy bill be smaller and you will be helping to save the planet.

when more efficient (30%) solar panels become really cheap... which is kinda difficult, at least until scientists find ways to build solar PV cells from cheap materials with such efficiency

I can already buy that here in Europe

When the oil runs out

When alternative energy sources become cheaper, which will take a while because it is far faster and economically efficient to get energy from burning fuel than it is from the sun or wind.
Contrary to popular belief, that won't happen any time soon.

when we complete the war on terror

How much does it cost?

I love gas engines as an enthusiast but I think the majority of our power needs to be renewable. Once gas gets a little more expensive I think we will see development again. Tesla has successfully made electric cars cool so there's that.

lol.

When the energy density of batteries reaches or surpasses that of oil. Or, until oil runs out, whichever occurs first. Battery tech is complex stuff, you can't have "boffins magicing it up with science" as progress in that area doesn't scale the same way computers and lithography do with a die shrink every once in awhile.

Worth noting here is that the more energy you pack in a small space, the more volatile things get. You can already see it happening with li-ion batteries compared to the previous generation of Ni-MH types. Large supercapacitors can be crazy-dangerous and explode anything fleshy that goes near their terminals.

€300 for 4 tiles

That's expensive, my local solar panel instalation company charges cheaper and with better support most likely

Hopefully soon.
brilliantlightpower.com

>muh efficiency
You certainly don't know enough to contribute anything worthwhile

when renewable power can power our needs for a similar cost... i am all for renewable energy sources, but it has to make sense economically. can we switch? sure, but do you want to go bankrupt to do it?

>you will soon be able to harness solar energy from your roof tiles
>200 days in year is winter
>160 out of 165 rest days are cloudy m, rainy or whatever
This doesn't work.

sucks to be you

Not in the Trump-Putin era. They will drill the arctic until the world melts.

But I like winter

any smart person will tell you that nuclear is the way to go.

>what is tesla powerwall
>was is a gas backup generator
I wasn't a huge fan of solar either, but I like this solution. I wish nuclear would get funding but it seems all the money got dumped into renewables and they are turning out better than expected.
Shame about euro fags who have no roof space and no land for solar farms.

>I wish nuclear would get funding
>implying it doesn't
>implying it doesn't get enough
>implying it is the fault of inadequate funding and not volatility of the investment

if you have to use gas then you're not really solving any problem, are you?

Yes

See pic related. Nuclear doesn't take up a ton of land like solar does, although having them on houses fixes this issue. The only issue is nuclear waste, although that wouldn't be a problem if we got nuclear fusion working.

You can only have 1 gas plant serving an area instead of a bunch, while solar does the heavy lifting.

You're optimizing the most common case, which is a common and good practice.

>all these tree hugging liberals

no wonder you're all poor. energy industries make big bucks and pay big bucks so fuck off.

>fusion
A meme
"Nuclear" means fission
Fission is often a good idea, but it is giant investment that may not pay off. It does get funding, but it doesn't stop it from being a risky investment.
Fusion is a holy grail and more of a meme than anything else and anyone saying anything like
>we should just rush fusion and be set for life
is at best childishly naive.

not an argument

(((they))) found this thread pretty quick

the oil lobby is well funded indeed

i know, it's hard to argue with facts isn't it?

Malevolence, stupidity etc.

Many retards genuinely believe coal+oil is the way to go.
Many of those are fine with talking about things they have no idea about.

Sup Forums has a discord where they look for threads on other boards and collectively spam them
Can't wait until they get btfo by gookmoot

Nuclear currently means fission because it's all we have, but it can also refer to fusion. You can't call fission a risky invention, despite obvious evidence it works. Solar is the real risky investment; the efficiency is trash, and it's only gotten better recently because of research and funding.
But we should fund it more than now, although it is an even more risky investment. A couple billion dollars a year is peanuts to the U.S. government, and fusion is a very promising technology. It's only a meme because governments refuse to give it any money. ITER isn't late to start deuterium-tritium fusion until almost 2030. That's pretty sad.

>helping to save the planet
>wasting money on solar
No. user you really have a more realistic view on the issue.
First:
You're not saving or hurting the planet. You're making an investment to prevent large scale societal repairs in the future. The people who will be hit the hardest are the poorest. So the developing nations, China and the US are gonna have major catastrophe. Russia I don't know. They're not as spread and climate change may even be an opportunity for them. I doubt they come out positive. That'd be extreme.
Second:
Sustainable energy is far from mature. You're not supposed to invest into the infrastructure you're supposed to invest into research while going for more safe-cheap nuclear. We don't have the storage capacity to have wind/solar/wave energy be a feasible solution without MAJOR current peak cuts. If we could have decent batteries and 'charge' our houses so the entire grid doesn't fail when we put on the kettle that'd be great. Let's at least get there first.
Look to Sweden or France if you want a good look at a proper scattershot approach to power. A backbone of nuclear in both cases. In Swedens case they have a significant portion of hydro power. But it's not enough for them to go away from nuclear entirely. They're in a position (like most western countries) where them changing energy production is detrimental and a very poor investment.

If they shifted their efforts into wind and solar and just put it into research they'd be golden. They could do serious work then and could probably get out ahead in the economic game.

You lazy people who care just enough to make destructive statements on sustainable energy are the worst. You're why we haven't fixed this shit yet. I'm confident we could have clear plans in place to solve this shit right now if you weren't retarded like Germany when they voted to go off nuclear. They're gonna fail horribly and the result will either be importing nuclear energy or coal.
It's shit.

Also. Since you're clearly a lazy person.
Here's an inspiring Ted talk from Bill gates in 2010.
youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I
Share it among your friends you stupid hippie.
I'm ashamed to share this planet with you.

youtube.com/watch?v=LUvPTJ6-RWo

Almost like energy is harder to acquire than cheap plastic

When people stop being so god damned scared of nuclear power.

>You can't call fission a risky invention
I can
Read up on why isn't everyone going nuclear despite the seeming advantages.
tl;dr version: Because it's too risky to fund a giant plant that will take decades to pay off

>Solar is the real risky investment; the efficiency is trash
In many places it approaches grid parity. In some rare ones, exceeds it.
I hope you mean "efficiency" as in "W/$", not "% of light converted to electricity", because the latter would mean you don't know anything about the subject and need to read up on economy and not memes.

>It's only a meme because governments refuse to give it any money.
No proof of that anywhere. The cold facts are that we don't have economically viable fusion or any proven projections.
Anything more optimistic is just that: optimism.

When government no longer does the bidding of the oil industry.

This is just a testament to the great pumpjack design to not need replacement desu senpai

>% solar
Well its the % solar per dollar obviously. Making a blanket statement that someone who considers a specific cells energy light to electrical energy ratio too low is stupid is ridiculous.

It's more constructive to argue about the watt/dollar in certain circles though.

Also how can you consider him talking about the solar% when he's literally talking about an investment? Clearly he's talking watt/dollar.

I did mean watt/$. Although I guess my statement also applies to conversion efficiency.
Nuclear does have a big up front cost, but the plants last a long time. They also cost money to decommission, but this is frequently factored into the operating costs, so it doesn't turn into another big expense.
Nuclear also faces a lot of opposition from environmentalists, and normal people don't care for them either.

However I believe nuclear offers a good balance of environment and economy. Sure waste is an issue, especially in the U.S. because the 10 people who live in northern Nevada didn't want it in yucca mountains. Coal is still cheaper for kWh/$, but is obviously shit for the environment. Also solar isn't as viable in Europe, because of the land shortage and less direct sunlight. It seems France has the smartest idea about energy. While Germany toys around with renewables, France has a solid backbone of nuclear and then does stuff on top of that.

We don't know for sure fusion works, but it is a great goal to work at.

- When other sources of energy become cheaper
- When other sources of energy become easier to implement
- When oil companies finally find the kindness in their hearts to stop lobbying the hell out of everything they can see

so basically, never.

When Islam dies.

that meme is decades old, he didnt make it and he isnt the first one to put solar panels on roofs.

>-When oil companies finally find the kindness in their hearts to stop lobbying the hell out of everything they can see

But muh profit, muh capitalism can do no wrong, my free market(to exploit).
Do you hate freedom?!

What about being less selfish and using less wattage? Why is curbing greed never on anyone's mind..

Also, how much wattage would we save if every Sup Forumstard and Sup Forumsent had a girlfriend and didn't porn?

You'd actually get a lot more watts used since instead of the porn there would be lots of laundry.
That and women use more electricity than men

ceramic l-ion batteries

when you can post about flouride thorium salt reactors and not get instantly attacked by 5 different posters on anonymous message boards.

And, you excersise your beautiful quadriceps for even better sex next time.

Rinse and repeat.

>posting Apple products in the OP
>based Elon Musk
OP is a faggot.

Never

so when is it ?
>implying

go nuclear or go poor.

I do think wind turbines look really cool.

this

they're an eyesore

When we finally get of our asses and make an efficient fusion plant. Seriously you'd think that more people would invest but the global fusion budget is only about 1 billion.

Then stop living in finland

You can see solar panels on 10% eurofag roofs. A lot of their electrical engineering colleges actually have solar panels.

The Netherlands will save the world.

shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2015/shell-to-install-nationwide-network-hydrogen-vehicle-fuelling-pumps-germany.html

For a government, that is not a particularly risky investment, since they work on timelines that stretches decades already. That's how they plan schools, infrastructure, zoning laws, and so on already.

Unless of course, you politicise your government so that every pleb thinks that their opinion is needed and/or wanted. That's when shit goes to hell.

There's a reason the Chinese are building shit, and we aren't. Because we're utterly hamstrung by democracy and thus keep voting to sniff our own farts instead of doing anything.

When we do choose what projects we invest in, the cost of making a choice is incredibly high because society now starts IRL shitposting for months about what's best, and the thing with the best ad-campaign tends to win.

I really think that communism would work better than this shit some times.

Is that a thing that exists?

>reddit

when all the oil is gone

>SJWs
>shill for shitty developers or """artists"""
>Sup Forums
>shill for big industries
When did it become cool to be a corporate dicksucker? The fuck do any of them get out of this?

>use less wattage
>stop being selfish
No real connection there.
See This kind of 'feel good' environmentalism is the worst.

It's like trying to cure heart disease with voodoo.

Because curbing greed always somehow translates into rich assholes flying to the middle of the desert, where they will have comfortable air conditioning and carefully misted sand pathways to ensure no one's shoes gets dirty, just to draft laws to make it more difficult for poor people to stay warm in the winter.

I'm fine with whatever is cost effective and efficient provided government stays out of energy. I'd likely hedge my bet that nuclear and oil/gas are obscenely better and are curbed through the centrally planned government. The whole green or renewable fad seems forced. Nothing but redistribution of resources that are better spent in actual profitable areas.

>NIMBYism
>Fear of radiation/atomz!

Yes nuclear has a troublesome past, but hating wind power is just fucking absurd
>NIMBYism
>They kill birds!
>muh countryside aesthetic
>But they need rare materials to build!

It wont be gookmoot but Dear Leader Trump who fucks them over by removing net neutrality. This site will disappear and they will have no where to go.

But what about long-term effects on environment and climate?

Are you saying there aren't one, or that they aren't a problem?

There is a negative to any and all means to produce energy. They all have disastrous effects on the environment. Some more than others. Wind/Solar are extremely harmful to the environment and haven't been worth it in comparison to oil and gas. When you weigh the pros and cons all the wishful thinking just ends up burning a hole in your pocket. Provided of course there is no subsidy/taxpayer gravy train or stifling legislation.

Incorrect.

Fossil fuel energy had massive negative impact on the environment. Hydro, Wind, Sun and nuclear are all much more eco-friendly in the long run.

If the money needed to "reverse" the negative effects of each energy source, the price of fossil fuel energy would go up by at least order of magnitude, while other would barely change. Especially nuclear, which is almost pure.

All of the radioactive waste in the world could fit in a small warehouse, sealed and buried

>SJWs
>shill for shitty developers or """artists"""
I've actually noticed that but also that leftists shill for multi national corps and big business. It's sort of glaring when you aren't in the self imposed echo chamber of leftist groupthink. It's like a default setting where if you don't have an opinion you just go left since it's the safe choice and requires no thought. Osmosis of a sort to a degree.

It's not incorrect. Fossil Fuels are a superior source of energy massively outweighing the negatives. Wind and Solar are not eco friendly and aren't better in the long run as things stand currently or near future. Resources are finite.

No. Simply no.
You should study the subject more before you make any such claims.

>You should study the subject more before you make any such claims.
Exactly. If you actually looked at things objectively you would notice even Coal is more energy efficient despite the added burden of making it "cleaner". It still outproduces by quite a large margin and is still cheaper.

It was also noted you neglected the impact of Hydro on the climate and environment. Suppose it's fine just destroying a whole area as long as you don't live there.

why is wind and solar left out of these?
Someone must have fallen out of a wind mill.

Saying coal is more efficient is like saying borrowing money is more efficient way to get money than working.

>It was also noted you neglected the impact of Hydro on the climate and environment.
I'm not saying that all other have no impact. But that impact can be controlled and isolated. Dams are built in places where effect will be minimal. Nuclear might produce extremely dangerous waste, but that waste can be stored properly outside the ecosystem. Coal and gas on the other had poisons the WHOLE ecosystem so you cannot just isolate that one effect.

That's what I mean, except the big businesses are studios and shit like Sony Pictures. Look at how many fucking retards lined up to defend Ghostbusters 2016 despite being a fucking obvious cashgrab.

>When will technology kill the oil industry
When will politics kill the oil industry*

In the UK, 14.2GW is generated from wind energy.
In 2010-2015 an average of 160 people have died in wind turbine accidents per year.
That would mean 0.09 deaths per GW, a factor of 500 less than nuclear related deaths.

Guess what electricity is made from.

>I'm not saying that all other have no impact. But that impact can be controlled and isolated. Dams are built in places where effect will be minimal
Hydro leads to methane release.

How much of it? How much compared to coal/gas CO2 or animal husbandry?

{cum noises} Going to be so nice when across the board in America there is no electricity bills as it is a natural surface of the house when renting.

When Mr Fusion become comercially viable

It's really simple.

Chemistry and similar fields cannot attract the smartest people like CS, CE and math can.

Advanced AI built by CS, CE and math will solve this problem.

Double doubles of TRUTH.

this.

It's sad that the only reason it can't be implemented is because you can't build nukes with the reactor waste.

youtube.com/watch?v=VzupfyrWiew

what is (((this))) meme

In US, it's a private investment. Government helps some, but in the end it's up to the investor to get it up and running.
And investors don't want to spend gigashekels just to find out that the market changed and they will not get it all back.

There are multiple ways government helps nuclear investments to pay off:
>guaranteed minimum electricity price, subsidy if the real price drops below that
>carbon tax, which flushes out polluters and increases prices
>favorable loans
etc.
It's just that it still ends up being a giant investment that takes decades to start paying off. And "people" with money can get better returns by swindling and lobbying than by investing long-term.

>I really think that communism would work better than this shit some times.
It could, but that depends on who would rule.
Communism with Trump's people would just turn into
>it's the best for common good to burn literally only coal and oil
>solar, wind and nuclear is now illegal, except for military and electronics operating in space. they are too polluting and dangerous!