The oil is running out - despite Fracking

[Tìtstewan]

The oil is running out - despite Fracking

When it comes to the proponents of fracking, heralding the beginning of a new method, enter the oil age: Fracking should not only provide cheap fuel prices, but also make producing states from countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia independently.

Environmentalists feared that fracking contaminates groundwater when doing various chemicals are passed into the ground. A new study dampens expectations now also economically. The way to get to the conveyor systems oil and gas from deep rock formations by hydraulic pressure hesitation, the end of fossil fuels only slightly beyond, the researchers of the "Energy Watch Group" in its report "Fossil and Nuclear Fuels - the Supply Outlook".



Source: http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Startseite.14+M5d637b1e38d.0.html

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

We should long have moved to nuclear power, and solar power when the circumstances don't allow for safe waste manipulation. And charge all our cars with electricity. Oil is pretty much completely replaceable, if not for 1. the anti-nuclear lobby, which leaves only things like solar, wind, and geothermal as "politically correctly good to the environment", but unfortunately not nearly efficient enough 2. energy companies holding on to their coal plants, which are somehow more accepted by the community than a much safer nuclear plant even though the radiation just from the coal blasting into the air is way bigger than the amortized radiation from a nuclear plant, counting in the probability of a meltdown.

[Tìtstewan]

Wind, solar, geothermal and hydro power is the future. Maybe we will be bringing a economic fusion reactor to the market (ITER or Wendelstein 7-X). If a nuclear power plant 'goes high', then there is considerably more radiation than coal.

Here are a large project called 'Desertec'.

The question is whether all this can actually be implemented.

[Banshee314]

I am certain that nuclear fusion can be controlled in the future.
But see how much research money is spent on a global scale.
I have read somewhere about $ 10 billion (10^9 $). What is already 10 billion?

We are not in a hurry? 

[Tìtstewan]

Wendelstein 7-X ~1 billion €
ITER ~ 16 billion €
Desertec ? €

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

If a nuclear power plant 'goes high', then there is considerably more radiation than coal.

Of course. That's why I said *amortized* radiation. Basically, imagine that you have 1 billion nuclear reactors and 1 billion coal generators. Some of the nuclear reactors will have meltdowns, some of the coal generators will have fires etc. But in the end all of the radiation from the nuclear reactors, including the broken reactors, will be far lower than the total amount of radiation from the 1 billion coal generators, some of which will also have bad coal-related accidents.

That's only counting radiation. Coal sucks not because of radiation, but because of pollution. Nuclear reactors will produce huge amounts of radioactive waste, but given how paranoid regulating agencies are about radioactive waste, they all end up very deep inside a mountain. Yes, mountains will eventually fill up, but we will run out of nuclear fuel to burn (like 1000 years?) far before we run out of places to store the waste. Other than that, nuclear reactors don't pollute at all. Coal plants produce lots of toxic fumes, greenhouse gases, and they can even explode. Nobody cares that people die from ingesting coal dust, coal explosions, and etc far more than from nuclear meltdowns. WAY more people die in a typical coal plant explosion than in the Fukushima nuclear accident.

Also, ironically solar power kills more people per watt than nuclear power, because people have a small chance of falling from the roof when installing the panels......