[Scape]

Send it futher then. Plenty of wide open space.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

$1:

One thing to keep in mind though is that if (by some off chance) we were to run out of available oil and had to rely wholly on nuclear, I saw a show that said we'd really only have enough uranium for two or three decades.

Pretty much!

We do however have enough coal reserves for centuries.

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Zipperfish

$1:

One thing to keep in mind though is that if (by some off chance) we were to run out of available oil and had to rely wholly on nuclear, I saw a show that said we'd really only have enough uranium for two or three decades.

Pretty much!

We do however have enough coal reserves for centuries.

As usual, you're wrong. According to wiki, 57 years. Coal@wiki Don't you ever get sick of posting bullshit?

[sasquatch2]

From the guy who denounces WIKI.....

unless it backs up HIS BS.

[BartSimpson]

The solution to nuclear waste is simple.

Offer any corporation that can come up with a way to render radioactive waste completely inert a license to exist in Canada (or the US or etc.) 100% tax free for 100 years.

The solution(s) will be forthcoming before the end of the next fiscal year.

[sasquatch2]

three

$1:

85% of the radioactive waste is where the uranium is mined, likely contaminating the watershed.

How do you deal with that?

Can't we all have our own wind and solar power soon? Photovoltaic paint for our houses, microturbines, etc.?

Excellant point about tailings. Mine tips (tailings piles) have always been a problem. Coal tailings tips are usually acidic etc. Whay I find scary are the new technologies to extract Gold from low grade ore that conventional extraction (stamping mill and smelter) cannot work. Heap leach means the low grade ore is put in a huge pile surrounded by a clay dyke and then an toxic solution(usually cyanide) is sprayed upon it for months disolving the gold from the ore.

scary shit

It has been estimated that if the entirity of North Dakota was built into a giant wind farm that North Dakota would not have to enlarge it's electric transmission grid.

Finite energy resources have been forecast for a long time.

In my time I have seen new oil/gas exploited in the South China Sea, The North Sea and the Grand Banks of all places. Absolutely huge reserves of oil shale exist under Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Montana. So I dunno.....I just dunno....

[ShepherdsDog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Zipperfish

$1:

One thing to keep in mind though is that if (by some off chance) we were to run out of available oil and had to rely wholly on nuclear, I saw a show that said we'd really only have enough uranium for two or three decades.

Pretty much!

We do however have enough coal reserves for centuries.

As usual, you're wrong. According to wiki, 57 years. Coal@wiki Don't you ever get sick of posting bullshit?

$1:

At the current production rate, this would last 164 years.[34] At the current global total energy consumption of 15 terawatt,[35] there is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 57 years.

The same source that you quote says that this time frame would be 57 years IF we used coal to provide all the planet's energy needs. We've become less reliant on coal to provide our energy requirements, except in China and India.

Here is a cursory, but decent site that answers a few questions about energy reserves, uses and alternatives.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/energy.html

[sasquatch2]

Good find shep----yeah I was wrong. but then I don't believe in unicorns or santa claus.

but Zipperfish won't read it.

[ShepherdsDog]

Potential natural gas reserves could amount to centuries. We also have to look at reserves vs. resources.

Look at how energy efficiency has improved in hydrocarbon use over the last 60 years alone. With the knowledge that we are using a finite resource hanging over our heads, cleaner and more efficient energy sources will be developed. We will see an end to cheap oil, not an end to the petro chemical industry. Nuclear energy is the best answer based on availability and its environmental impact. I'm not saying that it can't be improved on, just based on current sources it's the best choice we have.

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

From the guy who denounces WIKI.....

unless it backs up HIS BS.

've never denounced wiki. I use it all the time. It seems you can't even get through a single post wihtout bullshit.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Zipperfish

$1:

One thing to keep in mind though is that if (by some off chance) we were to run out of available oil and had to rely wholly on nuclear, I saw a show that said we'd really only have enough uranium for two or three decades.

Pretty much!

We do however have enough coal reserves for centuries.

As usual, you're wrong. According to wiki, 57 years. Coal@wiki Don't you ever get sick of posting bullshit?

$1:

At the current production rate, this would last 164 years.[34] At the current global total energy consumption of 15 terawatt,[35] there is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 57 years.

The same source that you quote says that this time frame would be 57 years IF we used coal to provide all the planet's energy needs. We've become less reliant on coal to provide our energy requirements, except in China and India.

Here is a cursory, but decent site that answers a few questions about energy reserves, uses and alternatives.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/energy.html

That was the assumption, yes--that after all the available oil was used up, how long would coal reserves last as the bulk source of the world's energy.



Nuclear is the best option though, I think. It certainly beats coal. And if the uranium only lasts a few decades, well then maybe we'll have a worrking fusion reactor by then. There's also talk of using a fusion reactor to treat fission waste.