Keep using fossil fuels to save the planet

[JOE]

Nuclear power isnt that renewable.



Nuclear reactors need uranium.



The current world supply of uranium left is about 100 years.

[Anonymous]

Nuclear power isnt that renewable.



Nuclear reactors need uranium.



The current world supply of uranium left is about 100 years.

Bullshit.



The element thorium and other new technologies may provide infinite fuel needed to power nuclear reactors.



Thor Energy in Norway successfully used thorium in a nuclear reactor to generate energy. Thorium is a radioactive metal found in almost all plants, water and soil.

[JOE]

Actually one major flaw of the OP's argument is that he doesn't appear to seek the use of alternative fuels as a way of preserving the fossil fuels which we have left.



Lets say for a minute that they don't leave a carbon footprint or cause global warming. Even if this were true, it's senseless to burn up what precious reserves we have left. A better use of fossil fuels is to manufacture recyclable plastics which could be used over and over again. The OP's strategy seems rather profligate. Its akin to chopping down our finest oak forest trees and using them for kindling. Of course the better strategy would be to use such fine wood in high end furniture which could potentially last for hindreds if tears.



We've only got 300 to 500 years of global oil supply left of abundant oil left. It is not an infinite renewable resource like wind water or solar power. So naturally the better choice is to tap in the latter for use as an energy source rather than oil. Oil could be put to better and less wasteful means where its needed

If you had read what the Seoul brother wrote, you would see that he opposes wind and solar which is old useless technology. He is  pro nuclear and hydro. The only practical truly renewable energy sources.



As for that peak oil bullshit, that was debunked long ago. Scientists are using algae to create a biofuel that closely resembles crude oil. This's actually not all that surprising given that most of the oil found in shale is thought to come from marine algae that was buried and converted into oil as it cooked underground over time. However, a new process discovered by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has found a way to speed up the cooking process so that it can now convert a small mixture of algae and water into a kind of crude oil in less than an hour.



But, even if you buy the peak oil myth, then wouldn't that also apply to rare earth metals used for wind and solar. China has like eighty per cent of the world's currently recoverable  supply. What about any kind of metal as far as that goes. What about potash essential for mass agriculture. If one is non renewable, than why not all the others.

Yes, oil like just about everything else we use, is finite. So is uranium & as you point out, the materials used to build solar panels. Eventually they will all run out. There is no lossless form of energy & probably never will be.



I dont think that most people truly believe we can ditch oil for the foreseeable future. It will be with us for quite some tome to come.



All I'm saying is its better to make more efficient use and waste less of it. Likewise if a hybrid car can get twice as much fuel efficiency than a fuel only car, the better option is the one which uses less fuel. It burns cleaner & ends up costing the motorist much less at the pump. Given a vehicle that uses less gas and costs less to run, why wouldnt a person choose that option instead?



Or if a home can rely upon multiple energy sources other than traditional heating  methods to reduce their energy bill, then why not? Even if its 5-10%, thats still a savings. Solar power is commonly used for lighting buildings, heating pools. I used to live in a building complex with a swimming pool which relied upon solar power to heat it. So instead of using natural gas it saved a lot of money. At the same time the units in the complex relied upon other sources of energy. But the alternative energy source acted as a helper rather than a replacement. In other words it was a hybrid system.



In a nutshell all Im saying is use what we oil we have smarter as opposed to how it was 50 yeats ago.

[Gaon]

Herman said that oil is not a finite resource like metals or even land. He also said new nuclear reactors can  substitute the element thorium and other new technologies.

[JOE]

Herman said that oil is not a finite resource like metals or even land. He also said new nuclear reactors can  substitute the element thorium and other new technologies.

But those sources are hypothetical & their potential has not be realized yet and possibly never will.



I think there were some scientists in Spain who were trying to make oil from algae.



But it jas not cone to fruition yet.



Uranium is still the primary source of fuel for nuclear power plants.



Its like environmentalists who idealize nuclear fusion or hydrogen power as some holy grail, which theoretically could originate from water. Nice idea of course, but like the ideas Herman has outlined, it has not been realized yet.



Herman is just a pro oil/ pro nuclear version of them.

[Anonymous]

Herman said that oil is not a finite resource like metals or even land. He also said new nuclear reactors can  substitute the element thorium and other new technologies.

But those sources are hypothetical & their potential has not be realized yet and possibly never will.



I think there were some scientists in Spain who were trying to make oil from algae.



But it jas not cone to fruition yet.



Uranium is still the primary source of fuel for nuclear power plants.



Its like environmentalists who idealize nuclear fusion or hydrogen power as some holy grail, which theoretically could originate from water. Nice idea of course, but like the ideas Herman has outlined, it has not been realized yet.



Herman is just a pro oil/ pro nuclear version of them.

If you had  read what he wrote, which you never do, you's know they are in use now.

[JOE]

Herman said that oil is not a finite resource like metals or even land. He also said new nuclear reactors can  substitute the element thorium and other new technologies.

But those sources are hypothetical & their potential has not be realized yet and possibly never will.



I think there were some scientists in Spain who were trying to make oil from algae.



But it jas not cone to fruition yet.



Uranium is still the primary source of fuel for nuclear power plants.



Its like environmentalists who idealize nuclear fusion or hydrogen power as some holy grail, which theoretically could originate from water. Nice idea of course, but like the ideas Herman has outlined, it has not been realized yet.



Herman is just a pro oil/ pro nuclear version of them.

If you had  read what he wrote, which you never do, you's know they are in use now.

But if all these sources he's cited are so prevalent, why have they not taken over the world yet?



I suspect for the same reason hydrogen powered cars haven't either:

[JOE]

This article cites the difficulties of producing oil from algae:



https://theconversation.com/amp/algal-biofuel-production-is-neither-environmentally-nor-commercially-sustainable-82095">https://theconversation.com/amp/algal-b ... able-82095">https://theconversation.com/amp/algal-biofuel-production-is-neither-environmentally-nor-commercially-sustainable-82095



Says with existing technology there would have to be a pond the size of belgium to make it viable.



Plus it would have to be located near industrial areas

[Anonymous]

But if all these sources he's cited are so prevalent, why have they not taken over the world yet?



I suspect for the same reason hydrogen powered cars haven't either:





Because they aren't viable nor have been perfected yet.



Otherwise we'd be ditching the Saudis as our main oil suppliers & just scooping algae out of our ponds.



Or exploration for uranium would cease.



In other words, they're still pipe dreams.



Theyre great in theory or on paper but haven't been translated into widespread application or use

I think his main points were that we  are not running  out of oil and even if we were we'd find new ways to extract it..



It's literally used for everything.



The other thing I took was that wind and solar are old technology only used for electricity, they'vet have been tried and discarded before..



They wouldn't exist if we didn't create an artificial need for them..



And as Seoul showed, wind contributes more to warming  than anything else  used for fuel, or electricity ..



Besides the fact they use so much land, need backup and totally puts us at the mercy of China which controls most of the world's rare earth metals.

[Anonymous]

This article cites the difficulties of producing oil from algae:

Nobody except for progtards cites the convo. Scientific breakthroughs have already debunked that link



ExxonMobil biofuel partnership makes oil from algae 'breakthrough'

Collaboration with Craig Venter biotech doubles oil content to industrially useful level

https://www.ft.com/content/85bb7f54-54da-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f">https://www.ft.com/content/85bb7f54-54d ... 9e2700005f">https://www.ft.com/content/85bb7f54-54da-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f



Not to mention that unlike other biofuels, renewable oil does not rob the world of one of it's most precious resources, arable land.



Not that we will need to worry about making it commercially viable anytime soon since we have a few centuries left of current recoverable oil and gas for heating, transportation and petrochemicals. Electricity will be powered by the cheapest and most abundant sources available. Some will be renewable like hydro, some wont' like coal and some will always remain neither renewable nor practical, solar and  wind.