Article - This is how Big Oil will die

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,532
39,624
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
My thoughts are more along the lines of :

Low oil price = less $ for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia

High US Demand -> High Oil Price

Low US Demand -> Low Oil Price

In the future India and China will be the main demanders but if we were able to reduce our consumption to no more than what we produced, we could crater the market and diminish the power of the first three big oil producers that are throwing their weight around.
You haven't been keeping up. That's exactly why the price at the pump is below $2...
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
There is only one problem with the electric cars. Battery life. Just think about what happens with your cordless drills. You pay what seems like a decent price then the battery dies and you feel like you are paying through the nose for a little battery. The battery for motorized vehicle are so far extremely expensive and not easily changed. I could be wrong but I don't see it in my lifetime and after that I'll let the ones left figure it out. It was an interesting read but I just don't agree with the time frame or if it will even happen. I'm waiting to see what happens when at year five you r car is a throw away item because the batteries are shot.
The Prius has been around for 10 years
 

Intl.Aperture

All-American
Aug 12, 2015
3,681
23
57
Chesapeake, Virginia
The real problem is that electricity isn't a direct replacement for petroleum fuels, which act as both storage medium and energy - the electricity has to be generated somewhere.

I do think big oil's days are numbers, but believe it's more likely come from nuclear - and I believe the future lies in small, localized Liquid fluoride thorium reactors.


We can even use LFTRs to create clean fuel for internal combustion engines...
I finally watched this and while I grasped some of it, there was a lot that fell through the cracks of my feeble mind.

What would the counter arguments to using Thorium be?
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
What would the counter arguments to using Thorium be?
Right now I'm having trouble finding many, other than people who:
1- are terrified of anything 'atomic', and
2- work for competing energy creators

These are listed on Wikipedia (grain of salt - HAR!):
  • Little development compared to most Gen IV designs.
  • Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.
  • Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features.
  • MSR designs rely on nickel-based alloys to hold the molten salt. Alloys based on nickel and iron are prone to embrittlement under high neutron flux.
  • Corrosion risk.
  • As a breeder reactor, a modified MSR might be able to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
  • The MSRE and aircraft nuclear reactors used enrichment levels so high that they approach the levels of nuclear weapons. These levels would be illegal in most modern regulatory regimes for power plants. Some modern designs avoid this issue.
  • Neutron damage to solid moderator materials can limit the core lifetime of an MSR that makes moderately fast neutrons. For example, the MSRE was designed so that its graphite moderator sticks had very low tolerances, so neutron damage could change their size without damage. "Two fluid" MSR designs are unable to use graphite piping because graphite changes size when it is bombarded with neutrons, and graphite pipes would crack and leak.

It's really an elegant way of generating energy, though there are disadvantages. There's no free lunch, but I believe something like this will be the future of electrical power generation.
 

Intl.Aperture

All-American
Aug 12, 2015
3,681
23
57
Chesapeake, Virginia
Right now I'm having trouble finding many, other than people who:
1- are terrified of anything 'atomic', and
2- work for competing energy creators

These are listed on Wikipedia (grain of salt - HAR!):
  • Little development compared to most Gen IV designs.
  • Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.
  • Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features.
  • MSR designs rely on nickel-based alloys to hold the molten salt. Alloys based on nickel and iron are prone to embrittlement under high neutron flux.
  • Corrosion risk.
  • As a breeder reactor, a modified MSR might be able to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
  • The MSRE and aircraft nuclear reactors used enrichment levels so high that they approach the levels of nuclear weapons. These levels would be illegal in most modern regulatory regimes for power plants. Some modern designs avoid this issue.
  • Neutron damage to solid moderator materials can limit the core lifetime of an MSR that makes moderately fast neutrons. For example, the MSRE was designed so that its graphite moderator sticks had very low tolerances, so neutron damage could change their size without damage. "Two fluid" MSR designs are unable to use graphite piping because graphite changes size when it is bombarded with neutrons, and graphite pipes would crack and leak.

It's really an elegant way of generating energy, though there are disadvantages. There's no free lunch, but I believe something like this will be the future of electrical power generation.
That video was quite old (2012) what makes you think it's made enough headway to become the standard for those productions? I had never heard of it until you posted about it. Has it scored any contracts, is it being used as described already?
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
That video was quite old (2012) what makes you think it's made enough headway to become the standard for those productions? I had never heard of it until you posted about it. Has it scored any contracts, is it being used as described already?
Outside of the US Navy, I'm unaware of any current development, but I'm not in the field.

http://egeneration.org/molten-salt-reactors-national-security/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterd...tors-part-of-americas-long-termenergy-future/

On the home front, the USDoEnergy is historically pretty cautious about what they allow to be built. It will take some time, but I believe these will be common plants in the future. Considering internal combustion engines will be common for a long time (many decades, at least), we have time to figure out what's best.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.