RE: The ITER Project: Future of Endless Clean Energy?
Very nice post. Disclaimer: my comment is entirely based on my memory. Please do not hesitate to correct anything wrong or incorrect :p
But the fossil fuel reserve is getting shallow over years and is expected to run out by the next few decades
Maybe a little bit more, no? For 20 years, I am hearing that we have for about 50 years in front of us, without any modification of the 50 number ;)
Anyways, this is just a small detail and does not change much to your conclusions. I also believe fusion is the future, but maybe not on the Tokamak form (there is now another promising option using stellerators, but again, I do not have any detail on those as this is not my field).
Also, the radioactive wastes produced in fusion process mostly have very short life.
Still on the top of my mind, if I remember well, the problem with fusion is to decontaminate the structure and the place where the reactor will have to be built. Is that correct?
First ever post i read on steemit , and indeed I had the same question; how rare is fossil fuel really?
I came across a youtube vid just 2 days ago with a retired USA colonel explaining that ; yes, maybe its a hydro carbon, but no one ever has explained why the deepest fossils are found at 16000 feet, but oil gets drilled at 30000 feet and lower. In his story he tells that Rockefeller knew that the 2nd most abundant liquid on earth was going to be hard to put a price on, but if its supply was limited, he could claim scarcity.
He sent a number of scientists over to a biology conference in Geneva in the late 1892 in which the attendants were going to come up with the definition of what constitutes an organic substance, and he managed to get petroleum classed as a biological substance. The rest is apparenty history.
Not promoting carbon based fuels tho; anything thats less a polutant than what we use now is a win.
You made my day dude. Happy to know bout this new fact. Already going through it.
A hearty welcome to Steemit.com. Keep in touch.
I agree on the fact that anything that would pollute less would be already a kind of victory. But one must be careful in the definition of "polluting less". Being objective with this respect today is hardish.
Oil below 17000 feet cracks to gas because the heat and pressure at that depth breaks up the long chains liquid petroleum is composed of. Oil is only exploitable because it pools up in porous rock , usually associated with salt dome caps which act as stoppers.
I think that is what Gold's theory says
Gold was a proponent of non-biological origins for oil. The ongoing formation of methane deep within basement rock by bacteria might be the source for more complex hydrocarbons. The petroleum we use daily has pretty well understood origins. Porous rock capped by a salt dome is a common structure, fault slip zones are another. The accumulations we can access are geological rarities. MOST of the oil ever generated by our planet never accumulated, but escaped because there was no geological trapping mechanism.
Technically, if you think about it, water is the real fossil fuel. If a fossil is just "formerly living matter" and nearly all life on Earth is made out of mostly water. It doesn't just disappear when things die, water evaporates and returns to the natural water cycle. And with the way water mixes together, I bet it would be difficult to find even a single cup of water in any ocean, kitchen sink, or can of soda that wasn't already water from thousands of living things (The planet Earth and its water have been around for billions of years). And water can even be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, which is basically rocket fuel.
thx for the link
I also heard the number 50 , I think 10 years back. Even so, a clean energy is an urgency looking at the environmental degradation.
Second, I like to confess that I have not studied much about the other approaches being made. I am reading about this project since when I was in my secondaery school. That is why I concentrated only on this project. And if I'm not wrong this project has achieved most attention.
Third, I'm not sure about the problems you said. But yeah, there are so many issues associated with this project. for example, the constant bombardment of the high energy neutrons on the container vessel walls may damage the container. It is also claimed that the bombardments may induce radioactivity on the container walls. Another problem with the reactor is that the neutron fluxes may hamper the normal operation of the electromagnets of the tokamak. Safety measures and materials to address these problems are being studied by the ITER tem and the IFMIF. The project is facing many problems day by day. That is why it has missed many deadlines.
Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, you seem to have the same questions as I have :D
If I have time, I will dig into it to find the answers :)
Yeah...but the fact that "Water is not a fossil fuel" caught my attention.