Topic: Energy Crisis 2.0 in the New World Order era - page 5. (Read 2404 times)

I remember sci-fi movies that used what looked like an artificial sun which is the source of spacecraft power.
It's name "passanger", I don't know why they didn't choose nuclear power plants as their energy source.
whatever it is called thermonuclear fusion / hydrogen fusion / artificial sun basically the same, i think the potential is huge

Oil refining products are the main components that pollute the environment and create a greenhouse effect, and this causes glaciers to melt, the overall temperature to rise and the climate on the planet to change very quickly. I see that many are still discussing the advisability of moving away from the traditional use of oil as fuel for internal combustion engines. When entire countries begin to go under water, the volume of land on the planet will decrease, and in some areas of the remaining land the temperature will rise to critical levels for human habitation. Perhaps only after that they will think about this global problem. But perhaps it will be too late. After all, we are not the first civilization on this planet. They say that it was technical progress that destroyed the previous ones.

As practice shows, uranium cannot be called an ideal resource. From its limited deposits and the difficulty of processing, to the high risks of its use.
Thermonuclear fusion is a more promising option. Cheaper, safer, more effective. Among the disadvantages - at the moment there are no industrial solutions, there are only experimental installations. But in recent years, really good results have been achieved, and there is a high probability that within some time the world will be able to obtain a cheap, safe and virtually unlimited source of energy.

And in my opinion, your prediction above is very likely to happen because it is very likely that the stock of raw materials will be very reduced in the future and even if it continues to be used, this will be contrary to the spirit of fighting global warming and energy policies that encourage reducing dependence on energy. fossil fuels. The need for the chemical industry is still high and this need will also remain, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture and manufacturing. Now it seems that the future will require very large and relatively clean resources without producing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. What if in the end it was uranium that was chosen for use.

No, that's not true. Artificial suns(fusion) are safer than nuclear reactors(fission). the problem is how to heat hydrogen atoms above 100 million degrees celsius over a long time.
There is no radioactive waste so it will be the cleanest energy source available to use.
You should read more about that

You don't really seem to understand what controlled fusion is..... Let me explain - this technology is not analogous to a controlled nuclear reaction when atoms split with the release of huge amounts of energy and radioactive by-products (nuclear power is almost the same as a nuclear explosion, but very slow). Thermonuclear fusion is a reverse process where atoms fuse together to form a new chemical element. At the same time, the element is not dangerous to the environment. I recommend you to study the subject, so as not to make such statements, extremely far from reality

Until now, creating an artificial sun will not be the main solution for energy, which is running low. When an artificial sun is created, it will be like a nuclear bomb that can destroy humanity. Do you know the element called "Xenon"? Xenon can be found only on Mars in very large quantities, whereas in our world, Xenon will only be created when a nuclear explosion occurs. Imagine if this artificial sun would explode and destroy life on earth. Sometimes humans are too aggressive to not think about the very dangerous impacts that are very threatening human life on earth.

"Transitional technologies" between today's energy production schemes can be considered alternative, renewable energy sources - solar, wind, thermal, tidal, .... Moreover, they may be acceptable for countries that simply do not have the funds to purchase a thermonuclear reactor or purchase imported electricity. And yes - the industrial operation of thermonuclear stations is not yet a year or even 5. But .. progress is being made, perhaps in the coming years, due to experimental installations, AI, new types of computing systems, we will get an acceleration in the implementation of industrial installations, and this will take not 30-50 years, but a shorter period

Scientists around the world are working to develop "artificial suns" - devices that generate energy by heating hydrogen atoms to temperatures above 100 million degrees Celsius and holding them long enough for them to fuse to form heavier atoms. A similar process occurs inside our sun, combining hydrogen atoms and releasing energy, light and heat.

China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) said it has reached a major milestone in its quest to create an artificial sun powered by nuclear fusion, generating a plasma current of more than 1 million amps for the first time.

However, the challenge is to control this process so that the reactor does not explode when replicating the process on Earth. China is also cooperating with the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the world's largest fusion reactor, which is being built in France jointly by the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States.

I remember that the predictions of the famous Bulgarian soothsayer Vanga said that we would be able to launch several of these “artificial suns” in low orbit and they would evenly illuminate our planet around the clock, since, like the sun, this reaction releases light and heat. These will be balls with a diameter of approximately six meters. But after some time, two of them will collide in the sky. However, all the same, this will be the greatest progress in the field of providing people with clean and inexhaustible energy.

Just trust the motive. It's a politic every nation has different view about what is going on.
Even Nato won't back down when their country need more gas, oil and soon

I think they know about that but there is some issue that we don't know especially economy cost to build renewable energy and everything need time to change.
I think we still has more than 30 years to survive energy crisis

Yes, indeed, the use of thermonuclear fusion in the energy sector may become a turning point in assessing the safety of nuclear energy. Recently, many countries have begun to abandon nuclear power plants precisely because of problems with their safety during periods of increased seismological activity and other climatic anomalies, as well as an increase in the frequency of man-made disasters, including at nuclear power plants.

Along with improving technologies for using renewable energy sources, humanity can solve the problem of energy shortages and finally get rid of the use of fossil fuels, which pollute our planet and lead to drastic negative climate change.

The changing world order reflects a deeper reality – the constant evolution of nations, their economies, political structures, and social fabrics. As technology leaps forward, economies boom and bust, and populations shift like desert sands, so too does the balance of power on the global stage. Witnessing the rise of new powerhouses, like China and India, challenging the established hegemony of the West, is not a sign of weakness, but a testament to the dynamism and adaptability of the international system.

I think that the change of world order is a positive process. Because, a multipolar world encourages innovation and creativity. When no single power holds dominance, diverse perspectives and solutions are brought to the forefront, leading to breakthroughs in fields such as technology, science, and governance. This cross-pollination of ideas fosters a more vibrant and dynamic global environment. And bitcoin does the same thing for the monetary system.

All news feeds are abuzz with the news: "On December 1, the world's largest experimental fusion reactor was launched in Japan. At this point, scientists believe that despite the early stage of development of fusion energy technology, it could very well be a future source of unlimited energy for Earth's inhabitants.

According to ScienceAlert, fusion differs from nuclear fission, which is used in today's nuclear power plants, in that it involves fusing the nuclei of two atoms together rather than splitting the nucleus of a single atom. This process, known as thermonuclear fusion, occurs in the cores of all ordinary stars and ensures their existence. Unlike nuclear fission, fusion poses no risk of catastrophic nuclear power plant failures and generates far less radioactive waste."

Yes, experimental, but - working. It will be used to test technologies for commercial operation. Yes - industrial reactors will not appear tomorrow, but in the perspective of 10-15 years, it is already likely.  So we are highly likely to be in the era of low-cost and mass energy, which will replace most of the needs previously covered by fossil hydrocarbons

The only part I don't agree with is the "soon" part. We definitely have to find a replacement for the finite amount of fossil fuels on earth but it is slow and expensive, not to mention with the way consumption is increasing, the clean replacements are not going to be enough in the near future.

Renewable energy sources can and, most importantly, should replace current fossil energy sources. Without this, humanity will no longer survive, since the use of oil, coal and gas as energy sources and in internal combustion engines leads to drastic climate change and this process threatens to soon become uncontrollable.

At the same time, the technology of alternative energy sources continues to improve and become cheaper. Surely their use will soon become simple and cheap, and thus we will be able to solve most of our current energy problems.

Regarding Petroleum Renewables and Energy Outlook.
The energy component of the oil market is conditionally fuel for solutions using internal combustion engines in one form or another.
The process of abandoning internal combustion engines is already gaining momentum. And this is reflected in the share of global oil production that goes to the production of such fuel.

At the same time, it is foolish to deny that if we are talking about hydrocarbons, the picture is not so rosy.
For example - cogeneration plants, thermal power plants, they operate on fossil carbonaceous fuels (coal, fuel oil, ....).
The second not very positive example is the chemical industry. Most of the world around us is made up of plastics, paints .varnishes, glues, .... And these are mostly oil/gas derivatives.
A third example is industrial facilities, like metallurgical plants, which mostly consume coking coal and other carbon mixtures.

If we go back to oil - about 55% (10 years ago it was about 65%) of oil is used for fuel production, for internal combustion engines (in one form or another), and there is a downward trend. The chemical industry consumes up to 25% of oil. The non-energy sector still consumes about 11% (bitumen, oils, etc.)

Therefore, it is likely that in the coming decades there will be a marked decrease in the share of oil for the production of fuel for internal combustion engines, but it is unlikely that the need of the chemical industry will decrease.

I think it would be a good idea to field a team of experts who understand renewable energy governance by evaluating the potential of renewable energy resources available in the region. If indeed the above is not helpful and is considered inadequate, then it can be concluded that other steps and efforts must be taken.

Sadly it can not.
Because for starters the renewable energies you named can not replace fossil fuels in a lot of products we are using. You see gas, oil and their products are used in a lot more than to produce electricity.
Additionally building the infrastructure to use renewable energies is difficult and in certain places impossible. Not to mention that in certain cases (eg. nuclear power and electric cars) majority of countries need to import both the technology and the fuel (nuclear fuel and lithium batteries) which means another form of "energy" crisis.

That is the hardest thing, you may not trust the information given by the governments, and to be fair you wouldn't be wrong, they do lie a lot and that is understandable. However, what do you trust then? Yourself? Some youtube? Some guy on twitter? That means, you may not have the correct information at all, governments in every part of the world will lie, that is what governments do, but not like anyone else has the right correct data neither, which makes this situation even harder. Energy crisis could be solved in every nation, just create self sufficient ones, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and anything else you can find, these are all stuff that you can do to cover energy need of a nation without being depending any other nation, its as simple as that.

If we do not generally trust official sources from different countries, but rely on “intelligence” that was somehow leaked to social networks or the press, then we will go very far in our reasoning. If intelligence information appears in the media, it means that it was thrown there for some purpose and it does not always correspond to reality.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine note that the Russians at the front receive three times more armored vehicles and other weapons than the Armed Forces of Ukraine receive from all their partners. In addition, such military equipment often comes from old models due to the fact that the countries that supply Ukraine with this equipment take advantage of this opportunity to modernize their armed forces. But even such outdated technology, as a rule, is superior to Russian models.