Page 1 on 9

Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 09/03/21, 18:26
by Christophe
I find this very interesting volume presentation and it seems to me correct in order of magnitude!

energies_consumption_mondiale_annuelle.jpg
energies_consommation_mondiale_annuelle.jpg (115.52 KiB) Viewed 5917 times


Found on: http://www.retrouversonnord.be/autarcie.htm

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 09/03/21, 19:26
by thibr
I thought there was more gas than oil

it would be necessary to specify what type of uranium?
it seems to me that if we take thorium it is still much more

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 09/03/21, 23:16
by Forhorse
If this graph is correct, and very pifometrically, we would therefore have between 110 and 170 years of fossil fuel reserve at the current consumption rate?

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 09/03/21, 23:28
by Christophe
A little more I think ... but the blue cube will also grow ...
It would take a version rated on 3 views : Cheesy:

I think it's the U235 without speculation about new tech ...
If he were to supply 100% of humanity, there would be 3-4 years left ...

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 10/03/21, 05:59
by ABC2019
Forhorse wrote:If this graph is correct, and very pifometrically, we would therefore have between 110 and 170 years of fossil fuel reserve at the current consumption rate?

that's it, around 1500 Gt C for a consumption of around 12 Gt / year.
For the U, this actually corresponds to the conventional U 235, there are about 100 years of reserves for current consumption but it only produces 3 or 4% of the annual energy, so in reality it is 3 or 4 years of reserves.
Solar is fine, but the vast majority is inaccessible and is immediately re-emitted in the form of infrared in space. Drawing this huge cube is quite misleading.

In short, the conclusion is that our civilization still has a century or so to live in this form, except for a miracle. And no it will not be the 2 ° C more that it will produce that will make it disappear, it will just disappear through the exhaustion of what makes it live.

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 10/03/21, 07:56
by eclectron
ABC2019 wrote:
Forhorse wrote:If this graph is correct, and very pifometrically, we would therefore have between 110 and 170 years of fossil fuel reserve at the current consumption rate?

that's it, around 1500 Gt C for a consumption of around 12 Gt / year.
For the U, this actually corresponds to the conventional U 235, there are about 100 years of reserves for current consumption but it only produces 3 or 4% of the annual energy, so in reality it is 3 or 4 years of reserves.
Solar is fine, but the vast majority is inaccessible and is immediately re-emitted in the form of infrared in space. Drawing this huge cube is quite misleading.

In short, the conclusion is that our civilization still has a century or so to live in this form, except for a miracle. And no it will not be the 2 ° C more that it will produce that will make it disappear, it will just disappear through the exhaustion of what makes it live.

While switching to Gen IV, it is more than 1000 years for all of humanity, at the current global consumption level (blue cube).
Not to mention thorium ...
But there are morons who argue that the effects of RCA are blank, unrelated to the propaganda of the carbonaceous fossil companies. : Mrgreen: : roll: , so for economic and propaganda reasons, we are really not ready to make any kind of energy transition. GenIV or EnR, or both. : roll:
Thanks to the Trolls of Forum for their brilliant participation : Evil: , The biosphere and humanity will thank you. : roll:
Too bad you won't be around to see the end of your show anymore.

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 10/03/21, 09:10
by Rajqawee
Yeah.

No legend.
No unity.
No date.

Basically, they're colored cubes.

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 10/03/21, 09:16
by eclectron
Rajqawee wrote:Yeah.

No legend.
No unity.
No date.

Basically, they're colored cubes.

And again, as long as you are color blind ... : Lol:

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 10/03/21, 09:22
by Rajqawee
eclectron wrote:
Rajqawee wrote:Yeah.

No legend.
No unity.
No date.

Basically, they're colored cubes.

And again, as long as you are color blind ... : Lol:


Certainly !

Also, if I'm not too bad at speaking, I imagine the cubes represent the amount of potential energy? Basically, primary energy ...
Which is not very relevant to look at since it does not take into account the successive losses of yield, which are very different according to the sectors and the uses. It does not take into account the difficulties of extraction / obtaining (like the solar cube ...)


At this point, I propose to encompass the big cube of solar radiation with a huge cube that would eclipse everything else called "hydrogen + helium". It's up to you to find out what it is :D

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

published: 10/03/21, 09:32
by Christophe
Finally stop taking you cabbage on the precision of the thing! Obviously it is approximate but it is not the purpose of this representation!

What is important are the orders of magnitude of the energy volumes.

The fossil reserves built up for millions of years is only a fraction of the solar energy received by land on Earth every year !