Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby EnergySpin » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 10:15:44

Andy wrote:
To actually prove that this can be done, we need hundreds to thousands of years and cannot afford to make mistakes along the way during that time period.

Yes the nuclear industry has hundreds to thousands of reactor years under its belt.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/lauvergeon.htm
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby funzone36 » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 17:22:34

A forum will always be a forum. You have to trust the experts:

" Presentations at the IAEA symposium underlined that the known uranium resources of 4 million tonnes should last for about 65 years at present consumption rates without reprocessing. "

"The meeting included specialists from about 40 countries, in addition to the Arab Atomic Energy Agency, European Commission, OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Office of Supervising Scientist (OSS)/Environment Australia, United Nations, Uranium Institute, World Bank, the World Energy Council and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressRel ... 2600.shtml

Experts from 40 countries agree that at current consumption rates, uranium supplies will be exhausted in 65 years. But no. We will not stay at our current consumption rate so 25 years is a fair guess at when our uranium supplies will run out.

That's why I don't do research in forums. Individuals here can honestly write whatever they want.

It'll wait until you dig up the other solar energy thread.

Sustainable growth will occur if there is a larger predator that feeds on humans as prey. Eg. Dinosaurs

I define growth as an increase in the number of species.
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 18:28:59

That's why I don't do research in forums. Individuals here can honestly write whatever they want.

Apparently you havent done any research at all then. If you insist on being obstinate we can show you again exactly why the notion of uranium supplies being limited to anything less than centuries is nonsense. If you had bothered to look at any of the previous forum topics on the subject you would have realized that all the arguments have many citations to reputable sources about basic nuclear fuel supply.

Heres a hint: The average density of uranium and thorium in the earths crust is 7.8 ppm by weight or .69 ppm by atom.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby orz » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 19:04:36

Please finish reading your own articles:

"Presentations at the IAEA symposium underlined that the known uranium resources of 4 million tonnes should last for about 65 years at present consumption rates without reprocessing. Estimates of potential, yet undiscovered resources would add 16 million tonnes, increasing the time period to almost 300 years. However, substantial exploration efforts are required to discover and transfer these resources into reserves. Reported uranium production has remained steady at some 35 000 tonnes annually over the past decade with roughly 50% from Australia and Canada. In these two countries, operations began in 1999 at the high grade McArthur River deposit in Canada with expected production of 4200 tonnes in 2000, and in Australia permission was granted to exploit the low grade Beverly deposit. During 1999, the uranium market spot price continued to fall and it remains low."

Even in the very article you posted, they point out that these are only known reserves. Unknown traditional reserves by themselves posit a 4fold INCREASE on known reserves. So even if you quadruple world consumption rates you have an estimated 75 years worth of traditional uranium. Now why aren't these reserves being touched? Well the Uranium price is "low and falling." What economic sense would it make to extract even more uranium and dampen the price further?

Of course the beauty of this argument is that if you are going to consider future consumption rates, you should also consider future technology. Reprocessing, for example could double this tiimespan or take it even further. Furthermore it is a well known fact that the uranium in the seas could fuel us for millenia if we could find an energy positive way to extract it. Why hasn't it been done already? Nuclear for the past couple decades has been a dead field. Many of the best nuclear scientist around the world have gone unemployed since the cold war with all the regulations and environmental groups hampering nuclear power from growing and with the military shying away from the cold war nuclear buildup. It's only begun to pick up in pace again now. To not expect further technological growth in this area is ridiculous. Not to mention that this is only needed as long as we don't have commercial fusion available which will power us indefinitely.


Sustainable growth will occur if there is a larger predator that feeds on humans as prey. Eg. Dinosaurs

I define growth as an increase in the number of species.


Sounds like a definition of growth straight from the ALF manual, but ok, at least I know the kind of person I'm dealing with.

Let's just say I disagree wholeheartedly with your definition of growth and leave it at that.
User avatar
orz
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby funzone36 » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 20:12:50

Ok. I finally got my head out of the sand about the uranium supply issue.

But wait a minute. Do you expect we can build enough nuclear reactors so that we can have a smooth transition from oil to nuclear when peak oil hits?

See, this is what I always say. I'm not saying that alternative energies can't provide us with electricity. I'm just saying they won't help prevent peak oil.
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby orz » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 20:25:08

Nope I think it's very unlikely there will be a smooth transition, unless peak oil is a decade or more away(unlikely). I don't like to think about what is going to happen, because the future is so uncertain that ever scenario from a 95% die off to a cornucopian, silver bullet is all possible and trying to see the future is IMO a waste of time. I just don't want people to rule out possibilities prematurely.
User avatar
orz
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby Caoimhan » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 20:42:12

funzone36 wrote:Ok. I finally got my head out of the sand about the uranium supply issue.


Congratulations! I wish a few others around here would realize the same thing.

funzone36 wrote:But wait a minute. Do you expect we can build enough nuclear reactors so that we can have a smooth transition from oil to nuclear when peak oil hits?


This could be a valid question. If it takes 10 years of fighting lawsuits to build a single plant, it'll be too little, too late. But in Europe, they're begining to build nuke plants in as little as 2 years. The U.S., however, is looking at having standardized, pre-designed reactors that will go in very fast, because they'll have pre-approval on the design, and protection against lawsuits. The only obstacle for those will be in choosing sites.

funzone36 wrote:See, this is what I always say. I'm not saying that alternative energies can't provide us with electricity. I'm just saying they won't help prevent peak oil.


Nothing can prevent peak oil. We will continue to use oil until it peaks and well beyond. There are some variables, however, that can be changed to make peak oil much less of an issue.

1) Delaying the oil peak. Improved oil recovery, and a shift in our economy from oil will push back the peak.
2) Smoothing the oil peak. The less dependent we are on oil when it finally peaks, the better.

So... the more we can shift to a nuk-electric economy, the easier the peak will be on us when it finally arrives.

But nuclear alone isn't the answer. Nuclear + biofuels + efficiency + wind/solar/geo... anything helps.

But nuclear is already in a position to change things.
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby funzone36 » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 22:21:07

With uranium supplies out of the way, these are my remaining arguments as to why it won't help prevent peak oil by building reactors on a large scale:

"In a nuclear world of 8-10 billion rich people we’d have to bury many thousands every year, perhaps one per hour."

http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/ ... clear.html

"keeping the bulk of radioactive waste in stainless steel tanks "

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

But we don't have a lot of steel left.

"Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]."

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

You can use plutonium but plutonium extraction will also result in billion tonnes of radioactive tailings.

Nuclear fission is non-renewable so eventually, you won't be able to use it anymore just like oil.

You need to worry about nuclear accident from cracks:

"We're facing reactors deteriorating, cracking and leaking as they get older," says David Lochbaum, who was a safety engineer in the US nuclear industry for 17 years but now works for the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 924071.100

And finally, it's vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorists attacks that can release the radioactivite stuff to the environment.


How's that? Anybody disagree?
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby DigitalCubano » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 22:54:30

You can use plutonium but plutonium extraction will also result in billion tonnes of radioactive tailings.

Nuclear fission is non-renewable so eventually, you won't be able to use it anymore just like oil.


Eventually is a looooooong time away by virtue of breeders. You only need a little bit of fissile material to start the process which produces fissile material from Uranium 238, for which there is a lot. Also, I believe (and the Nukies will correct me if I'm wrong) that transmutation can substantially mitigate the waste storage and disposal problems. I hesitate to offer you any links because I don't want to be accussed of using a biased source to promote these views. Google "breeder transmutation fissile" and "fissile breeder" and have a look.
User avatar
DigitalCubano
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby funzone36 » Fri 09 Dec 2005, 23:13:11

I found info about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation

Yep, I agree it does solve the waste issue. Thanks for the contribution.
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby Daryl » Sat 10 Dec 2005, 19:45:44

funzone36 wrote:With uranium supplies out of the way, these are my remaining arguments as to why it won't help prevent peak oil by building reactors on a large scale:

"In a nuclear world of 8-10 billion rich people we’d have to bury many thousands every year, perhaps one per hour."

http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/ ... clear.html

"keeping the bulk of radioactive waste in stainless steel tanks "

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

But we don't have a lot of steel left.

"Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]."

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

You can use plutonium but plutonium extraction will also result in billion tonnes of radioactive tailings.

Nuclear fission is non-renewable so eventually, you won't be able to use it anymore just like oil.

You need to worry about nuclear accident from cracks:

"We're facing reactors deteriorating, cracking and leaking as they get older," says David Lochbaum, who was a safety engineer in the US nuclear industry for 17 years but now works for the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 924071.100

And finally, it's vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorists attacks that can release the radioactivite stuff to the environment.


How's that? Anybody disagree?



There is a very large environmental lobby that opposes nuclear power. They have been extremely active in Europe for a generation. Like any lobby, they have their own propoganda and misuse and distort statistics to advance their cause. I would like to hear a balanced debate about these issues. I'm not sure if the sources you cite above are very objective.

My view is that when it becomes clear that oil is too expensive and scarce, governments will start crash nuclear programs whether we like it or not. There is not another short term option that gives them any kind of chance of maintaining the current system. Maybe it won't work, but we are going to find out. When the public finds out that the alternative is riding bicycles, they will vote nuclear.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby funzone36 » Sat 10 Dec 2005, 21:57:00

I'm not sure if the sources you cite above are very objective.


Two of those sources are from universities and one from the best science magazine.

When the public finds out that the alternative is riding bicycles, they will vote nuclear.


Riding bicycles is way cheaper than nuclear. The capital costs for nuclear is 5 billions dollars and you need to build thousands of them. Even the developed nations don't have that much money without going in debt.

I'm not going to back up my facts since you don't back up yours.
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby DigitalCubano » Sat 10 Dec 2005, 22:17:04

funzone36 wrote:Riding bicycles is way cheaper than nuclear. The capital costs for nuclear is 5 billions dollars and you need to build thousands of them. Even the developed nations don't have that much money without going in debt.


Walking is cheaper than biking. Starving is cheaper than eating. Dying is cheaper than living. It doesn't matter. What does matter is if the money you presumably save from say, building a nuclear infrastracture, yields more desirable or valuable opportunites otherwise. If so, then yeah, everyone will be riding their bikes next decade and we will be drying strips of meat on deserted freeways (Tyler says so). If not, then we go nuclear. Sounds pretty simple, but I see this irksome fallacy crop up time and time again: the notion of valuing some opportunity in the future relative to the opportunitues now or worse, without consideraton to any opportunites at all. I can think of many things that people will be willing to give up in the interim to secure a comparable standard of living for the duration of their lifetimes.

Also, extrapolating the capital costs of one plant to the capital costs of the whole infrastructure is a gross simplification.
User avatar
DigitalCubano
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby funzone36 » Sat 10 Dec 2005, 22:45:05

What opportunity are you talking about? You say that building a nuclear infrastructure will save money. How much money are we going to save? How can we save money from building nuclear reactors?
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby DigitalCubano » Sat 10 Dec 2005, 22:56:45

funzone36 wrote:What opportunity are you talking about? You say that building a nuclear infrastructure will save money. How much money are we going to save? How can we save money from building nuclear reactors?


If you invest in A at the cost of not being able to invest in B, then you've lost the opportunity that B provides. The question then is not so much that a nuclear reactor will cost an ungodly sum of money, rather can that ungodly sum of money be spent better elsewhere? It's the notion of Opportunity Cost and there are probably better definitions and examples out there than I can provide. Anyhow, you understand the principle by virtue of your use of the word "save." Saving makes sense in those instances where you are better off holding your money for better opportunities (e.g. buying mom flowers on Sunday) than the possible oportunitites immediately available (e.g. getting trashed at the local pub).
User avatar
DigitalCubano
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby funzone36 » Sat 10 Dec 2005, 23:31:07

If B = nuclear then I don't see any opportunity it provides. If B = renewables then I see an opportunity to improve the environment. Saving makes sense now when you're better off investing in renewables.

Compare the costs:

"A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW); wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000/kw. A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build."

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edhughes7.asp

I still don't know what opportunity cost nuclear provides.
User avatar
funzone36
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: A very long post about why technology won't help peak oi

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 11 Dec 2005, 00:57:53

Caoimhan wrote:So... the more we can shift to a nuk-electric economy, the easier the peak will be on us when it finally arrives.

But nuclear alone isn't the answer. Nuclear + biofuels + efficiency + wind/solar/geo... anything helps.

But nuclear is already in a position to change things.


I am afraid coal has, and will, trump nuclear.

See my three posts here:

Link
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 22:52:07

Funzone,
I do believe encouraging conservation is a good thing. I do not believe that civilization as we know it, is about to come to an end - not due to the end of cheap oil, anyway.

I believe there is sufficient energy in the waste we currently send to landfill (~8 billion tons per year of industrial waste in the US alone). See "The Mother of All Biofuel Debates" p11 & 12 for some of my arguments. See also ES' diagram on p13. For reference, current worldwide oil consumption is about 5.5 TW. Think we'd be able to make that up out of the 55 TW of "untouched biomass" marked as "decay"? Heck, it would only require an overall efficiency of 10%!

You dismiss TDP, as many posters on this board as needing oil to produce the waste it runs on. That is incorrect thinking, in my view. In a sustainable world we would collect our energy from the sun and convert a part of it to the liquid fuels that are so convenient. We don't need oil to produce the waste, we need the sun. In photosynthesis we have the perfect way of collecting dilute solar energy and concentrating it in chemical energy.

And no, we don't need to plough under the country to make it work: we are already producing the bulk of the waste to make this work. We just need to redirect waste from landfill to oil plant.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby Doly » Wed 21 Dec 2005, 06:46:38

Optimist wrote:And no, we don't need to plough under the country to make it work: we are already producing the bulk of the waste to make this work. We just need to redirect waste from landfill to oil plant.


Do you have any link to a study proving this point?
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Long post about why technology won't help prevent peak o

Unread postby Optimist » Wed 21 Dec 2005, 14:25:11

I guess the academics are lagging behind on this one, no studies on this particular point, that I am aware of. But I am aware of this reference, that gives an indication of what is available out there:
"A U.S. Department of Agriculture report says more than 1.3 billion tons of dry forest material waste is available in the nation for biomass systems. If used for energy, that would be equivalent to about 30 percent of the nation’s oil usage, the report said." - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9924889/ The original report is at http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs ... eport2.pdf

It appears that currently most of the 1.3 billion tons is burned to prevent forest fires - a tragic waste of a renewable resource.

You can also look at this Forest Service study for Minnesota: http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc114.pdf
Last edited by Optimist on Wed 21 Dec 2005, 14:48:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests