[ennui2]

The Illuminati are the ones in for a surprise when they shut off the free shit

You're going to haul tinfoil into this thread now? You jumped the shark on this one.

You know, if I had more free time on my hands I'd keep a log-book of current posters' predictions and offer occasional score sheets as time goes by. The batting average is going to be pretty piss poor but it won't stop people trading bad predictions around and forgetting last week's failures.

And people wonder why I'm such a contrarian here? Does anyone really keep tabs on how off people's predictions tends to be?

The commonality is that everyone here has their chosen whipping boy and since they'd like to see that whipping boy fall on its ass, they are going to predict some bad event that befalls the whipping boy based on whatever is happening in the current 24-hour news cycle. This is the theme I keep harping on as far as people's bias, because it keeps cropping up again and again and again. Instead I get tarred and feathered as a corny who is in denial for daring to pierce the group-think that TPTB, US hegemony(TM), and BAU's end is nigh.

[Tikib]

I am convinced that the era of business as usual is about to come to an end. BUT do I think post peak oil we are going to be eating each other?

NO.

[SeaGypsy]

Mosennui would probably fry up nice with garlic & ginger, a touch of tumeric & fresh coriander from the organic permaculture kitchen garden. But he has a daughter to look after, I have 2 a bit younger & I need sitters, so have to barbecue something else, or perhaps stick to veganism a bit longer....

[SeaGypsy]

You know BAU is coming to an end when you start wondering how long the spare fat off your neighbors wife's arse would run the tractor for & if the rest would be better used as soup stock or fertilizer. Cannibalism, a perennial favorite around here, geez it's been a while...

[Pops]

And people wonder why I'm such a contrarian here? Does anyone really keep tabs on how off people's predictions tends to be?

You aren't a contrarian, lol.

I'd like to put my money into a hard asset like a doomstead, but only when prices drop down to fundamentals, hopefully while interest rates are still low. I certainly see outright calamity within a 5-10 year timeframe.

2008


Nothing turned out substantially as predicted by anyone as far as I can tell. Not sure why you want to rewrite your history? If you now think everything is fine then fine but don't pretend you are the epitome of reason and all the doom is beneath you.

Huge discoveries of easy new oil simply haven't happened but neither has 6%/yr decline; the economy did crash but to this point it has been propped up; no Mad Max but energy prices and politics are certainly at the top of the global agenda.

[ennui2]

Pops, you're mirepresenting my position. I am not trying to claim to have been a perfect clairvoyant on peak-oil predictions. I have framed myself as (what pstarr calls) a "reformed" doomer, someone who isn't going to get sucked into "doom is nigh" group-think anymore. But there are some (pstarr being the poster-child) who can't seem to express the same degree of humility and simply rewrites the narrative of what constitutes peak-oil doom to include whatever is going on now. THAT is the revisionist-history. And a lot of people do it, including people like Heinberg.

[Pops]

I'm with ya. I'm trying to be less emotional and knee jerk and not quite so adamant about whatever. I still argue, I guess I just like to debate but I just don't have the certainty that I did, say pre-2008.

[ennui2]

I have always had certainty, but it is of a nuanced sort. Call me an effete doomer.

What is this so-called nuance? Saying that the crash of 2008 was all due to peak-oil isn't nuance. Classifying the arab-spring as peak-oil doom isn't nuance. Your agenda for the last six years has been to just keep applying spin-control to hold onto the idea that peak-oil is the cause of all the world's ills. You've broadened the term and abused it to the point of making it useless.

[ralfy]

Oil is used significantly in heavy equipment for mining, various processes in manufacturing, petrochemicals, and container ships, diesel trucks, etc. In addition, likely much of infrastructure worldwide is heavily underdeveloped, which means there aren't enough roads, electricity grids, etc., to meet various basic needs. Given these, it is highly unlikely that technofixes would have avoided the effects of peak oil.

Also, most people worldwide earn less than $10 a day, which means they can't afford even technofixes. However, the number of people who is earning more is growing worldwide.

In addition, we are seeing growing population, growing energy and material resource needs per person, increasing environmental damage, and the effects of global warming.

Given that, we can probably argue that it has been "business unusual" from the start, with a minority experiencing "business as usual" in various ways (and maintaining such a lifestyle only by selling it to a growing global market), and more catching up. As combinations of crises take their toll, more will join "business unusual," and eventually that too won't last.

[Simon_R]

The current form of Nuk is used as it is well understood and predictable, the parts are (not exactly but described as) factory made.
If you want to get experimental, checkout Areva, that massive loss is an attempt to soup up the current design, imagine the financial catastrophe if it was a completely new theory.

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone have figures on the amount of energy the world uses, and then add a bit for those pesky 3rd world guys trying to better themselves....tsk. How many nukes would we need ?
How much uranium is actually available ?

Just curious

[SeaGypsy]

Tanada?

[Tanada]

Tanada?

Currently there are about 400 operating reactors generating about 15 percent of the world electricity supply. To generate all of the electricity with nuclear fission you have to factor in that new designs are almost twice the generating capacity of the older designs, 900 MWe vs 1500 MWe averages. So if 200 modern reactors pessimistically could generate 10 percent of current electricity then 2000 would replace all current electricity.

Generation IV reactors now in testing are excellent in fuel economy, most of them can operate at conversion rates meaning they generate as much fissile material as they consume. This requires fuel recycling which in the USA is a political problem, not a technology problem.

With fuel recycling the already mined uranium would feed the entire system for decades without having to mine any new fuel.

[Simon_R]

Hi Tanada

I am sorry, I meant total energy, total electrical energy.

So how many stations to rid ourselves of hydrocarbon energy

thanks

Simon

[Tanada]

Hi Tanada

I am sorry, I meant total energy, total electrical energy.

So how many stations to rid ourselves of hydrocarbon energy

thanks

Simon

Ah Okay that is a little different question. Currently Nuclear power produces about 30 Exajoules of energy and humanity uses about 550 Exajoules. See this graph,


The different components break down like this,


So Oil is 170 EJ, Coal is 165 EJ, Natural Gas 115 EJ, and you don't have to worry about the Solar, Wind, Tidal, Biomass, and Hydro.
So based on the earlier calculation 200 new reactors would give you about 30 EJ so to replace Oil you need (170/30)*200=1,134 new reactors.
To replace Coal (165/30)*200=1100 new reactors and that is a check mark because most of them are either direct heating or electricity production and I estimated 2,000 to replace all electricity from all sources including Hydro, Coal and Natural Gas.
To replace Natural Gas which is about half used for heating and half used for electricity production, (115/30)*200=767 new reactors.
Total to replace all FF used today 767+1,100+1,134=3,001 new reactors.

Two key things to keep in mind, fossil fuels are used as feed stock for lots of things that don't involve direct combustion. Secondly we do not have to replace all FF use instantly, it would be a process taking about 20 years if we start next week.

[Simon_R]

Hi Tanada

Given current technology (the only one realistic for this buildout in 20 years) this seems to indicate and enormous amount of uranium per year. I saw a figure of 200 tonnes per station per year, this is 3000 stations * 200 = 600,000 tonnes per year.
Forgetting the nuclear waste issue, this seems an awful lot, googling peak uranium there does not appear to be that amount economically recoverable.

All figures derived from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

thanks

Simon

[Tikib]

Heres the thing tho, the nuclear waste generated from that huge build out could all be put into a Molten Salt Reactor when they have been perfected...

[Tikib]

And peak uranium is a bit of fallacy really, whenever we need uranium we just look for more.

Because uranium has so much more energy in it than oil its stil usable at much lower concentrations. You could power the world for a 100 years at least with current generation nuclear.

With molten salt you could power it for 2000 years at least.