[Tikib]

In my opinion by the end of this year we will enter the era of business unusual. The price of oil will go above $100, a price from which it will never drop. Instead it will gradually rise and rise.

Now this era doesn't neccessarily mean doom, we have two fairly good technologies to replace fossil fuels in solar and wind. And coal and gas will peak later than oil. Its just a shame that we did not enter the era with either MSR or ICF in our pockets as those technologies could have completely shielded our economies from peak oil.

[ROCKMAN]

No comment necessary IMHO.

[Tanada]

The EBU vs the BAU, I kind of like the contrast in acronyms.

[SeaGypsy]

I will bite, quiet cold Saturday here.

As a newbie here Tik, I haven't grasped your position on more than a couple of talking points, so excuse me if I miss you at all here.

We entered the current era of business unusual with the collapse of the derivatives market initiated in the US housing market in 07-08. Since when central banks have been on unprecedented paths to pump life into markets who came very close to seeing right past the entire charade. These efforts have not lessened, interest rates are still at or near zero, liquidity flooding to wherever can still afford a growing surplus.

100 oil is dirt cheap. Probably just bearable for the most wasteful economies, just fine for much more nimble & frugal ones. As a benchmark, you can just add 100 buck oil as a talking point in an argument about efficiencies & how the US has no choice but to compete with far cheaper & more efficient economies.

Generally consensus around here is for less price stability, more volatility in price as the downslope in supply becomes undeniable. We could end up with either permanently extremely expensive oil or if enough damage is done the market collapses, the race to the bottom as producers compete for dwindling consumers. Nope, it's going to be anything but steady. Look forward to cycles like those around the last price spike, with weakening recoveries to a very unpredictable degree, given there isn't far between zero interest & fiat collapse.

Solar & wind add up to what % of the global economy in gross, % of product (energy) supply (net)? What is the displacement timeline? Do we have 50-100 years of relative peace to enable rollout of these & new nuke baseload? Not likely the way I read the news.

I agree with your ideas from what I have read, that some radical proposals to fill the gap need to be seriously considered, but currently access to the provider pie is well and truly in vested interests, none of whom are being completely honest about the inevitable economic downside dynamics on the present horizon: peak oil, peak everything, the mining problem, AGW, population bomb, extinction event, etc etc,
a bit more complex than any simplistic energy solution is going to even begin to solve.

[Tikib]

If we just ignore agw and concentrate on peak oil here. My position is that the downward descent isn't going to be as fast as people imagine there is still a lot of fossil feuls out there they are just less economic. And that it will be possible to use a mixture of expensive hydrocarbons and renewables to stay a float for 10 years or so. And hopefully by then we can develop either msr or icf or at very least increase the efficiency of solar and wind significantly.

Tbh the candu reactor design is probably the most economic source of energy other than fossil fuels currently if we just built a lot of them it would help.

[Tikib]

Also I think everyone will be surprised how quickly new nuclear reactors can be built when all the regulation crap is ignored.

[SeaGypsy]

Unregulated nukes- yeah righto then.....

[Tikib]

Well people did not build nukes fast enough when they were regulated...

When people see complete economic collapse without them I am pretty sure you could build like 100 a year worldwide.

And you could mass produce the same design to make it cheaper.

If you mass produced candu reactors for a couple of years the energy crisis would be over.

[StarvingLion]

Yes, its easy to fall for the "Nuclear reactors will save us" delusion. I've done it myself.

Lets face it, computers are it. Humanity has reached its peak. Maybe a non von Neumann architecture will replace the current ring leaders and assume power but to me energy tech is a lost cause because its ridiculously easy to steal *everything* using computers and FIAT money. Every time I see a big city building a silly nanotech center to "save" themselves, I chuckle. Don't they realize anyone with a brain is in the financial sector?

I expect any notion of a future global middle class will emerge entirely from the "investor" class. Notice, I put the word investor within quotes because they don't assume any risk. Its like a casino, the house always wins... any time the fools make some gains they are punted, like in a real casino.

I mean what don't you understand about the "sophisticated" private-public relationship?

I used to hate computers until about 20 minutes ago. Now I realize its the only route to the gated community on Vancouver Island.

[Tikib]

Nuclear power is the most economic form of energy we have besides fossil fuel. So we will naturally switch to it. If it will save us or not depends what you mean by save I guess.

[Tanada]

Also I think everyone will be surprised how quickly new nuclear reactors can be built when all the regulation crap is ignored.

I don;t want the regulations to be ignored, I just want all the meaningless stall tactics to be eliminated. We have pre approved standardized designs that would permit us to pop out new units factory style all identical in every aspect. If you use a pre approved design, and place it in a location where reactors are already in use then you avoid all the environmental impact studies, and NIMBY yammering except for the total nut cases. Pouring concrete and letting it cure sufficiently shouldn't take more than a year with another year for foundation preparation work. Add in the pre assembled core and train operators during that three year construction phase and you should be able to go from empty lot to full power in 36 months from the time the decision is made. The only reasons it takes longer is all the BS stalling tactics that are so loved by the American court system and lawyers in general.

With that goal in mind, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission created a method to simplify future planning and construction, which is similar to the approach used in France. Under it, manufacturers have already won advance government approval for a handful of new standardized reactor designs and plant sites are approved before major capital investment begins. That way, when a utility applies to build a reactor of an approved design, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will need to review the modifications that are unique to its site.

The cookie-cutter approach is meant to ensure that companies will not have to rip out concrete and pipes in the middle of construction to satisfy changing regulatory requirements. This was one of the biggest problems that led to long construction delays and cost overruns in the 1980s.

Companies receive a single license to build and operate a plant, with approval before any significant capital expenditures. The threshold for intervention after the license is issued is high, and is intended to prevent frivolous efforts to stop construction resulting in costly delays. That should enable the plants to be built faster and be cheaper to run - and so much less risky financially.

http://www.theledger.com/article/200808 ... ?p=1&tc=pg

A specific example the Blayais site in southern France,

The 227 -acre nuclear power plant site is located in a 6,000- acre wetland and employs about 1300 people. Operator of the nuclear power plant is the French company Electricité de France (EDF). The four pressurized water reactors have a net power output of 910 megawatts ( MW) and a gross capacity of 951 MW. The total installed capacity is 3804 MW, making it one nuclear power plant to the larger in France. Every year, it feeds an average of 24 billion kilowatt hours into the public power grid.

The Gironde is used to cool the plant taken by underwater cables to a length of 400 meters of water, which removed after the cooling process of the reactors in the center of the estuary, 2.2 km from the shore, is fed back into the river. This distance is the one needed to allow the heated water is not sucked in again, and on the other, so that the water is cool and far enough back out away into the river from the shore to the habitat of the fish that reside primarily in the shore area, not too much to bother.

The construction of the first two reactor units was begun on 1 January 1977. Block 1 was 12 June 1981, and Unit 2 on 17 July 1982. On April 1, 1978, started the construction of two additional reactor units, which were put into operation on 16 May 1983, on 17 August 1983.

Construction times for these four identical units,
Unit 1, 54 months
Unit 2, 67 months
Unit 3, 61 months
Unit 4, 64 months.

Why did later units take more time when they were all identical? Politics. Unfortunately in the USA the political factors are much worse than they are in France so we have one reactor currently being finished in Tennessee that began construction began construction in 1973 and proceeded very slowly until 1985 at which time the TVA suspended construction on Unit #2. Unit #1 was finally finished in 1996 with a record 23 years spent on construction. Unit #2 was officially suspended in 1988 and resumed construction in October 2007 after 19 years. As of last month the Unit #2 is scheduled to be completed and generating power in December 2015, 42 years after the TVA got permission to begin construction in 1973.

We need leadership that we are sorely lacking in all political parties when it comes to vital infrastructure.

[ennui2]

In my opinion by the end of this year we will enter the era of business unusual. The price of oil will go above $100, a price from which it will never drop. Instead it will gradually rise and rise.

So you're predicting that by the end of the year we fall sharply off the peak-oil plateau? Why? You give NO evidence backing up your prediction other than a vague feeling. This is a classic shoot-from-the-hip doomer prediction of the sort that sets you up to look like a complete idiot if it doesn't pan out.

Are you sure you want to roll with this?

[StarvingLion]

Nuclear power is the most economic form of energy we have besides fossil fuel. So we will naturally switch to it. If it will save us or not depends what you mean by save I guess.

You'll bankrupt yourself building the reactors, turn them on, and then...

"Have the exact same problem as before"

being more competitive than the other countries in transforming materials into products.

You wrongly believe the nuclear reactors will restore the welfare state.

Have fun in your dream world.

[Tikib]

Like I said you mass produce a standardized version of the most economic reactor design currently available (I think its Candu reactors because the uranium doesn't need to be enriched).

Then in 5 to 10 years when Terresterial energy or another MSR producer is ready you start mass producing there design instead.

Hopefully (and having done the maths on it) within say 20 years we can then have a working fusion design to start building instead of the MSR plants.

[Tikib]

Job done.

Building anything but the most energy productive power plant design is basically a waste of time.

[Pops]

Tik, don't start anymore nuke threads.
By my count this is at least your 10th thread making the very same argument. Starting a bunch of similar threads is against the rules, doesn't add to your argument and actually dilutes your "message." Everyone has a hobby horse and you can beat yours silly in every post but no more new threads.
[/moderator]

--
I think society should continue research on nukes until we find a simple clean solution. I don't know much about it but anything that leaves behind dangerous waste for 14 billion years is pretty well off the table I'd think.

In the rich world conservation is the key to mitigating PO in the short run. That of course is also the danger of PO, since conservation in this case means less driving and driving usually means either earning or spending. Less driving means lower GDP because we are a consumption economy. In a thread "the price of collapse" (or some such) I wrote that the only way to be able to afford to extract more expensive oil is to get more value from the oil we extract.

Americans are the worst as far as structural waste, everyone else uses much less oil per capita than we do. The average US male between 35 & 64 drives 18,858 miles per year. That is 51-2/3 miles per day, every day of the year! That is pretty astounding to me. Link

Increasing fleet mileage (CAFE) is a good thing in the long run, but in the short run it is the old Jeavon's Paracox all over, it allows people to maintain the "structural" waste in how they organize their little world (long commutes, low density housing, globalised food chain, etc) and lets them put off making big changes. US miles driven is increasing and at a new high after falling for 5 or 6 years.

I agree tho, electric is how we'll get around in the future, the medium term anyway, while we coast on the fumes of the previously extracted and invested.

[GHung]

Tikib: "If we just ignore agw and concentrate on peak oil here."

Pretty much any discussion beyond that becomes invalid; if not purely academic. Tikib's denial exists on numerous levels.

[Tikib]

Tik, don't start anymore nuke threads.
By my count this is at least your 10th thread making the very same argument. Starting a bunch of similar threads is against the rules, doesn't add to your argument and actually dilutes your "message." Everyone has a hobby horse and you can beat yours silly in every post but no more new threads.
[/moderator]

--
I think society should continue research on nukes until we find a simple clean solution. I don't know much about it but anything that leaves behind dangerous waste for 14 billion years is pretty well off the table I'd think.

In the rich world conservation is the key to mitigating PO in the short run. That of course is also the danger of PO, since conservation in this case means less driving and driving usually means either earning or spending. Less driving means lower GDP because we are a consumption economy. In a thread "the price of collapse" (or some such) I wrote that the only way to be able to afford to extract more expensive oil is to get more value from the oil we extract.

Americans are the worst as far as structural waste, everyone else uses much less oil per capita than we do. The average US male between 35 & 64 drives 18,858 miles per year. That is 51-2/3 miles per day, every day of the year! That is pretty astounding to me. Link

Increasing fleet mileage (CAFE) is a good thing in the long run, but in the short run it is the old Jeavon's Paracox all over, it allows people to maintain the "structural" waste in how they organize their little world (long commutes, low density housing, globalised food chain, etc) and lets them put off making big changes. US miles driven is increasing and at a new high after falling for 5 or 6 years.

I agree tho, electric is how we'll get around in the future, the medium term anyway, while we coast on the fumes of the previously extracted and invested.

Look at my original post I wasn't talking about nukes at all. Someone pushed me for a solution and the best possible solution is nukes. It was not the subject of the conversation.

[Tikib]

In my opinion by the end of this year we will enter the era of business unusual. The price of oil will go above $100, a price from which it will never drop. Instead it will gradually rise and rise.

So you're predicting that by the end of the year we fall sharply off the peak-oil plateau? Why? You give NO evidence backing up your prediction other than a vague feeling. This is a classic shoot-from-the-hip doomer prediction of the sort that sets you up to look like a complete idiot if it doesn't pan out.

Are you sure you want to roll with this?

http://peakoil.com/consumption/oil-guru ... -100-crude

[Tikib]

Tikib: "If we just ignore agw and concentrate on peak oil here."

Pretty much any discussion beyond that becomes invalid; if not purely academic. Tikib's denial exists on numerous levels.

I was staying on topic. Now we have started the clathrate gun, even switching to 100% nuclear is not enough. We would need to something major like increasing the irradience of the atmosphere.