[roccman]

Why don't we just ramp up Coal-Liquid fuel production, for the short term, and use coal as our primary power source, while we construct 20,000 new breeder reactors.

If we mass produced them, I'm sure we could succeed in producing them. If an economic crunch is coming, then building Nuke plants would provide a good job for anyone who needed welfare.

What do you think?

How much coal do you think we have? The CTL process is very inefficient and will quickly lead to peak coal if we attempted to use it as a primary energy source.

Ding ding!!!

We have a winner JB...on this we agree!!!

Amazing!

Yes - that "250" years of coal at 2-4% current consumption rate goes to 20-40 in a heartbeat.

Some - believe Peak Coal is 10-20 years out or so.

This same argument applys to Nucs...there is around 40 years of RECOVERABLE yellow cake remaining...

Peak Uranium has passed.

[jbeckton]

This same argument applys to Nucs...there is around 40 years of RECOVERABLE yellow cake remaining...

Peak Uranium has passed.

Sure, but there are other nuclear fuels, there are not other coal fuels.

Also, coal power has essentially peaked in efficiency; nuclear power has a lot of room for improvement.

[roccman]

This same argument applys to Nucs...there is around 40 years of RECOVERABLE yellow cake remaining...

Peak Uranium has passed.

Sure, but there are other nuclear fuels, there are not other coal fuels.

Also, coal power has essentially peaked in efficiency; nuclear power has a lot of room for improvement.

Too bad in a global economic depression there will be ZERO capital to find and develop these "improvements" for nucs...

You should hang out in Tom's group (ER) and break bread with a poster who goes by Mauk Mauk...

Nope - we are clever monkeys, but the road to olduvai awaits...

To date no one has intelligently refuted Dr. Duncan's predictions...oh we will die trying to prove him wrong, but so what JB ...there is "trying" and then there is "doing".

[jbeckton]

To date no one has intelligently refuted Dr. Duncan's predictions...oh we will die trying to prove him wrong, but so what JB ...there is "trying" and then there is "doing".

I thought growth was supposed to stop in 1979?

At the time of Duncan's paper, the peak in per capita energy consumption was 11.15 boe/c/yr (barrels of oil equivalent per capita per year) and occurred in 1979; however, since then energy use per capita has increased beyond that level, with the most recent year providing the current peak value of 12.12 boe/c/yr[5][6]. This increase directly contradicts Postulate 2 of the most recent version of the theory, namely that "[average per capita energy] will show no growth from 1979 to circa 2008".[6]

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

[roccman]

To date no one has intelligently refuted Dr. Duncan's predictions...oh we will die trying to prove him wrong, but so what JB ...there is "trying" and then there is "doing".

I thought growth was supposed to stop in 1979?

At the time of Duncan's paper, the peak in per capita energy consumption was 11.15 boe/c/yr (barrels of oil equivalent per capita per year) and occurred in 1979; however, since then energy use per capita has increased beyond that level, with the most recent year providing the current peak value of 12.12 boe/c/yr[5][6]. This increase directly contradicts Postulate 2 of the most recent version of the theory, namely that "[average per capita energy] will show no growth from 1979 to circa 2008".[6]

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

While you spend your time with wiki I will continue to listen to my sources...

Like a registered electrical engineer from one of the largest electric utilities in the southwest that told me at lunch 2 months ago to expect black outs in Phoenix in under 2 years.

But hey - Duncan could be wrong.

[jbeckton]

While you spend your time with wiki I will continue to listen to my sources...

Like a registered electrical engineer from one of the largest electric utilities in the southwest that told me at lunch 2 months ago to expect black outs in Phoenix in under 2 years.

Prolonged blackouts or peak day stress blackouts?

You don't need and "insider buddy" to be aware that the population in the western interconnection is expanding faster than grid capacity.

Did he hear about this during registration?

http://energy.state.nv.us/2005%20Report ... 201-19.doc

[Plantagenet]

what you're suggesting is ludicrous.
Building 20,000 breeder reactors wont put fuel in the gas tanks of the tractors.
your solution does not work.

You should learn more about breeder reactors. New high-temperature reactors can produce hydrogen in addition to electricity. Electricity is an environmentally clean fuel that can be used to run cities and heat homes and run factories and power trains. Hydrogen is a clean fuel that can be used to power tractors, trucks and cars.

Get it?

[Tyler_JC]

A nuclear plant costs about $2000 per kilowatt of generating capacity.

Meaning a one gigawatt plant would cost $2 billion.

Adding in other random factors and that goes up to, say, $4 billion.

World energy consumption is 15TW.

Or, 15,000 gigwatts.

The cost of this energy, if we built nuclear plants to suddenly replace all of our current use, would be $60,000 billion or roughly equal to global GDP.

Now obviously some of the world is already powered by nuclear power but I'll ignore that fraction for now.

We do not need to build all 15,000 nuclear plants in one year. We have decades to do it.

Spread out the costs over a third of a century and suddenly the figure drops to 3% of GDP.

Now that is a far more manageable number, no?

As for Coal-to-Liquid...I prefer keeping the planet as clean as possible. CTL is a distraction and an ecological disaster (much like corn ethanol). God willing this won't be tried on a large scale and based on the poor profitability of these projects, it probably won't be tried.

But I'm still worried about the possibility that China might decide to subsidize its liquid transport fuel market by converting its dirty coal reserves...

If that happens, I expect China's population to contract rather sharply do to air pollution, water pollution, food shortages, etc.

[Novus]

what you're suggesting is ludicrous.
Building 20,000 breeder reactors wont put fuel in the gas tanks of the tractors.
your solution does not work.

You should learn more about breeder reactors. New high-temperature reactors can produce hydrogen in addition to electricity. Electricity is an environmentally clean fuel that can be used to run cities and heat homes and run factories and power trains. Hydrogen is a clean fuel that can be used to power tractors, trucks and cars.

Get it?

Is what you do not get is that we no longer have resources to do any of that. We needed to be doing this ten years ago when the world still had excess energy to implement the conversion. The fact is we wasted that opportunity and spent the last remaining excess on more cars, more sprawl, more growth. The only way this could be pulled off is if we get a leader like Mao who proclaimed he didn't care if 20 million people died to get the bomb. It would be like shutting off all the power California so the other 49 states could develop these alternatives. It is just not going to happen.

[roccman]

Wow - reading these posts from tyler and PA and others that have never worked ONE day in the energy field is quite funny and sad.

10 years to permit 5 years to build a nuc plant...

longer for breeders (of which there are only two currently in the world that have spent over 80% of time offline).

Capital investment is drying up by the day...raw materials are becoming more and more and more expensive...and skilled workforces are non-existant at the scale being discussed here.

Again - If you do not know about something - STFU - you only create doubt where there is none.

[jbeckton]

10 years to permit 5 years to build a nuc plant...

Yup, with hippie protesters and seemingly viable alternatives, sure.

With an energy crunch being felt, don't you suppose the guys that are willing to go to war for oil will find a way to expedite the process? Sure they will. There will be money for capitol investment in energy production until the last light goes out. Where better to invest on the doorstep of a crisis?

DSM programs can dramatically reduce the number of plants needed, and would be wise since nuclear power runs full blast 24/7.

Also, I don't know about the others, but I do not expect 100% nuclear in 25 years no matter what. I expect about 40% nuclear, 30% coal, and 30% local alternative.

Of course this all depends on the decline rate, which I think is the crux of the disagreement. If one thing is for certain, the poorer countries will suffer much more than the developed nation, which means we can expect higher prices but we will pay the price because we can and they can't.

Not fair, but true.

I think that some people forget that peak also means that we have only reached the halfway point, there is still one drop left for every drop we have ever taken. The energy is there, the only questions are, who will get it and what will they do with it?

[roccman]

10 years to permit 5 years to build a nuc plant...

Yup, with hippie protesters and seemingly viable alternatives, sure.

With an energy crunch being felt, don't you suppose the guys that are willing to go to war for oil will find a way to expedite the process? Sure they will.

Yeah JB - always the hippies preventing your fat ass from progress...could not be that this planet is overpopulated with neo-con pigs such as yourself...eh...??

Either way - in 1974 it was written into NEPA just for lardasses like you to glee over...

TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER V--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PART 1506--OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA--Table of Contents

Sec. 1506.11 Emergencies.

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.

Oh - and it will come to pass that all environmental regs are shit canned...then JB what will your excuse be then...

Here is a hint JB - OVERSHOOT...

[jbeckton]

Either way - in 1974 it was written into NEPA just for lardasses like you to glee over...

TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER V--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PART 1506--OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA--Table of Contents

Sec. 1506.11 Emergencies.

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.

*Here is where I would call you a name if i was 7.*

So you see that your 10 year permiting is BS right?

Here is a hint JB - OVERSHOOT...

Good to have you back MonteQuest!

[roccman]

Either way - in 1974 it was written into NEPA just for lardasses like you to glee over...

TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER V--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PART 1506--OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA--Table of Contents

Sec. 1506.11 Emergencies.

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.

*Here is where I would call you a name if i was 7.*

So you see that your 10 year permiting is BS right?

Here is a hint JB - OVERSHOOT...

Good to have you back MonteQuest!

Not much to say ...eh JB??

Bwhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahah!

[jbeckton]

Not much to say ...eh JB??

Nah, you have reached the 3rd stage of the cyclic doomer argument because your initial arguments have failed.

1) We can't do it
2) We won't do it
3) It won't matter

There is no reasoning with the 3rd stage. Usually you hold out a little longer

[roccman]

Not much to say ...eh JB??

Nah, you have reached the 3rd stage of the cyclic doomer argument because your initial arguments have failed.

1) We can't do it
2) We won't do it
3) It won't matter

There is no reasoning with the 3rd stage. Usually you hold out a little longer

Un fucking believable!!!!

We agree for a third time today!

Enjoy the die off JB...I sure as hell will.

[Tyler_JC]

I feel like these conversations are pointless.

Roccman and JB come from fundamentally different backgrounds.

Occasionally a breakthrough can be made but basically, it's like watching Karl Marx and Milton Friedman argue economics...

[Plantagenet]

Image too big- jato


The wimps and whiners want to quit and lay down and give up before things even get tough, and they want everybody else to give up too. So let 'em give up, to be swept into the dustbin of history.

The rest of us will just have to leave them where they drop and get about the business of building nukes and hydrogen cars and and androids and flying cars all by ourself. Its time for the men of action to roll up their sleeves and get started at creating the new American economy from the shell of the old......

[roccman]

I feel like these conversations are pointless.

Roccman and JB come from fundamentally different backgrounds.

Occasionally a breakthrough can be made but basically, it's like watching Karl Marx and Milton Friedman argue economics...

Agreed TC!

There are two types of people in the world:

those that are rational

and those that are not.

Most irrational people believe in a god, their government, and believe they are free. If one puts JB, PA, AP, and you side by side and one squints while looking at the line up...you are really all essentially the same.

[frankthetank]

Can someone here give me the directions to where an ACTUAL nuclear power plant is being built NOW. I think a field trip would be well worth it

I believe nuclear could've saved us, if we wouldn't had taken the SUV/gasoline route back 15 years ago and went the route of the EV1.

Why would some rich dude who is happy using oil (he won't have to worry) invest in some scheme that doesn't benefit him (the goverment sure the hell isn't doing anything to solve the problem/you think Clinton or Mr 9/11 is???)?

I still say the rich say F U and fly away to Dubai or New Zealand or some remote place and play with their yachts and weiners.

The rich always win!