Re: Peak Oil
- From: "widsith" <widsith@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Sep 2005 08:20:48 -0700
David Ewan Kahana wrote:
> widsith wrote:
<snip>
> > I used 'approx 1/3' since the exact amount didnt matter to my argument.
> > I was simply pointing out that Oil isnt the whole story, nor even a
> > majority of our economy's energy use.
> >
>
> And that's a very good point, which I agree with.
>
> Of course, most of the other current sources are exhaustible
> in the same way that oil is, though the time scales are
> different.
But how and what we replace them with may be different. I isolate Oil
because its primary benefit to us it that its distallates are a very
portable source of energy. I consider the fact that it is economical
(high EROI) as a secondary issue. If we are able to adopt nuclear or
some other high EROI source for our fixed energy needs we can afford to
use a low EROI source, even below 1, such as a hydrogen fuel cell, for
our transportable. (Assuming that the bulk of the energy needed to
produce the transportable isnt transportable energy.) IOW use an
energy storage mechanism, rather than an energy source for
transportable energy. Im not so much seperating oil vs everything else
as much as Im seperating stationary vs transportable. Its just that
oil and transprotable are currently synonymous.
<snip>
> > I used environmentalists numbers, not because they were accurate, but
> > because they are the most pessimistic and I could still make my case
> > with them.
> >
>
> Fair enough. I would argue however, that it will become essential
> to use nuclear energy, and that one should direct some focus
> also in that direction, since it is in fact practical and
> can make some impact on the 85% figure that's coming
> from fossil fuels, if not immediately on the 40% coming from
> oil. We're coming to a point now where all alternatives have
> to be considered.
I agree that nuclear is essential. I was arguing against the coming
collapse, saying that nuclear will become economically favored well
before we hit the point where a collapse occurs. And it needs to be
well before because of the lead times involved in conversion over.
<snip>
> > Appoximately US$1Trillion, or 10% of US GDP to build the 360 plants.
> > Assuming a reasonable set of assumptions (no increase in
> > recoverability, energy use per capita constant, population growth at
> > 0.95%/year) we have about 80 years of coal supplying both our coal and
> > oil needs. No, its not a permanent solution, but certainly enough time
> > to make a transition to yet another technology. (The automobile is
> > only about 100 years old.)
> >
>
> Your prices I think are correct.
>
> But I'm not sure that's quite accurate about the time
> scale. If you wanted to replace all of the oil and coal
> with coal, you have to increase the coal production something
> like a factor of 3, isn't it true?
>
> Roughly we have 250 years of coal at current usage rates, and
> about 100 years if your population growth rate is factored in.
>
> But conversion energy efficiencies are pretty low for liquefaction
> ... those 360 plants also take a lot of power, which has to come from
> somewhere, so this requires an increase in basic energy production or
> import, too. I can't say precisely what the difference would
> be, without making assumptions about what would happen
> to oil/etc. and running some simulations. But I think it
> probably comes out at less than 80 years. It depends on how
> much coal you think we have, I suppose.
Yes, I assumed that coal would provide the total of energy consumption
(in Q terms) that is currently provided by both coal and oil. If
additional energy is needed for the conversion, it would have to come
from a non-fossil fuel source for that model to occur. In reality, I
would think that well before the 80 year mark, we would begin to move
much of our staionary energy needs from coal to nuclear in any case.
(It was a very rudimentary model.)
As far as how much coal, I used the current recoverable reserves
estimate of 270 billion tons. I suspect this is low as I would expect
that as the need for coal increased, we would improve existing
technologies or develop new ones to improve the recoverability. I dont
expect 100%, but perhaps over a 50 year timeframe we could expect to
improve recoverabilty for 75-100 of the 225 billion tons estimated to
be unrecoverable.
<snip>
> > Unfortunately, that brings up the question of who's backyard we build
> > them in. That is the big question, one which I have no way of
> > answering, at what price for electricity does the consumer begin to
> > accept the presence of a nuclear plant? I mean sure, its great if its
> > in the town 50 miles away, but Im sure theyre thinking the same thing
> > about you. But at some price-point it will become politically viable.
> > I just have no idea how to estimate that point.
> >
>
> For my part I was happy enough to have a nuclear
> plant right in my own backyard, but the powers that
> be turned it off at a net cost of close to $10 billion
> which is now being eaten mostly by Long Island
> ratepayers ... we must have very close to the highest
> electric rates in the whole country.
Thats the problem, its not a rational decision, so its very hard to
predict. (BTW, my condolences on being subject to LIPA)
> At some point it becomes necessary for the Federal
> government just to invoke eminent domain, I think.
> France, for example, just bulled straight ahead with
> their nuclear programme and now does some business
> selling electricity to Germany I think.
>
> I think nuclear plants should have been built far from
> population centres, and there were many problems with
> the way in which the nuclear industry was managed. There
> are far superior reactors in use in Canada, and the US
> should have gone that way. I had the occasion to ask
> Hans Bethe about this question and he told me that the
> basic reason that the boiling water reactors were built
> here in the US, and not the much more neutron efficient
> CANDU reactors is that Admiral Rickover insisted on a
> scaled up model of the navy design being the model for
> the civilian nuclear power industry.
>
> Idiocy.
Why am I not surprised?
> > > I estimate the chances that this will happen in the current
> > > environment as very low ... the Bush administration did initially
> > > propose reinitiating efforts on nuclear power generation, it's
> > > the one thing I don't fault them on. But they have backed off
> > > on that issue.
> >
> > I guess thats my point, its not what will *this* administration do, but
> > what will happen during the next 3-5 administrations.
> >
>
> Absolutely right. Step one is the midterm elections. Step two
> is getting some people frome the reality-based community in
> charge of our energy policy. Without that, nothing good is
> going to happen, and we are in _desperate_ need of a long
> term policy.
The problem is our political structure has become just a market driven
as our economic. But rather than being concerned with the results of
the next quarter, politicians are concerned with the results of the
next election. Either way, it makes a strong disincentive to long term
planning.
<snip>
> > Transportation, but Im not sure how much eliminating unnecessary
> > driving and efficient automobiles will effect trucks, trains and
> > airplanes. I was trying to esitmate cars. Dkomo posted another link
> > showing 28% for cars and 13% for light trucks.
> >
>
> Trucks and trains surprisingly don't amount to all that much,
> I seem to remember it's something like 10%. I'll try to find
> a reference for that, if I can. Automobiles are a big part
> of it.
Dkomo's lists heavy trucks at 16% and airplanes at 6%. (BTW, I
misquoted above, its 25% and 18% for cars and light trucks.)
.
- References:
- Peak Oil
- From: Pholus
- Re: Peak Oil
- From: John Bode
- Re: Peak Oil
- From: dkomo
- Re: Peak Oil
- From: David Ewan Kahana
- Peak Oil
- Prev by Date: Re: Gorillas caught using tools
- Next by Date: Re: Peak Oil
- Previous by thread: Re: Peak Oil
- Next by thread: Re: Peak Oil
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
