PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[DC]

Yes, including Iran.

There's a proposed reactor design called the Traveling Wave reactor. It runs on depleted uranium, which means no enrichment needed. It can't be used to make weapons grade materials either.

If Iran were to agree to play a role in the development of traveling wave reactors then they wouldn't need their enrichment facilities anymore.

Or they could go for thorium fueled reactors. Except for small amounts of seed uranium, a thorium fueled reactor doesn't need enriched fuel either.

couldnt you use it to make a dirty bomb?

 

[JihadJane]

Yes, including Iran.

There's a proposed reactor design called the Traveling Wave reactor. It runs on depleted uranium, which means no enrichment needed. It can't be used to make weapons grade materials either.

If Iran were to agree to play a role in the development of traveling wave reactors then they wouldn't need their enrichment facilities anymore.

Or they could go for thorium fueled reactors. Except for small amounts of seed uranium, a thorium fueled reactor doesn't need enriched fuel either.

When?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

none

but your Appeal to authority is noted.

I didn't engage in appeal to authority. Appeal to authority fallacy is when you present someone as an authority on a subject on the grounds that he has a fancy title. Like, for instance, a doctor of theology claiming to know all about controlled demolition.

I told you I have spoken to actual nuclear physicists and engineers about the state of the nuclear industry. They spoke to me within their field of expertise so "appeal to authority fallacy" does not apply.

But if you'd like to talk to one of the people I know yourself, here is his website: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ He is Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, Manager of Non-Proliferation and Safeguards at Canadas Chalk River Laboratories. He does answer his e-mail as long as you don't accuse him of raping the Earth.

BTW, the past president of JREF, Dr. Phil Plait was at the Alberta Science Teachers Convention last November. He can vouch that I was there.

 

[Nosi]

I can see the car going the way of the dinosaur, or we being/going hybrid.

Hong Cong China, which has a smog and space problem of epic proportions is looking at a tiny 'car' that can fit inside a foyer of a large American apartment. It looks like a large vacuum cleaner with seats for two, no space for luggage though.

Perhaps we will start seeing more commuters in tiny EN-V's. Not gigantic SUV's, tiny two seaters that drive themselves and see danger. Five can fit in a standard parking spot, and they shelter the well dressed sort from rain. They are a two person helmet.

When gas spiked in America, some American families ditched the second car or garaged it in favor of the fuel sipping moped. It wasn't the 100% solution, you were not able to toss the whole family into-on the moped and go, but when the key working parent with the long commute had to commute with just a brief case in reasonable weather this was a good option. Some models have a little storage caddy under the seat.

Electric-gas bicycles save serious gas too, but go much slower so they are options for only the local neighborhood. They do carry much more.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

couldnt you use it to make a dirty bomb?

No. You'd cook yourself.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When?

Mahmoud Ahmedinjad could ask for help in building a thorium fueled reactor tomorrow and get a positive response.

India is building thorium fueled reactors right now. They would probably love to help just for the sake of peace and stability in the region.

 

[DC]

I didn't engage in appeal to authority. Appeal to authority fallacy is when you present someone as an authority on a subject on the grounds that he has a fancy title. Like, for instance, a doctor of theology claiming to know all about controlled demolition.

I told you I have spoken to actual nuclear physicists and engineers about the state of the nuclear industry. They spoke to me within their field of expertise so "appeal to authority fallacy" does not apply.

But if you'd like to talk to one of the people I know yourself, here is his website: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ He is Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, Manager of Non-Proliferation and Safeguards at Canadas Chalk River Laboratories. He does answer his e-mail as long as you don't accuse him of raping the Earth.

BTW, the past president of JREF, Dr. Phil Plait was at the Alberta Science Teachers Convention last November. He can vouch that I was there.

you got some 60 000 tons of nuclear waste in the USA alone, and this stuff is bunkered at the power stationsacross the coutnry. and you tell me there is no need yet for a waste solution.

no mather who you talked to, i belive thats huge nonsence.

 

[JihadJane]

Mahmoud Ahmedinjad could ask for help in building a thorium fueled reactor tomorrow and get a positive response.

India is building thorium fueled reactors right now. They would probably love to help just for the sake of peace and stability in the region.

How many reactors would need to be built worldwide to offset declining oil production and provide for the ever-growing energy demands of our current economic system?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

you got some 60 000 tons of nuclear waste in the USA alone, and this stuff is bunkered at the power stationsacross the coutnry. and you tell me there is no need yet for a waste solution.

More than 90% of that is depleted uranium. It's not waste, it's unburned fuel. Much of it is old enough that it wasn't around when the recent advances in fuel formulation I mentioned earlier were made. So most of the remaining 10% can be put back into a reactor and converted into more stable elements.

no mather who you talked to, i belive thats huge nonsence.

Right, more argument from incredulity.

How many nuclear scientist conventions have you attended again?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How many reactors would need to be built worldwide to offset declining oil production and provide for the ever-growing energy demands of our current economic system?

A whole crap load.

We need to get started.

 

[DC]

More than 90% of that is depleted uranium. It's not waste, it's unburned fuel. Much of it is old enough that it wasn't around when the recent advances in fuel formulation I mentioned earlier were made. So most of the remaining 10% can be put back into a reactor and converted into more stable elements.



Right, more argument from incredulity.

How many nuclear scientist conventions have you attended again?

so you think you get an objective point of view by attending a nuclear science convention... like i get an objective point of view when i attend a Greenpeace convention.

so that old stuff can stay where it is?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

so you think you get an objective point of view by attending a nuclear science convention...

Yes.

like i get an objective point of view when i attend a Greenpeace convention.

How many members of greenpeace are nuclear engineers?

so that old stuff can stay where it is?

For a couple decades more. In a typical power reactor, fuel rods will go into a storage pool for about ten years. From there, they will go into above ground concrete casks for another 20 to 30 years. Most reactors are isolated enough that there is nothing stopping them from paving another acre or so and building a few more storage casks and squeezing another 20 to 30 years of storage out of it. That's where we are at now with the waste we have.

As I said above, most of that is unburned fuel. When the mines run out, those storage lots will have thousands of years of energy already mined, refined and ready to burn just waiting to be used.

 

[DC]

Yes.



How many members of greenpeace are nuclear engineers?



For a couple decades more. In a typical power reactor, fuel rods will go into a storage pool for about ten years. From there, they will go into above ground concrete casks for another 20 to 30 years. Most reactors are isolated enough that there is nothing stopping them from paving another acre or so and building a few more storage casks and squeezing another 20 to 30 years of storage out of it. That's where we are at now with the waste we have.

As I said above, most of that is unburned fuel. When the mines run out, those storage lots will have thousands of years of energy already mined, refined and ready to burn just waiting to be used.

ok if you belive so

 

[JihadJane]

A whole crap load.

We need to get started.

Could you provide more details, please?

 

[tyr_13]

A bit childish, no?

No. It isn't childish to note what a terrible name that is. It wasn't used as an argument.

I will say that your sources are hardly the least biased out there though.

Your comments did not address the systemic effects of declining oil production at all.

Yes, they did. Those examples are just pieces yes, but You think that because I didn't use the word 'systemic' that I wasn't addressing it?

Of course increasing energy costs and investment costs have systemic effects, but speculation on 'social justice' in it is stretching. If you want me to address governmental and/or social systemic changes as some of the papers you linked to, I'm afraid that I will decline to have that conversation with you. This isn't because I don't have a position on it, but that I know better than to have that conversation with out-layers who beat the same old drum on every issue.

They only way that anything could be said to "obsolesce oil" is if it can be scaled up quickly enough to offset declining global oil production on top of meeting the increasing demands for energy required to fuel a global economic system that depends on continual, longterm growth to survive.

As far as I know, none of the technologies you have mentioned have been shown to be able to do this in isolation or combined.

Argument from ignorance noted. We don't know which ones could be scaled in what combination to achieve our ends mostly because we don't know which one will pan out the best. No one is saying it will be as cheap as oil. Maybe it will be more, maybe it will be less. At any rate, it seems unlikely that the costs will be disastrous for social or governmental levels. But of course, remember that this is the economics boards. It doesn't appear to be disastrous for that either. Painful? Yes, but so was the switch away from horses.

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/

And?

Yes, did you? Perhaps you could quote the passages you are referring to.

First page of your second link.

What is a 'peak oil doomsday' advocate?

Someone who predicts disastrous consequences with drastic social upheaval because of peak oil. The term is self explanatory really.

If we are at the peak or entering the downside of oil production it means we are half way through the oil age. Oil production has been shown to follow a bell curve. The second half of the oil age consists of ever declining oil production whereas the first half consisted of ever-growing production.

This is simply wrong. The oil age doesn't end when the oil is gone, but when our use of it reduces to less than alternatives. Perhaps you think that will take another fifty years. Myself? I'd say half that.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Divide that by 10

Current proved uranium reserves are 3.1 million tonnes, current yearly use is ~40 000 tonnes. This is about 80 years supply at current use rates but fossil fuels currently produce 9X as much energy as nuclear.

IOW if we were to replace fossil fuels with nuclear tomorrow, using current technology we have about 8 years supply of uranium. This can be extended possibly as much as 10X by using breeder reactors. These do present a nuclear proliferation risk, as their byproducts tend to be weapons grade. In terms of foreign relations this essentially means “only the countries we like can be allowed to generate power, everyone else either needs to buy from us or go without.”

You can get longer periods if you calculate based on “resources” rather then “proved reserves” but that’s generally considers questionable methodology for mineral extraction. “Resources” include minerals that are not economically viable to extract at today’s prices and technology.

Lomiller,

Fascinating take on the issue.

I'm not questioning your numbers but I would be very interested if you have the source(s) for your figures on hand.

Cheers,
CS

 

[lomiller]

Lomiller,

Fascinating take on the issue.

I'm not questioning your numbers but I would be very interested if you have the source(s) for your figures on hand.

Cheers,
CS

I used a couple sources but I don’t recall whcih. This one looks like it uses a higher price which increases the economically viable proved reserves, but is basically the same info

http://www.nea.fr/press/2008/2008-02.html

and more here

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Uranium_3-12-2006ms.pdf


This has some info on global energy production by type nuclear is ~6% vs ~80% for fossil fuels

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/key_stats_2007.pdf


As mentioned above Thorium is also a potential fuel, but the only current rector design I know of the will burn it is CANDU. (In addition to burning almost anything CANDU is subcritical so the reaction shuts down on it’s own if the reactor is damaged or starts to melt down, making it quite safe and it doesn’t produce weapons grade byproducts. The only catch is that it uses large amounts of heavy water making it expensive and possibly not practical for really large scale production) There are other reactor types being researched but AFAIK they are not ready for wide scale production.

 

[Dymanic]

How many reactors would need to be built worldwide to offset declining oil production and provide for the ever-growing energy demands of our current economic system?

And what would they cost, and how long would it take to build them, and how much petroleum could be replaced by their output -- and, considering the extent to which we presently rely on cars and trucks and tractors and trains and other machines that run on petroleum, what would be the corresponding costs and timelines for replacing those with machines that can run on all this nuclear-generated electricity?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

sources

Yo,
thanks.

eta: crap.

 

[JihadJane]

No. It isn't childish to note what a terrible name that is. It wasn't used as an argument.

What's terrible about calling a site devoted to "discussions about energy and our future" The Oil Drum?

I will say that your sources are hardly the least biased out there though.

Can you suggest some sources that you consider unbiased on this subject?

Yes, they did. Those examples are just pieces yes, but You think that because I didn't use the word 'systemic' that I wasn't addressing it?

Of course increasing energy costs and investment costs have systemic effects, but speculation on 'social justice' in it is stretching. If you want me to address governmental and/or social systemic changes as some of the papers you linked to, I'm afraid that I will decline to have that conversation with you. This isn't because I don't have a position on it, but that I know better than to have that conversation with out-layers who beat the same old drum on every issue.

Smells like a cop-out to me but I've no objection to terminating our conversation!

Argument from ignorance noted. We don't know which ones could be scaled in what combination to achieve our ends mostly because we don't know which one will pan out the best. No one is saying it will be as cheap as oil. Maybe it will be more, maybe it will be less. At any rate, it seems unlikely that the costs will be disastrous for social or governmental levels. But of course, remember that this is the economics boards. It doesn't appear to be disastrous for that either. Painful? Yes, but so was the switch away from horses.

If you don't know, now, whether or not they can be scaled up then how can you present them as being able to "obsolesce oil"?

If there is not enough energy available to sustain a system's demand for it them the system cannot function. Even a small shortfall can have devastating consequences; economic depression, for example, in our case.

And?

A realistic, reality-based approach to energy security.

First page of your second link.

Could you quote the passages you are referring to?

Someone who predicts disastrous consequences with drastic social upheaval because of peak oil. The term is self explanatory really.

"'Peak oil doomsday' advocate" is a cartoon caricature designed to denigrate not explain.

This is simply wrong. The oil age doesn't end when the oil is gone, but when our use of it reduces to less than alternatives. Perhaps you think that will take another fifty years. Myself? I'd say half that.

There is a huge amount of oil left in the ground, but ever more expensive to extract and process.

You appear to saying, again, that alternatives can be scaled up to replace the functions of oil. What evidence do you have for this? Can you link to any studies supporting your faith?


The oil age fades out when oil no longer dominates social, economic and political reality. Relentlessly declining oil production is likely to do all of these things for decades to come.