PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[JihadJane]

"The key to understanding the implications of peak oil is to see it not just directly through its effect on transport, petrochemicals, or food say, but its systemic effects. A globalising, integrated and co-dependant economy has evolved with particular dynamics and embedded structures that have made our basic welfare dependent upon delocalised 'local' economies. It has locked us into hyper-complex economic and social processes that are increasing our vulnerability, but which we are unable to alter without risking a collapse in those same welfare supporting structures. And without increasing energy flows, those embedded structures, which include our expectations, institutions and infrastructure that evolved and adapted in the expectation of further economic growth cannot be maintained."

[My emphasis]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6309

 

[lomiller]

For 200 years with current ore extraction.

For about 1000 years if you make a better use of waste and nuclear arsenal.

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.

 

[tyr_13]

You appear not to have read the paper.

You appear to have not refuted anything I said.

 

[JihadJane]

You appear to have not refuted anything I said.

In what way was your comment related to the OP?

 

[tyr_13]

It responds to, "Good summary how Peak Oil threatens the stability of modern industrial civilization:".

I've listed some ways how modern industrial civilization is much more stable than presented.

 

[JihadJane]

It responds to, "Good summary how Peak Oil threatens the stability of modern industrial civilization:".

I've listed some ways how modern industrial civilization is much more stable than presented.

Sorry, you lost me with your teenager-like "theoildrum.com? Really? Wow."

See here.

Did you read any of the linked articles?

How do any of the technologies you mention "obsolesce oil"?

Who is pretending that there hasn't been massive investment into these technologies ?

Who is pretending that hybrid drive technology has slowed investment in hydrogen gas and cell technology, with sources such as termite bacteria among others, and fully electric vehicles?

We are not at the end of the oil age, as you claim. We are at the peak of the oil age.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I thought JihadJane was behind bars?

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry, you lost me with your teenager-like "theoildrum.com? Really? Wow."

I lost you at an offhand comment on the name of the website you linked to? Wow. (Hope I didn't lose you there.)

See here.

Did you read any of the linked articles?

Yes, which is why I posted what I posted...

How do any of the technologies you mention "obsolesce oil"?

They replace oil in specific uses, such as for fertilizer, making plastics, and powering automobiles.

Who is pretending that there hasn't been massive investment into these technologies ?

Who is pretending that hybrid drive technology has slowed investment in hydrogen gas and cell technology, with sources such as termite bacteria among others, and fully electric vehicles?

More than a few 'peak oil doomsday' advocates. Did you read the articles you linked to?

We are not at the end of the oil age, as you claim. We are at the peak of the oil age.

That's really funny because the one article you linked to said that we are either at the peak or on the downside of. AKA, at the end of.

Are you sure you're reading the articles?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

you solved the storage problem?

Me? No.

But yes, it has been solved.

For 200 years with current ore extraction.

For about 1000 years if you make a better use of waste and nuclear arsenal.

For a tad bit more if you play between actinides.

Still not solved forever. Only solved until peak nuclear.

You're off by about 59,000 years.

And you're likely not taking thorium into account.

 

[DC]

Me? No.

But yes, it has been solved.



You're off by about 59,000 years.

And you're likely not taking thorium into account.

by whom and where? when will the storage open?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The whole world?

Yes.

There are designs on the drawing boards for new reactors that can't be used to make weapons, don't have to be refueled for 60+ years and at the end will leave waste with half-lives measured in decades rather than millenia.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

by whom and where? when will the storage open?

Either bury it in a subduction zone or launch it into space. Launching it into space has virtually no risk if you use a launch system that has no moving parts after lift-off.

 

[DC]

Either bury it in a subduction zone or launch it into space. Launching it into space has virtually no risk if you use a launch system that has no moving parts after lift-off.

i heard this since decades, and?
No where on this planet, anyone opened a place to burry the stuff, nor has anyone started shooting it in to space.

this is all nice and well in theory.
but after decades of creating waste it is about time to bring a solution into practice.
once we have done this, Nuclear Energy is indeed the best thing we have sofar. until then, its not practable.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No where on this planet, anyone opened a place to burry the stuff, nor has anyone started shooting it in to space.

That's because nuclear power plants produce so little waste that we haven't needed to yet.

this is all nice and well in theory.
but after decades of creating waste it is about time to bring a solution into practice.

You fail to understand the scales involved with nuclear power generation. Modern designs produce far less waste than the early ones did. New advances in fuel formulation for high actinide burnup have drastically reduced the volume of waste coming out of existing reactors.

We have decades more to figure something out.

once we have done this, Nuclear Energy is indeed the best thing we have sofar. until then, its not practable.

No... solar and wind are expensive fads, nothing more.

And we do have the solutions already. We just need to have enough reactors operating that putting them into use becomes economical.

 

[DC]

That's because nuclear power plants produce so little waste that we haven't needed to yet.



You fail to understand the scales involved with nuclear power generation. Modern designs produce far less waste than the early ones did. New advances in fuel formulation for high actinide burnup have drastically reduced the volume of waste coming out of existing reactors.

We have decades more to figure something out.




No... solar and wind are expensive fads, nothing more.

And we do have the solutions already. We just need to have enough reactors operating that putting them into use becomes economical.

LOL

not needed yet.........

ok ok dream on

 

[JihadJane]

I lost you at an offhand comment on the name of the website you linked to? Wow. (Hope I didn't lose you there.)

A bit childish, no?

Yes, which is why I posted what I posted...

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

They replace oil in specific uses, such as for fertilizer, making plastics, and powering automobiles.

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.

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/

More than a few 'peak oil doomsday' advocates. Did you read the articles you linked to?

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

What is a 'peak oil doomsday' advocate?

That's really funny because the one article you linked to said that we are either at the peak or on the downside of. AKA, at the end of.

Are you sure you're reading the articles?

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.

 

[JihadJane]

Yes.

There are designs on the drawing boards for new reactors that can't be used to make weapons, don't have to be refueled for 60+ years and at the end will leave waste with half-lives measured in decades rather than millenia.

Including for Iran, for example?

There are indications that world oil production has already peaked. When is your non-weaponizable nuclear energy coming on line?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

LOL

not needed yet.........

ok ok dream on

Argument from incredulity noted.

DC, I've talked to actual nuclear engineers and physicists about this. I attended a convention of Canadas top nuclear minds last summer and attended a science teachers convention last fall as a representative of the Canadian Nuclear Society.

I'm not an engineer of a physicist but I know a lot for a layperson because I've talked to the people who do.

How many nuclear scientist conventions have you attended, DC?

 

[DC]

Argument from incredulity noted.

DC, I've talked to actual nuclear engineers and physicists about this. I attended a convention of Canadas top nuclear minds last summer and attended a science teachers convention last fall as a representative of the Canadian Nuclear Society.

I'm not an engineer of a physicist but I know a lot for a layperson because I've talked to the people who do.

How many nuclear scientist conventions have you attended, DC?

none

but your Appeal to authority is noted.

what is the science or calculations behind your claim?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Including Iran, for example?

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.