PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[BenBurch]

Hindmost - I think the "brains" factor us actually something we could engineer around. We have available to us automation that the Westinghouse computers we used to put into plants could not even approach. It is entirely feasible to have a plant design were local control room operators are there entirely to shut down the plant in case of an automation failure or a loss of communications to a supervisory center, and a centralized supervisory center where several dozen plants are monitored by the experienced and certified staff.

It is also possible, I believe, to build a fully-autonomous small (10-50 MW) plant that would require a maintenance visit only when it shuts down and goes into alarm (rare) or when a core needed replacement.

 

[Hindmost]

thanks Hindmost, very informative.
i wasnt aware of that problem at all.

If you have some time, this link provides and overview that is still reasonably accurate.

http://nuclear.energy.gov/np2010/reports/mpr2776Rev0102105.pdf

Hindmost - I think the "brains" factor us actually something we could engineer around. We have available to us automation that the Westinghouse computers we used to put into plants could not even approach. It is entirely feasible to have a plant design were local control room operators are there entirely to shut down the plant in case of an automation failure or a loss of communications to a supervisory center, and a centralized supervisory center where several dozen plants are monitored by the experienced and certified staff.

It is also possible, I believe, to build a fully-autonomous small (10-50 MW) plant that would require a maintenance visit only when it shuts down and goes into alarm (rare) or when a core needed replacement.

This would be a big shift in current technology. I also think most people wouldn't accept a "set it and forget it" reactor no matter how many assuring calculations are done. It would have to be in the distant future in my opine.

glenn

 

[Nosi]

Hindmost - I think the "brains" factor us actually something we could engineer around. We have available to us automation that the Westinghouse computers we used to put into plants could not even approach. It is entirely feasible to have a plant design were local control room operators are there entirely to shut down the plant in case of an automation failure or a loss of communications to a supervisory center, and a centralized supervisory center where several dozen plants are monitored by the experienced and certified staff.

It is also possible, I believe, to build a fully-autonomous small (10-50 MW) plant that would require a maintenance visit only when it shuts down and goes into alarm (rare) or when a core needed replacement.

How do we protect such largely self operated plants from terrorism? We've a lot of loons out to destroy things for nutjob reasons.

 

[JihadJane]

Do you think JihadJane that there might be economic activity, even growth, in spite of energy peaks? Perhaps we will start to investigate underground housing, using the Earth as a means of warming, cooling ourselves?

The above ground housing in deserts and other extreme climes is absolutely a waste of the valued energy source...oil.

What about pulley systems?

As long as humans exist there will be economic activity but for an economy to grow it must have a correspondingly growing energy supply. Even a small energy shortfall can have catastrophic effects on an economic system dependent on growth to survive.

 

[Tailgater]

As long as humans exist there will be economic activity but for an economy to grow it must have a correspondingly growing energy supply.

Not true, but it helps.

 

[JihadJane]

Not true, but it helps.

What's not true about it?

 

[Tailgater]

Economies grew long before humans found oil or knew what energy was.

 

[BenBurch]

How do we protect such largely self operated plants from terrorism? We've a lot of loons out to destroy things for nutjob reasons.

Question: How much protection does a control room crew provide now?

Answer: The crew itself is a threat.

 

[Dymanic]

Economies grew long before humans found oil or knew what energy was.

Not sure what that means. Economies grew before any attempt was made to formalize the concept "economic growth", just as humans used energy before any attempt was made to formalize the concept "energy". There are also historical examples of economies that grew as long as they had easy access to sources of energy but declined or collapsed once those sources were depleted. From where we are now, to see economic growth in the face of a decline in global oil production would seem to have to depend heavily either on making up the deficit from other sources or on taking a different approach to defining "economic growth".

 

[Tailgater]

Not sure what that means. Economies grew before any attempt was made to formalize the concept "economic growth", just as humans used energy before any attempt was made to formalize the concept "energy". There are also historical examples of economies that grew as long as they had easy access to sources of energy but declined or collapsed once those sources were depleted. From where we are now, to see economic growth in the face of a decline in global oil production would seem to have to depend heavily either on making up the deficit from other sources or on taking a different approach to defining "economic growth".

Correct, and energy is a probably the driving factor in most growth, but our resident doomsdayer deals in absolutes. "As long as humans exist" is quite a broad statement to anything we are facing in the moment and "resources" does not always mean "energy".

 

[Dymanic]

Correct, and energy is a probably the driving factor in most growth, but our resident doomsdayer deals in absolutes.

May I take it then that you do not absolutely disagree with the statement: "Even a small energy shortfall can have catastrophic effects on an economic system dependent on growth to survive"?

"As long as humans exist" is quite a broad statement to anything we are facing in the moment

I don't see that particular choice of wording as central to what we're discussing; it was rhetorical.

...and "resources" does not always mean "energy".

That's true, and ecomomic activity can be driven by an abundance of some natural resource. If the energy costs incurred in harvesting and processing that resource are modest, it might be the basis for significant growth even in a tight energy economy. I can't think of any resource in the US that is still plentiful enough and energy-frugal enough to pull up our entire economy, but that doesn't mean that no such resource exists, I suppose. Could you be thinking of human resources?

 

[Nosi]

That's true, and ecomomic activity can be driven by an abundance of some natural resource. If the energy costs incurred in harvesting and processing that resource are modest, it might be the basis for significant growth even in a tight energy economy. I can't think of any resource in the US that is still plentiful enough and energy-frugal enough to pull up our entire economy, but that doesn't mean that no such resource exists, I suppose. Could you be thinking of human resources?

Information is considered an abundant resource. As computers shrink in size and cost, information's cost is decreasing.

Information can be sent via fiber optic wire which is a glass tube. Glass is some of the cheapest, most common stuff on this planet. Fiber can be run through the most unlikely of places including the sewer. Of course, on some forums, the content passing through those wires and where those wires were located were the source of a few...scented jokes. Regardless, economic business is often done.

As the cost of oil rises thanks to scarcity of that resource, we will likely see an increase of telecommuting by reluctant commuters who don't want to be fleeced by gas prices. The office pool will be replaced by the cloud pool where everyone's connected by fiber-optics and a master ISP.

 

[Tailgater]

May I take it then that you do not absolutely disagree with the statement: "Even a small energy shortfall can have catastrophic effects on an economic system dependent on growth to survive"?

It could be. There will definitely be a serious adjustment period, but it doesn't have to be catastrophic. That's speculation JJ likes to fantasize about. A dramatic movie type ending of the US starving for oil.

I don't see that particular choice of wording as central to what we're discussing; it was rhetorical.

I'm not so sure, based on the source, but ok.

That's true, and ecomomic activity can be driven by an abundance of some natural resource. If the energy costs incurred in harvesting and processing that resource are modest, it might be the basis for significant growth even in a tight energy economy. I can't think of any resource in the US that is still plentiful enough and energy-frugal enough to pull up our entire economy, but that doesn't mean that no such resource exists, I suppose. Could you be thinking of human resources?

Nice post by Nosi above. New inventions for a quickly changing world would be at the forefront I would guess. Add agriculture, manufacturing, natural resources, a return to reliance on manpower, animals, trains.......cost effective replacements for energy draining fields that might even create other jobs. An increase in hand skilled jobs like carpentry and machine shop types. Would be a good time to be Amish. Everyone would be going "green" for sure. I'm tired or I might run off more, but you get the idea.

As far as being catastrophic, it depends on how fast the oil peak happens as to how we adapt to it. Hopefully, there will a basic infrastrucure of clean energy in place before that happens to help ease the transition.

ETA: and there is still coal, which China, US, and I think Russia would be at the top of. Peak coal is farther down the road.

 

[Dymanic]

Information is considered an abundant resource. As computers shrink in size and cost, information's cost is decreasing.

If it's true that the cost of information in general is decreasing, then the only way I see getting "growth" out of the deal is by making it up in volume. The volume of information is certainly increasing, but a lot of it is hard to value; some is of highly questionable value; some is essentially worthless. Out of this arises what might be called "meta-information": information about information; accessing it and distributing it and evaluating it and protecting it, and about the tools used to do that (like computers, networks, etc) -- so an information-based economy is partly self-perpetuating. If anyone can predict the long-term economic implications of all that, including how it factors into overall economic growth (especially if we're using a GDP-based definition of "growth"), it sure isn't me.

Glass is some of the cheapest, most common stuff on this planet.

I see this as a good example of the kind of adjustment we'll all need to make; we need to start thinking in terms of energy costs, not just dollar costs. The raw materials for glass are cheap and plentiful, but manufacturing processes can be rather costly in terms of energy. As long as energy costs stay low, finished product stays cheap -- but double the energy costs a couple of times and everything changes.

As the cost of oil rises thanks to scarcity of that resource, we will likely see an increase of telecommuting by reluctant commuters who don't want to be fleeced by gas prices.

I frankly don't understand why we don't see a lot more of that already.

 

[Dymanic]

As far as being catastrophic, it depends on how fast the oil peak happens as to how we adapt to it.

It's not meaningful to speak of the peak itself happening fast or slow. In the strictest sense, it is an event which occurs at a single point in time (on a single day), and which we won't be able to clearly recognize until some time after it has passed.

The effects of that event on global energy economies will be ongoing, and are likely to be characterized mainly by instability: shortages and price spikes followed by responses to those on the part of individuals, businesses, industries, and nations trying to adjust; then temporary surpluses and easing of prices, followed by responses by the same entities trying to take advantage of that -- I don't know exactly how "we" adapt to that kind of scenario, but I do know that if our strategy is to wait until things get ugly before making any serious attempt to start adapting (and I will argue that at present that does appear to be "our" strategy), then if we do experience "catastrophic" consequences, they will be largely of our own making.

Peak coal is so much further down the road that I don't think we need to add that to our list of worries right now.

 

[JihadJane]

"The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command ...

It adds: 'While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.'

...Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world."

US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015

[My hilite - JJ]

 

[Nosi]

I see this as a good example of the kind of adjustment we'll all need to make; we need to start thinking in terms of energy costs, not just dollar costs. The raw materials for glass are cheap and plentiful, but manufacturing processes can be rather costly in terms of energy. As long as energy costs stay low, finished product stays cheap -- but double the energy costs a couple of times and everything changes.

I frankly don't understand why we don't see a lot more of that already.

Oil is not expensive enough yet to bring incentive to telecommuting to business owners. The business owner wants the 'comfort' of seeing the human bodies in their office pools at work, they don't feel the 'trust' in telecommuters. It is still too easy for a telecommuter to slack off, how does the employer know how he or she is getting value for wage? That is a question not yet answered by software or technology or policy. Give it time.

The backbone for a telecommuting infrastructure is being laid out like the railroad then the highway before it. The more highly paid employees, those who have skillsets with high demand are already using it to stretch themselves far and wide. Same with the wealthy or skilled in the early days of rail and car.

We are seeing programs like Go-To-Office cut down on travel expenses for smaller organizations being bit by the recession.

 

[daenku32]

The backbone for a telecommuting infrastructure is being laid out like the railroad then the highway before it.

Ever since 2000 there have been plenty of unemployed "railroad" workers. It's been interesting to watch so many web infrastructures crumble since the tech bubble burst, and I'm wondering when corporate management is going to rediscover the technology. I imagine this might bring it about. Probably to be supplied by the ISP or a 3rd party.

 

[JihadJane]

China & Peak Oil.

CNBC interview with Puru Saxena (CEO of Puru Saxena Wealth Management) on 26th April, 2010:

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

China & Peak Oil.

CNBC interview with Puru Saxena (CEO of Puru Saxena Wealth Management) on 26th April, 2010:

So?