[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'G')ood for you. If that were true it would mean you would be making over 300% profit because the going price for oil globally is $100+.

Except of course it isn't true overall. As the story I linked to shows:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')“Eighty bucks tends to be that mark where some of those new projects do become uneconomic,” said Todd Hirsch, a senior economist at ATB Financial in Calgary. “There might be some of those that end up being postponed [or cancelled]

[evilgenius]

Now we only have to manage to get the politicians to agree to spend on improving the grid.

[The Practician]

The reactors are called gas reactors, and use helium instead of water. Instead of fuel rods, they use a hopper full of uranium seeded graphite balls.

One of the interesting things about "economic" peak oil (which looks suspiciously like EROEI/ROC peak oil, just phrased in terms of money, for the benefit of the energy-dynamics averse) Is that economies like China and India can apparently afford more expensive oil than "advanced" economies. This is because they create more value out of the oil they consume, while a country like the USA or Canada has an economy built around extracting as little value from oil as they possibly can. I have my doubts about how much longer china and india can continue growing, partly because their nominally "productive" economies are in large part based on servicing consumer economies, and consumer economies are doomed.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'N')ow we only have to manage to get the politicians to agree to spend on improving the grid.

[GoIllini]

The reactors are called gas reactors, and use helium instead of water. Instead of fuel rods, they use a hopper full of uranium seeded graphite balls.

One of the interesting things about "economic" peak oil (which looks suspiciously like EROEI/ROC peak oil, just phrased in terms of money, for the benefit of the energy-dynamics averse) Is that economies like China and India can apparently afford more expensive oil than "advanced" economies. This is because they create more value out of the oil they consume, while a country like the USA or Canada has an economy built around extracting as little value from oil as they possibly can. I have my doubts about how much longer china and india can continue growing, partly because their nominally "productive" economies are in large part based on servicing consumer economies, and consumer economies are doomed.[/quote]
I was a really pro-nuke guy before Fukushima, and I still stand by the fact that the western Reactor design allowed three simultaneous LOCAs to do only 1/3 the damage of Chernobyl in terms of strontium and cesium hitting the atmosphere and ocean, but now I am getting more pragmatic.

The world has 400 nuclear reactors. Once every 10,000 reactor years, we get a meltdown that takes out about 500-1000 square miles of land. In order for the US to meet all of its energy needs from nuclear, we'd need 1000 reactors, meaning a meltdown every decade.

From a land use perspective, assuming 10 strontium half-lives (I think it's 27 years?) of contamination, we're looking at a running total of 27 contaminated areas over 270 years and maybe 20,000 square miles of land taken out. This is fairly small relative to the solar industry and the environmental impact of coal.

But from a psychological perspective, the prospect of us losing 1000 square miles every decade to an unseen radioactive force is very scary and demoralizing to a lot of folks. Sorry, maam. You have to leave your house now because all that electricity you've been enjoying caused the area to become radioactive. Your great great great grandchildren might be able to move back here, but you have to give up your childhood home. Now imagine this happening perhaps a million times during a meltdown since many of our existing reactors are near somewhat densely populated suburban areas. (Indian Point, Dresden, Byron, Millstone, Salem, Oyster Creek all come to mind.)

Also, about ten reactors sit on the shores of the lower Great Lakes and a meltdown on Lake Huron or Michigan could contaminate pehaps 10% of the world's drinking water for 20 years if we get a Fukushima-like loss of civilization for a week. Statistically, this may not be a problem for the country. Psychologically, it would be devastating for millions of residents in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois if there were a meltdown at Point Beach. Hundreds of thousands of acres of Wisconsin countryside getting made off-limits. No more swimming, boating, or drinking from Lake Michigan (or any of the lakes downstream for that matter) for 20 years. Worrying about how much radiation you've been exposed to.

When Chernobyl hit, it happened in the super-secret USSR. The country was a mess anyways, nobody complained, and we chalked it up to the misery of living in a communist state. Watching Japan, even with 1/3 as much off-site damage from three BWRs as 1 RMBK, we see what a nuclear meltdown looks like in a wealthy western country.

Now, helium cooled reactors might be safer from an operational standpoint, but that still doesn't cover the fact that we get a black swan every 10-20K reactor years as we saw at Fukushima. And helium-cooled still has the same problem that you need large-scale human intervention to keep the waste cool for 5-10 years, and if we lose civilization in an area of the country for a few weeks, we risk a meltdown.

I'm not saying we need to shut down existing reactors- maybe it might be a good idea to shut down Indian Point Reactor 3 since it sits on a fault line 30 miles from NYC on one of those most breathtaking sections of the Hudson River- but the focus needs to shift to fusion. Unlike the radioactive isotopes of iodine, cesium, and strontium, helium-4 just makes your voice sound funny for a short time before it dissipates into space.

[The Practician]

apperently pebble bed Gas Reactors can't melt down, Because the Graphite the balls are made of acts as a moderator. That said, the hoppers hold something like 400,000 tennis ball sized graphite spheres, which are cycled through the hopper and need to be disposed of in some way when they are spent.

[The Practician]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '[')b]Second, we need electric demand to go up from these PHEVs. But do bear in mind that they ultimately consume about 40% of the energy that cars do because their energy gets converted to useable power at a 35% efficiency power plant vs. a 15% efficiency internal combustion engine. So it is not like we are shifting 40 Quads of oil to the 50 Quad electric grid. It is more like 16-20, which means a 40% build-out over 20 years. I think that's doable if the electric company starts seeing more consumption.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Practician', '
')apperently pebble bed Gas Reactors can't melt down, Because the Graphite the balls are made of acts as a moderator. That said, the hoppers hold something like 400,000 tennis ball sized graphite spheres, which are cycled through the hopper and need to be disposed of in some way when they are spent.

[GoIllini]

Transmission costs on most grids are 5%; storage costs in most lithium batteries currently in use in cars are 5-10%. It's right to be fairly suspicious of this stuff until large-scale economic experience starts bearing the results out, and we're starting to see that with the Volt and the Leaf.

Also the cars typically get charged at night when their drivers have them parked in the garage. Right now, this happens when the rest of the grid is at 40% and is running on cheap baseload coal, hydro, and nuclear. So factoring in peaking stations at night, we may not have as much of a buildout as you'd think if you're willing to pay a little more for overnight power running on natural gas.

Even if you're crazy suspicious of all of this stuff, it doesn't change the fact that more of our energy goes through our electric grid than gets consumed as petroleum. When you're faced with that, you know a buildout might be big, but not impossible over 20 years of transition.

[seahorse3]

Canada has more oil than SA? Please, let me know when Canada starts producing 9mbpd. I don't care what you have in the ground, only what you can get out of it. I need to drive. You guys produce a whopping 1.5mbpd? Wow. In oil business, that's like saying you have a 1.5" penis. And, according this article, by 2025 you may get it up to 3.5mbpd. You'll still be three inches short of average.

http://www.economist.com/node/17959688

[Pops]

Dang Smiley, I passed muster for once!

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'C')anada has more oil than SA? Please, let me know when Canada starts producing 9mbpd. I don't care what you have in the ground, only what you can get out of it. I need to drive. You guys produce a whopping 1.5mbpd? Wow. In oil business, that's like saying you have a 1.5" penis. And, according this article, by 2025 you may get it up to 3.5mbpd. You'll still be three inches short of average.

http://www.economist.com/node/17959688

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', 'B')akken is providing some needed relief for the US;

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', 'S')ure Pops, but you were arguing in another thread that the new oil is more expensive to exploit. They are going to have to hire more engineers, workers, etc, to drill this oil. And as oil gets more expensive, they can bring more projects online.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('goIllini', 'A')ctually, $110 oil is very good news for Saskatchewan and North Dakota. More projects get brought online as oil prices go up.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('goIllini', 'A')ctually, $110 oil is very good news for Saskatchewan and North Dakota. More projects get brought online as oil prices go up.

[Pops]

OK, so far you've mentioned:
$25 $50 $110 tar sands
nat gas
nukes
electric cars
Nukes
electricity from somewhere
shale

And that last bit that labor and "cost of capital" has been the major driver of $80 oil.

If you want to argue all the possible alternatives to oil, excuse for the price, etc, be my guest, but find the appropriate thread to do it because you are off topic.

Just to remind you (for the last time) in this thread we're talking about the price of oil today and it's effect on the economy.

[GoIllini]

Exactly, and the bottom line is that in a net oil producing country, high oil prices create more jobs than they cost. Even in less of a net oil importer, you lose some jobs but gain many of them back due to higher production.

I know there is some apparent confusion about the difference between operating and capital costs- and this is something you can learn more about in an introductory Microeconomics course- but the economy simply disagrees with you. Between 2007 and 2009, when oil prices dipped from $80/barrel to $35, tar sands production actually increased:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395

Yes, "multinational corporations" do take some of the spread between production cost and the price of oil. About half of that gets paid out as taxes and other 15% gets paid out as royalties to local landholders. One of my oil companies produced $40/share worth of oil last year but only paid out $3/share of dividends. So most of that oil money is getting recycled into the economies of oil rich nations. Thanks to Bakken and Athabasca, the US and Canada are now oil-rich nations.

There you have it, that's the impact on the economy. And if you want high oil prices to have a net positive impact on your personal economy, you can always buy oil stocks.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '
')
If you're less of a net importer, higher oil prices start to become a mixed bag. The reduced consumer spending on cheap Chinese DVDs gets offset by more projects in the oil patch. And the US is becoming less oil intense every year even as production ramps up to its highest levels since 2003.

Obviously it is difficult to be optimistic during a secular bear market leg like we've been in for the past 10 years, but I don't think we should be gloomy on energy either. Bakken is providing some needed relief for the US; same with Athabasca, and in eight years, we will start making a serious transition to electric in the same way that $40/barrel oil eight years ago pushed us towards 35 mpg cars today.

[GoIllini]

Pops wants us to stay on topic, and I am trying to respect that. I'll be happy to debate with you the impact on our lives or the wealth distribution in another thread.

Bottom line is that yes, consumer jobs get lost when oil prices go up, but energy-producing jobs get created at the same time in resource-rich countries. And Bakken and shale gas have turned us into a very resource-rich country.