[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('StarvingLion', '
')The Illuminati are the ones in for a surprise when they shut off the free shit

[Tikib]

I am convinced that the era of business as usual is about to come to an end. BUT do I think post peak oil we are going to be eating each other?

NO.

[SeaGypsy]

Mosennui would probably fry up nice with garlic & ginger, a touch of tumeric & fresh coriander from the organic permaculture kitchen garden. But he has a daughter to look after, I have 2 a bit younger & I need sitters, so have to barbecue something else, or perhaps stick to veganism a bit longer....

[SeaGypsy]

You know BAU is coming to an end when you start wondering how long the spare fat off your neighbors wife's arse would run the tractor for & if the rest would be better used as soup stock or fertilizer. Cannibalism, a perennial favorite around here, geez it's been a while...

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'A')nd people wonder why I'm such a contrarian here? Does anyone really keep tabs on how off people's predictions tends to be?

[ennui2]

Pops, you're mirepresenting my position. I am not trying to claim to have been a perfect clairvoyant on peak-oil predictions. I have framed myself as (what pstarr calls) a "reformed" doomer, someone who isn't going to get sucked into "doom is nigh" group-think anymore. But there are some (pstarr being the poster-child) who can't seem to express the same degree of humility and simply rewrites the narrative of what constitutes peak-oil doom to include whatever is going on now. THAT is the revisionist-history. And a lot of people do it, including people like Heinberg.

[Pops]

I'm with ya. I'm trying to be less emotional and knee jerk and not quite so adamant about whatever. I still argue, I guess I just like to debate but I just don't have the certainty that I did, say pre-2008.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') have always had certainty, but it is of a nuanced sort. Call me an effete doomer.

[ralfy]

Oil is used significantly in heavy equipment for mining, various processes in manufacturing, petrochemicals, and container ships, diesel trucks, etc. In addition, likely much of infrastructure worldwide is heavily underdeveloped, which means there aren't enough roads, electricity grids, etc., to meet various basic needs. Given these, it is highly unlikely that technofixes would have avoided the effects of peak oil.

Also, most people worldwide earn less than $10 a day, which means they can't afford even technofixes. However, the number of people who is earning more is growing worldwide.

In addition, we are seeing growing population, growing energy and material resource needs per person, increasing environmental damage, and the effects of global warming.

Given that, we can probably argue that it has been "business unusual" from the start, with a minority experiencing "business as usual" in various ways (and maintaining such a lifestyle only by selling it to a growing global market), and more catching up. As combinations of crises take their toll, more will join "business unusual," and eventually that too won't last.

[Simon_R]

The current form of Nuk is used as it is well understood and predictable, the parts are (not exactly but described as) factory made.
If you want to get experimental, checkout Areva, that massive loss is an attempt to soup up the current design, imagine the financial catastrophe if it was a completely new theory.

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone have figures on the amount of energy the world uses, and then add a bit for those pesky 3rd world guys trying to better themselves....tsk. How many nukes would we need ?
How much uranium is actually available ?

Just curious

[SeaGypsy]

Tanada?

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'T')anada?

[Simon_R]

Hi Tanada

I am sorry, I meant total energy, total electrical energy.

So how many stations to rid ourselves of hydrocarbon energy

thanks

Simon

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Simon_R', 'H')i Tanada

I am sorry, I meant total energy, total electrical energy.

So how many stations to rid ourselves of hydrocarbon energy

thanks

Simon

[Simon_R]

Hi Tanada

Given current technology (the only one realistic for this buildout in 20 years) this seems to indicate and enormous amount of uranium per year. I saw a figure of 200 tonnes per station per year, this is 3000 stations * 200 = 600,000 tonnes per year.
Forgetting the nuclear waste issue, this seems an awful lot, googling peak uranium there does not appear to be that amount economically recoverable.

All figures derived from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

thanks

Simon

[Tikib]

Heres the thing tho, the nuclear waste generated from that huge build out could all be put into a Molten Salt Reactor when they have been perfected...

[Tikib]

And peak uranium is a bit of fallacy really, whenever we need uranium we just look for more.

Because uranium has so much more energy in it than oil its stil usable at much lower concentrations. You could power the world for a 100 years at least with current generation nuclear.

With molten salt you could power it for 2000 years at least.