by MonteQuest » Sun 18 Feb 2007, 16:29:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Currently, the most optimistic growth rate for nuclear power is about 2.5% per year...and this is with it losing 4% of it's share of generating capacity.
This is terrible!!
Maybe we'll have to just start out doing things like this, seems like it keeps them from having to build out huge numbers of power plants and such like, and if all works for like the worlds 8th largest economy...
Switching gears again?
Conservation just makes the energy cheaper for China and others who will then consume more. And what happens when population growth alone chews up all those conservation savings?
This will get us to double-digit nuclear energy growth?
Welcome to the recession via conservation, as the scale and magnitude needed would upset the economic cart.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by jbeckton » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 09:27:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '?')?? Sorry, too cryptic for me. What did you mean?
Hubbert didn't posit a problem in quite the way you've explained it. He viewed the fossil fuel age as nothing more than a mechanism to allow a ramp up in energy useage into a nuclear future, the feedstock for which he assessed, calculated necessary energy useage against it and decided that the long term prospects for that scenario fueling mankind could go on for thousands of years.
In bygone decades Nuclear was esteemed to provide society with unmetered energy.
The reality is quite different.
You only have to look globally at the amount of nuclear coming on line Vs fossil fuel power to realise that the current system is unsustainable and that nuclear is not filling the shoes of FF.
Clearly its not a matter of the price of Nuclear energy vs. the price of FF. Its the result of a population ingnorant to the abilities of nuclear energy. Take away Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island acccidents and I think that we see a much different energy mix today.
People fear what they do not understand.
by jbeckton » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 10:53:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
No one has ignored the solution, it just wasn't viable. And even if we had embraced it sans the poor economics and unsolved waste and proliferation issues, what about the caveats to the solution?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hubbert', 'T')here is promise, however, provided mankind can solve its International problems and not destroy itself with nuclear weapons, and provided the world population (which is now expanding at such a rate as to double in less than a century) can somehow be brought under control, that we may at last have found an energy supply adequate for our needs for at least the next few centuries of the "foreseeable future."
And then there is this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hubbert', 'I')t will probably require the better part of another 10 or 15 years of research and development before stabilized designs of reactors and auxiliary chemical processing plants are achieved after which we may expect the usual exponential rate of growth of nuclear-power production.
The decline of petroleum production and the concurrent rise in the production of power from nuclear energy for the United States is shown schematically in Figure 29. The rise of nuclear power is there shown at a rate of about 10 percent per year, but there are many indications that it may actually be twice that rate.
Hubbert's 1956 paper10% per year? 20% per year? Reality?
It could quickly become reality in the face of an energy crisis.
In the long run, the solution to peak oil may look like this:
1) Conservation to reduce demand for energy (liquid fuels in particular) to the lowest possible level. This will involve retrofitting first world cities to eliminate the need for cars in ordinary life.
2) Using replacements (tar sands, natural gas, GTL, ethanol, coal liquefaction etc.) to substitute for liquid fuel demand which cannot be eliminated.
3) Shifting as much of the electrical grid as possible to nuclear (supplemented with wind/solar) to free up natural gas and coal for transport and feedstock applications.
4) Managing with nuclear and the remaining fossil fuels until plentiful, clean space energy can be brought on line.
Nuclear energy is a critical part of the solution, and the doomers often criticize it for it being unscalable. They say:
i) It takes 10 years or more to build a nuclear power plant.
This is a myth.
The new-generation nuclear reactors being talked about after a pause of three decades are not much different from those of the past, though the designs should make them safer, more efficient and easier to build.
Here are some characteristics of each of the top three light-water reactor designs and a next-generation gas-cooled reactor:
The Westinghouse AP1000:
This would have one-third fewer pumps, half as many valves, and more than 80 percent fewer pipes than current reactors. It can be built using modular units manufactured in a factory and transported to the reactor site, cutting construction time to three years.
ii) Nuclear power can't be scaled up quickly.
This is false. Nuclear power generation rose from 21.8 billion kilowatt-hours in 1970 to 576.9 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990 (Source: DOE Annual Energy Review 2004, P. 275). That's an increase of 2500% over 20 years -- a growth rate of about 17.7% per annum.
iii) We won't be able to build nuclear plants after peak oil because building nuclear plants is dependent on oil.
This is also false, as can be seen from the history of the late 1970s/early 1980s, when world crude oil production dropped by -15%, while nuclear power in the U.S. rose by +60%.
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... ch-to.html
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 11:50:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'h')ttp://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/117-is-it-too-late-to-switch-to.html
Now, all your credibility is gone. LOL! Citing JohnDenver's blog as a source is so laughable.
I will address some of it later...but for now I have to laugh.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by jbeckton » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 12:41:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'h')ttp://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/117-is-it-too-late-to-switch-to.html
Now, all your credibility is gone. LOL! Citing JohnDenver's blog as a source is so laughable.
I will address some of it later...but for now I have to laugh.
There are references to that information on that page from many other sources.
Hopefully you will not "address it" with your forcasts citing nuclear energy production declining that are clearly based on an everlasting FF source.
That logic is laughable.
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 17:59:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'I')t could quickly become reality in the face of an energy crisis.
We wait until we hit a wall, then we can do the impossible?
In the face of an energy crisis, the economy will implode. Where will the capital investment come from? Where will the energy come from? While they are being built, they are new energy
consumers. Who will do without while we use that energy to build?
How do you know what the decline rate will be? Or how the markets will react?
What happens while we wait for this new energy to come on-line?
If we hit a energy crisis wall, we will use the less expensive, most
timely, and most easily obtainable energy sources available...and nuclear won't be one of them.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')) Conservation to reduce demand for energy (liquid fuels in particular) to the lowest possible level. This will involve retrofitting first world cities to eliminate the need for cars in ordinary life.
Which equals a massive economic recession or depression with soaring unemployment.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2')) Using replacements (tar sands, natural gas, GTL, ethanol, coal liquefaction etc.) to substitute for liquid fuel demand which cannot be eliminated.
Not scalable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3')) Shifting as much of the electrical grid as possible to nuclear (supplemented with wind/solar) to free up natural gas and coal for transport and feedstock applications.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 18:46:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')Hopefully you will not "address it" with your forcasts citing nuclear energy production declining that are clearly based on an everlasting FF source.
That logic is laughable.
That isn't my logic, that is "the plan" by those in charge.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by ClubOfRomeII » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 20:19:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')ii) Nuclear power can't be scaled up quickly.
This is false. Nuclear power generation rose from 21.8 billion kilowatt-hours in 1970 to 576.9 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990 (Source: DOE Annual Energy Review 2004, P. 275). That's an increase of 2500% over 20 years -- a growth rate of about 17.7% per annum.
Citing facts in a Peak oil arguement will cause you nothing but grief. 17.7% per annum...exponential growth ( a favorite usually when moving in the opposite direction ) means it will take over the world electrical output within 2 decades or so?
How about this one...I calculated the exponential growth in hybrid sales the other day, in about 9 years all 17 million new autos sold in the US will be hybrids!!
The inhumanity!! Save the planet!! Kill the humans!!
1874, State Geologist of Pennsylvania
"Only enough US oil to keep kerosene lamps burning for 4 more years"
Boy, I bet great-great grandpa was worried!
-
ClubOfRomeII
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
-
by ClubOfRomeII » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 20:24:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LastViking', 'M')itigation demands a world wide move to Nuclear asap.
EEK!!
![[smilie=5censored.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/5censored.gif "5censored")
But that means you are advocating...that...Hubbert was right!!
Such a reasonable idea on your part...how DARE YOU!!
1874, State Geologist of Pennsylvania
"Only enough US oil to keep kerosene lamps burning for 4 more years"
Boy, I bet great-great grandpa was worried!
-
ClubOfRomeII
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 21:57:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LastViking', 'T')he do-gooders that scared politicians away from the 1970's Nuclear movement are tragically the reason we have much of our GHG. By trashing nuclear programs around the world, energy providers were forced to go with status quo (and construct diesel, natural gas & coal plants). Global Warming and Climate Change is upon us with thanks to this lobby group.
I love to read nonsense like this. I love to laugh.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 22:01:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LastViking', ' ')Mitigation demands a world wide move to Nuclear asap.
Then why are no plans being laid along those lines? Why is it not even being considered a mitigation wedge?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by ClubOfRomeII » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 22:35:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LastViking', ' ')Mitigation demands a world wide move to Nuclear asap.
Then why are no plans being laid along those lines? Why is it not even being considered a mitigation wedge?
Because we've got plenty of time, and the market is hardly going to react on a dime without some sort of stress to one part of the system or another.
Heck, PO is REQUIRED just as a starter to get Americans to NOTICE energy, let alone start moving collectively towards their preferred means of mitigation.
1874, State Geologist of Pennsylvania
"Only enough US oil to keep kerosene lamps burning for 4 more years"
Boy, I bet great-great grandpa was worried!
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 22:47:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')ii) Nuclear power can't be scaled up quickly.
This is false. Nuclear power generation rose from 21.8 billion kilowatt-hours in 1970 to 576.9 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990 (Source: DOE Annual Energy Review 2004, P. 275). That's an increase of 2500% over 20 years -- a growth rate of about 17.7% per annum.
Citing facts in a Peak oil arguement will cause you nothing but grief. 17.7% per annum...
Especially if you don't look at what the data says. This huge growth rate only amounted to a share increase of 17.6% of total electrical generating capacity. We went from 1.4% to 19% in
twenty years.
To do the same thing again would require an unheard construction regime, as the amount of electricial generating capacity required to garner that much share is exponentially much larger. We have to build many new plants right now, just to hold this percentage....with the EIA saying the share will drop from 19% to 16%, even with the new plants in planning to come on-line.
The bottom line is that no energy agency is planning to build such a covey of plants in the forseeable future. To even posit that we can build such an infrastructure feat in the face of an energy crisis that may involve an "unknown" yearly, terminal decline in oil production is just wishful thinking.
We are "planning" on burning coal and we will. Why? Utility companies must increase their generating capacity in much less time than it would take to build nuclear plants and do it cheaper.
Nuclear plants are only a longer-term option.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by MonteQuest » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 22:58:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', ' ')
Because we've got plenty of time, and the market is hardly going to react on a dime without some sort of stress to one part of the system or another.
Heck, PO is REQUIRED just as a starter to get Americans to NOTICE energy, let alone start moving collectively towards their preferred means of mitigation.
Plenty of time? Then you see PO as 20 years or more down the road?
I see the peaking of world oil production incapable of sending the market
any timely signals. It will all come at once.
Preferred mitigation? I see no mention of nuclear as a mitigation wedge.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hirsch Report', '1')) Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) can marginally increase production from existing reservoirs; one of the largest of the IOR opportunities is Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), which can help moderate oil production declines from reservoirs that are past their peak production: 2) Heavy oil / oil sands represents a large resource of lower grade oils, now primarily produced in Canada and Venezuela; those resources are capable of significant production increases;. 3) Coal liquefaction is a well established technique for producing clean substitute fuels from the world’s abundant coal reserves; and finally, 4) Clean substitute fuels can be produced from remotely located natural gas, but exploitation must compete with the world’s growing demand for liquefied natural gas. However, world-scale contributions from these options will require 10-20 years of accelerated effort.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
