[LastViking]

MonteQuest wrote:
"Plenty of time? Then you see PO as 20 years or more down the road?"
*************
Not sure of the protocol of cross posting so I won't. A few minutes ago I posted this on the Lynch thread:

http://www.peakoil.com/post422704.html#422704

As has been the case since 1995, Peak Year will continue to be pushed back to next year and ultimately the next decade for at least the forseeable future. Recent estimates of URR dictate that; or rather, I should state - a very long plateau at present levels or a tad above. To dispute this, one must challenge the respectable URR providers.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')Take away Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island acccidents and I think that we see a much different energy mix today.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$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.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'D')o you understand the exponential function?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'T')hats what the skeptics said about France, if they had our coal reserves they never would have done it.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')ou posit that the 150 new coal-fired power plants on the planning boards or under construction will be scrapped so we can embarc on a 6 to 9 year nuclear plan-to-power regime?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e coud do it even quicker with newer and more efficient designs on a larger scale if need be.

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$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

[Tyler_JC]

Here's the problem with saying that 17% growth in nuclear capacity will be possible in the future.

Let's say I have 1000 nuke plants and a want to grow at 17% a year.

First year, I will have 1170 plants.

Second year, I will have 1369 plants

And so on.

But nuclear plants are not bunny rabbits.

Building one plant does not mean that another plant will be created by this original plant.

Each time my order grows by 17%, the number of new plants required to meet that order grows substantially.

The first 17% increase require the construction of only 170 new plants.

The tenth increase requires the construction of 700 new plants.

By year 12, you will need to build more than 1000 new power plants in order to meet your 17% target.

That is means that within a little more than a decade, you will be expected to construct more power plants every year than you had built in all of the years leading up to the start of your construction boom.

For those that say that we don't need to care about nuclear accidents...most of us still live in countries with elections. There will be significant political roadblocks to the construction of thousands of new nuclear power stations.

And have you seen any politicians begin to even suggest that we should convert our electricity grid to run on nuclear power?

Germany Renounces Nuclear Power

I see a movement away from nuclear power, not towards it. I certainly don't see anyone in the United States demanding that someone build a nuclear power station right next to his home town.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')Once they determine that they will have trouble finding coal after the first 20 years (They usually don't make a profit until after 20-25 years), or regulations swing the price balance too far, they will begin to invest in nuclear power (assuming its the next best option at the time), its just business. It will not happen before then, unless public opinion or policy makers force it because the market will not as long as cheap coal remains.

[Tyler_JC]

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/policy/renewableenergy/index.shtml

Check out this link.

The US Department of Energy predicts that global renewable energy use will double between 1990 and 2020.

That's great news but total global energy use will more than double during that period.

Therefore, the share of global energy use in the form of renewable energy will actually shrink from 8.67% to 8.29%.

So we have to ask ourselves, is the DOE underestimating renewable energy growth or are they overestimating non-rewable energy production for 2020.

If their numbers are off, how far off could they be and are the consequences?

If we want to avoid an energy shortfall in 2020, the following condition must be true.

For every 1% shortfall in nonrewable production, there must be 11% growth in renewable energy production to equalize the "energy balance sheet" of 2020.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he US Department of Energy predicts that global renewable energy use will double between 1990 and 2020.

That's great news but total global energy use will more than double during that period.

Therefore, the share of global energy use in the form of renewable energy will actually shrink from 8.67% to 8.29%.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'H')ere's the problem with saying that 17% growth in nuclear capacity will be possible in the future.

Let's say I have 1000 nuke plants and a want to grow at 17% a year.

First year, I will have 1170 plants.

Second year, I will have 1369 plants

And so on.

But nuclear plants are not bunny rabbits.

Building one plant does not mean that another plant will be created by this original plant.

Each time my order grows by 17%, the number of new plants required to meet that order grows substantially.

The first 17% increase require the construction of only 170 new plants.

The tenth increase requires the construction of 700 new plants.

By year 12, you will need to build more than 1000 new power plants in order to meet your 17% target.

That is means that within a little more than a decade, you will be expected to construct more power plants every year than you had built in all of the years leading up to the start of your construction boom.

For those that say that we don't need to care about nuclear accidents...most of us still live in countries with elections. There will be significant political roadblocks to the construction of thousands of new nuclear power stations.

And have you seen any politicians begin to even suggest that we should convert our electricity grid to run on nuclear power?

Germany Renounces Nuclear Power

I see a movement away from nuclear power, not towards it. I certainly don't see anyone in the United States demanding that someone build a nuclear power station right next to his home town.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
There is a projected shortfall of uranium as well causing the price to rise to $75.00/lb. Many in the industry see no future for nuclear power on the scale you envision without breeder reactors.

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'H')ave you ever been to a old FF plant?

You will see 3 retired units at almost all of them just sitting there becasue its not cost effective to remove them. There IS enough raw material in old FF plants across the country to build hundreds of nuclear plants I assure you.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')
Besides, have you any idea what fuel costs are for a nuclear power plant?

[Revi]

Don't worry, the effects of peak oil will be showing up soon enough. It's been 18 months. Just about right on schedule. Don't count Hubbert out yet.
We haven't seen the effects yet because we are at the top of the roller coaster, momentarily weightless. As we go screaming down from Hubbert's peak you'll feel it. That part of the ride commences next year, or maybe sooner...

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', ' ')Jevons of course would be very unhappy with how well we have wrung efficiencies out of nuclear power, but just the concept that so many plants, so far past their original planned lifespans, are doing better than ever, and have effectively made it possible to not even BUILD another 26 plants just gives us Doomers hope!!

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')You mean 8 months past the July 2006 high-peak-so-far of world oil production.

(snip)

Like anything else, it takes time for these factors to work their way through the economy.

Trust me, we will notice when it comes.

To call a post-peak oil world prematurely and claim no effects is a strawman.