by donshan » Tue 24 Jan 2006, 14:47:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('waegari', 'I') did not even mention the fact that the global economy increasingly depends on sea and air transport: there is no viable alternative for oil in that field. Which even affects electricity supply. You need oil to transport uranium. You need oil for long distance transport of coal. You need oil for long distance transport of bio fuel. LNG harbor facilities make no sense as soon as oil gets too expensive to have LNG shipped at all.
.
It is technically feasible to build sea transport using nuclear power. Much of the modern US navy is nuclear powered. In fact nuclear power is very effective, allowing high speed and literally years of sea operation without refueling. The problem is nuclear has not been competitive with oil on cost. and politically unpopular. The problems of nuclear powered ships are not so much the cost of energy, but the fact that nuclear powered ships require a large staff of technical personnel whereas oil fueled ships can be staffed with fewer lower paid workers.
Here is a list of nuclear powered civilian ships in the past and some history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ci ... lear_ShipsThe history of the SS Savannah the first nuclear powered combined passenger/cargo ship is informative for the pros and the cons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Maritime Administration decommissioned her in 1972 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship. (Maintenance and eventual disposal are other issues, of course.)
Railroad locomotives are really powered by electric motors, with the electricity generated onboard by diesel generators. Thus railroads could be converted to electricity too. Many of the world's railroads are all-electric.
The value of electricity is beyond doubt. I don't remember the source, but I read somewhere that more fossil fuel is used for electricity production than for transportation. The EROEI of electricity is negative, when you convert coal, natural gas, or oil to electricity since the thermodynamics of the generation process require heat to be dumped. Nevertheless the usefulness of electric motors, digital communications, electrical control systems, laser light energy for surgery is so valuable that we quickly pay for the conversion.
Without electrical power to make laser energy the fiberoptic system of the internet would not be there so you could read this post right now. The EROEI of that laser light is very negative, but look at the value!
When there is a electrical blackout cities literally shut down- it is much more serious than a gasoline shortage.
I agree replacing jet fuel for planes with electricity is not feasible now. However if we solved the ship/train/local bus transport problem with electricity the basics of human transport for goods and people could survive, perhaps at a slower pace. The world worked fairly well even in the era of coal fired ships and trains. It took longer to get things done, and "just in time" inventory control was not possible.
A electrified world running at a slower pace without overnight deliveries is still a quite different world from a "powerdown" world of travel by foot, and horses.
So I voted for electricity. With abundant cheap electricity we could mine the oil sands and shales for centuries to get the petrochemicals needed for plastics and make enough jet fuel for planes.
Plus there is a way possible to a fully electric world- solar and wind power. Nuclear power for base load, and solar/wind peaking power. Eventually we get to Smalley's world of 100% solar power. Oil is a dead end.
I agree the time is short. However I am in the long plateau top camp of peak oil. There is an outstanding post by Stuart Staniford on The Oil Drum site on the world oil supply projections, that shows it will be 2038 before we hit the 5% decline rate in oil production.
This is one of the best analyses of peak oil I have read-Strongly recommended!
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/22/04219/1102
An expert is someone who has made every mistake possible in their field and learned how to prevent them.