gwhite wrote:
>Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>>gwhite wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jack Dingler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As these sources are either unknown or merely unrealized projections of
>>>>established theory, I would think the onus on the proof would be on
>>>>those that insist these supplies are available, when we are not
>>>>currently tapping them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You were already provided a link regarding actual breeder reactors. You were
>>>already provided a link regarding existing and under construction conventional
>>>nukes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You didn't make your case that a rapid ramping up to the numbers needed
>>is practical or possible. You agreed that the political climate is
>>difficult. I find such admissions to be supportive of my arguments, not
>>yours.
>>
>>
>
>I think you have a static view of the world. Political views and technology
>change over time. They particularly change when the costs become more apparent
>which is perhaps another way of saying "more painful." I mean cost in a very
>broad sense, although it probably will come right down to dollars in some way.
>
>I don't really need to cover any "rapid ramping" argument. *You* are the one
>claiming this, with no specifics whatsoever.
>
>
>
>>>>Remember also, that it's not only the quantity of untapped reserves that
>>>>is important but more importantly, the rate they can become available
>>>>that is important. The case has not been made that these sources will be
>>>>ramped up to cover the imminent shortfall in oil production.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>They won't when and where coal and other sources of energy are cheaper. They'll
>>>get ramped up quicker if the costs of other forms become more expensive. This
>>>is a simple subsitution effect. I don't get your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Once oil, coal and natural gas become more expensive, where will the
>>energy come from to make the materials to build the nukes? If the
>>materials needed to make the nukes become more expensive (and they are
>>now), won't construction of the nukes become more expensive? And doesn't
>>this effect the bottom line, meaning that as the price of energy goes
>>up, so does the difficulty in investing in nukes?
>>
>>Consider also that most of the stages of uranium mining and processing
>>is highly dependent on oil and natural gas. Though in theory, these
>>steps could be performed with the electricity from nukes, such an
>>infrastructure doesn't exist now. In fact, it will require a substantial
>>investment to build new facilities and convert existing ones.
>>
>>
>
>You are really going off on a tangent. To the extent costs of energy go up,
>economic activity and growth will slow, stall, etc. I suspect that most people
>won't favor that. Sure, it might be "cheaper" in some sense to build nukes
>today rather than tommorrow. It might be smart, maybe not. I don't know and am
>not even attempting to make that sort of judgement. I said I believe increasing
>use will be made of nuclear energy. Nothing you said changes that. You are
>only making vague statements about difficilties. So what? Sure it's
>"difficult." If you compared today's highway system or power grid to that which
>existed 100 years ago, you'd (100 years ago) say "gee, building all that 'stuff'
>is going to be hard." No ****. Life is hard, it always has been.
>
>
Actually building that stuff is relatively easy in an industrial climate
where energy supplies are growing.
It takes a lot of natural gas to make the lime to produce that much
concrete.
In terms of cheaper, what I am arguing is that taking these huge chunks
of energy and labor out of the current industrial market would be
something we may be able to recover from at this time. Later it may be
impossible to do this because the energy decline will make the political
climate for such sacrifices harder. Once we go into decline diverting
that much natural gas, oil and coal from life sustaining activities will
mean throwing more people of work and raising food prices.
Check this article out:
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1721058-6078-0,00.html
This focus on Africa as one of the last great places to drill for oil,
tells me that the oil companies have given up on the big fields and are
now looking for sofa pickings and ever smaller and more difficult
prospects to keep themselves in business. Look at the amount of money
they plan to invest to get a mere one million barrels a day out. These
fields, producing a fraction of the quantity of their declining bigger
brothers are now the cream of the crop.
And a final note on this argument.
The pat argument has always been that when oil reaches some dollar value
$20, $25, $30, $35, $40, $45, $50, $55, $60, $65, ..., the alternative
energy sources will be competitive. As these alternatives are supported
by fossil fuels, this argument has a flaw. The fact that oil is now at
$50/barrel and yet these still can't be made profitable enough for huge
investments, tell that they never will be suitable for a mass expansion
and use as primary energy sources. They'll continue to provide a limited
solution.
So far, I don't think I've been vague. Every industrial operation
requires some amount of energy to do work. Energy is accountable and we
capture and convert a measurable quantity of it every year. Where money
is intangible and can the quantities can be changed by simply writing
different numbers or running up a deficit, energy is a physical item
that works by rules that we can't cheat. All of our technology has been
in a drive to consume energy to sustain ourselves and build our numbers.
Once you start in the argument of waiting until there's an energy
decline and thus a decline in the world's ability to support it's human
population, you're in fact arguing that it will even be possible to
trade lives and economies in exchange for building nukes. Even arguing
that it's reasonable to do so.
I agree it will be hard. As everything in our modern lives depends on
virtually unlimited cheap energy, I believe it's going to be a lot
harder than you think it will be. By arguing to wait until we're in a
decline before investing nukes, you're making a recovery from this
situation even more difficult. It could take more than a generation on a
declining energy budget to begin to turn that decline around.
>>I thought I was clear. It means we need these investments start soon so
>>they can go into production soon.
>>
>>
>
>There has already *been* investment. There *is* investment. I not clear on why
>you want to ignore it, and you aren't calling it out. If you have an agenda,
>just say so.
>
>
Sure, Texas has a number of nukes, France has nukes. But you're
confusing the investment I argued that we need with investments made.
I'm arguing that we need to be investing a tremendous sum of energy and
resources, far beyond the investments that are being made now. I call it
too little too late.
>>>>Nukes for instance need to demonstrate a lot of scaleability right now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Umm, they already have. Look at France. I think we have over 200 nukes here
>>>right now (20% of energy), and that is with no new plants built in over 20
>>>years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>20% of the electricity, but only 6.3% of the total energy. You've argued
>>that nukes will replace oil. This means that nukes will power the
>>current uses that oil current powers including long haul trucking and
>>freighters.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, so what? What makes you think that transportation tommorrow will "look
>like" transportation today? Where does this static world view come from?
>Gas/diesel trucks obsoleted horse and cart. Hay are horses are gone. Diesel
>trucks will probably dissappear someday. Sure, the machine and the energy will
>match. What's the big deal?
>
>We don't use gas/oil lamps anymore either. They were "good" for awhile though.
>
>
If we don't build nukes until world oil production hit's the 4% / year
decline, then these current systems will be breaking down. Without
transportation systems, how will you build your nukes, to power the
development of a new paradigm in transportation? And a likely less
efficient one at that?
Perhaps the lime for concrete can be made in the fashion the Romans did
it? Big bonfires of hardwood forests and lot's of labor with shovels and
earth? Then the concrete and water could be trucked to the sites using
mule teams and wagons? At least the wagons could be build using parts
scavenged from junkyards.
My view of the world isn't static at all unfortunately. But I think
you're trying to cling to an idea as a matter of faith, not as a matter
of reason. You've argued that there's a lot about this topic you don't
know. Perhaps that's something you can look into and come back to this
discussion with?
>>You're only looking at a slim sliver of the overall picture. Oil is
>>hardly even a component in the total electricity picture.
>>
>>
>
>Well that only makes oil *less* important, not more.
>
>
Oil makes up the dominant source of energy that we consume. Only by
wrongly assuming that electricity has a civilization sustaining capacity
that trumps all other sources can you make this argument.
Electricity is likely the most visible component in our daily lives, but
transportation driven by oil makes the need for electricity possible.
>>Your argument is that nukes can take over most
>>electricity production and expand to
>>replace oil and coal.
>>
>>
>
>Well they certainly could, at least technically in the raw output sense. Nukes
>need to compete on price though. I don't see much purpose in overinvestment any
>more than I would pay $1500 for a bike where I could get a $1200 bike that met
>my needs just as well. If there is "forward looking" that makes the $1500
>dollar bike look better, maybe I'll consider. As ever, "it depends," just like
>any assessment.
>
>
No, they need to compete on the basis of Energy Returned on Energy
Invested. Money is an invention who's value is not based on any physical
quantity. In fact it has a declining value over time. Each barrel of oil
has a fixed BTU content. The quantity of work that can be derived from a
barrel of oil is relatively fixed. Efficiency place some role, but not a
huge one. Therefore as the price of oil continues to rise, the quantity
of dollars needed to purchase a fixed quantity of work, keeps rising.
Meaning the price of building a nuke plant keeps rising.
What is more important is the quantity of energy needed to build the
nuke, what percentage of our available BTUs this will consume and then
the ratio of energy returned over these quantities.
Oil is 'cheap' as an energy source because it once required a very small
investment in energy to get big returns. In the 1930s in Texas, using
mule teams and human labor, you could drill a well, lay down pipe and
pump oil. The oil kept flowing under positive pressure and only
maintenance work need be performed to keep large quantities of oil
moving through the pipes. The EROEI was likely better than 50 to 1. Now
typical new oil fields are under 5 to 1, representing the increased
investment in energy and materials needed to get the oil out. Fields no
longer are under positive pressure, so sea water has to be pumped in to
push the oil out. Then the oil comes up mixed with sea water and an
additional amount of energy has to be invested to separate the oil from
the sea water.
Where nukes are in the EROEI scale is in debate. I've seen several
studies that give us figures from 2 to 1 up to 5 to 1. As the work to
produce these numbers isn't published, who knows which answer is correct?
>>>>Consider that nukes produce only about 6.3% of the world's total energy
>>>>(not electricity), and that's with about 440 operating nukes. This means
>>>>that to rely on nukes for only our current power needs, we'd need 6984
>>>>of them. This ignore the fact that a growing population and capitalism
>>>>requires growth. Once oil goes into it's expect 3% per year decline, we
>>>>need to have have a program already in place building approximately 350
>>>>of them a year, worldwide. I'd like to see you meet the burden of proof
>>>>demonstrating that this is likely.
