Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[Quartz]

Using renewables to make fossil fuels so that we can burn them and continue to add to global warming is a bit of a idea tbh. Surely we must be looking to stop burning such fuels.

Actually, if you only use renewables, it's carbon-neutral.

 

[8ball]

Using renewables to make fossil fuels so that we can burn them and continue to add to global warming is a bit of a idea tbh. Surely we must be looking to stop burning such fuels.

Much quicker to use renewables to make trees. Saves time on the fossilisation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually, if you only use renewables, it's carbon-neutral.

Yeah, that's true.

 

[elbows]

Liquid fuels will remain very desirable for practical purposes.

 

[Crispy]

EDIT: already been said

 

[Kaka Tim]

Surely it would make more sense to use renewables to replace oil in areas where oil more replaceable? - i.e. power generation. Then you have more oil to make petrol.

 

[Dr Jon]

Like I was saying, it's the Sodium Hydroxide that is the weakest link.
It is made by passing very high current through concentrated salt solution (brine) to give Chlorine & Sodium Hydroxide. Electricity bills aside, there is only so much salt available for this: I doubt that sea-water would be concentrated enough and boiling sea-water to make brine on that scale is just ridiculous.

 

[free spirit]

I can see this concept potentially being useful for fuelling planes, shipping etc where highly concentrated fuels are needed, but I can't see the conversion efficiency figures being anything like comparable with batteries.

 

[gosub]

Re jet fuel, us military about 5 years ahead down the algae route

 

[teqniq]

Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute addresses 75 international union leaders about the urgency of the climate crisis. The presentation was given in NYC on 10/10/12, and was part of the Energy Emergency, Energy Transition roundtable convened by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute (GLI), a program of the Worker Institute at Cornell, and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

 

[Falcon]

Solar panels or nuclear reactor, your choice. You can imagine places like the coasts of Tunisia or Libya or Angola or Texas or Australia with massive banks of solar panels with Sodium Hydroxide being shipped in and petrol being shipped out.

Umm - the (actually) massive global industrial manufacturing system upon which the existence of your (hypothetically) massive banks of solar panels depends consumes all and more of the petrol manufactured with their output. 25% of the energy produced by your nuclear plant is consumed mining and refining its fuel, 25% is consumed rendering its waste safe, and 50% of all future fuel reserves are consumed rendering safe the waste accumulated in the last 50 years.

So - not much of a choice, really, unless to choose to ignore energy economics.

 

[elbows]

Strangely convenient numbers you have there eh Falcon, what a surprise. The neatness of your picture lacks credibility.

 

[Falcon]

Strangely convenient numbers you have there eh Falcon, what a surprise. The neatness of your picture lacks credibility.

A rebuttal of an argument about the energy requirements of fuel refining and waste processing that addresses the neatness of the numbers, not the energy requirements of fuel refining and waste processing, is absurd.

Meanwhile, I'll refer you to "Lean Logic" (Fleming, 2010) pp189-194 for the derivation of the numbers, and ibid. p440 for "Numbers, The Fallacy of", quote: "The fallacy that if you cite precise numbers, particularly if they are large, you know what you are talking about" and its corollary: "The fallacy that, if you do not cite precise numbers, particularly if they are large, you do not know what you are talking about".

 

[elbows]

I'm not being absurd at all, dont blame me for your hyperbole.

You wont find me cheering about nuclear power. Its not cheap and the waste issues are an utter nightmare. It isnt completely impractical at this point though, so I wont be surprised if a new generation of stations get built. I dont consider it a long-term solution unless outstanding progress is made, and I dont see any signs of that. But as a medium term stop gap, I think its hard for them to resist, especially as it sticks to the 'large, centralised' model of power generation that those with power and money are bound to be attracted to.

 

[Falcon]

I'm not being absurd at all, dont blame me for your hyperbole.

The point you have conspicuously failed to make is why Fleming's data about nuclear fuel and waste processing energy requirements are hyperbolic. You merely assert repeatedly that they are, as if that were a sufficient argument. Which part of his argument to you refute?

 

[free spirit]

Umm - the (actually) massive global industrial manufacturing system upon which the existence of your (hypothetically) massive banks of solar panels depends consumes all and more of the petrol manufactured with their output. 25% of the energy produced by your nuclear plant is consumed mining and refining its fuel, 25% is consumed rendering its waste safe, and 50% of all future fuel reserves are consumed rendering safe the waste accumulated in the last 50 years.

So - not much of a choice, really, unless to choose to ignore energy economics.

does the fact that someone has put some numbers on the energy required to render safe the waste accumulated in the last 50 years imply that they actually know how this is to be done?

if not, then their numbers are clearly not going to be much better than a stab in the dark, and seem like a pretty wild stab in the dark at that.

 

[Falcon]

does the fact that someone has put some numbers on the energy required to render safe the waste accumulated in the last 50 years imply that they actually know how this is to be done?

if not, then their numbers are clearly not going to be much better than a stab in the dark, and seem like a pretty wild stab in the dark at that.

And this is an argument in support of those who have *not* put numbers on the energy required to render safe the waste accumulated in the last 50 years while claiming that they actually know that it *can* be done?

Could you point out which part of the analysis you believe is a wild stab in the dark? Or are you speculating without actually being familiar with the analysis?

 

[free spirit]

Could you point out which part of the analysis you believe is a wild stab in the dark?

I already have.

Or are you speculating without actually being familiar with the analysis?

do they know how it will be rendered safe?

if not, how do they put numbers on the energy figures?

 

[Falcon]

I already have.

do they know how it will be rendered safe?

if not, how do they put numbers on the energy figures?

Since you don't know how they have put numbers on the energy figures, how can you claim whether or not they are a wild stab in the dark? Might I suggest you actually read the reference, or concede that you are arguing from a position of ignorance?

 

[elbows]

The point you have conspicuously failed to make is why Fleming's data about nuclear fuel and waste processing energy requirements are hyperbolic. You merely assert repeatedly that they are, as if that were a sufficient argument. Which part of his argument to you refute?

Does he give the 25%, 25% and 50% figures that you mentioned then? A yes or no will suffice.

According to the following site, an earlier book of his has this as one of its conclusions:

7. An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation​

to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be​

needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the​

worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.​

http://transitionculture.org/2007/1...-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/

 

[Falcon]

Does he give the 25%, 25% and 50% figures that you mentioned then? A yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

Now we come to the back-end processes: the energy cost of disposing of the 60 years-worth of new waste is approximately the same as that of the front end – that is, about one quarter of the gross output, or 15 years of energy supply, so that brings the supply of available energy down to 30 years. But then there is still the backlog – the 60 years-worth of waste produced since 1950, and dealing with this will this require yet another 15 years of energy supply. That brings us finally down to the amount of energy we have available for use in the grid: 15 years.
In other words, even if the industry really had 60 years’ supply of uranium left for its use, it would only have some fifteen years left before the decisive moment; from that turning-point, its entire net output of energy would have to be used for the essential task of getting rid of its stockpile of wastes, plus the wastes produced in the future.

- Fleming, "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy" (2007) pp17-18 ref

According to the following site, an earlier book of his has this as one of its conclusions: http://transitionculture.org/2007/1...-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/

…and in his later book, it has this conclusion:

Even if the numbers proved to be significantly wrong, they would make little difference to the conclusion - that nuclear can only be a minor player for the rest of its short life, and that, before long, it will stop being a net supplier of energy; instead it will be needing to use more energy than it can supply

If you read both the earlier book and the later, you will understand that the uncertainty introduced by the quality of the data refers to the estimate of the date at which nuclear becomes a net energy sink, with an error range measured in decades, not whether it will or will not become a net energy sink.

 

[elbows]

Well if you recall much of my beef with you over recent years has been about estimated dates.

I wont be buying his books, I'm already sold of the general fundamentals and a range of possible ways its all going to go pearshaped. Instead I shall just wait and see how things actually end up, since I hate to see possibilities dressed up as certainties and I have no money

 

[Falcon]

Well if you recall much of my beef with you over recent years has been about estimated dates.

I wont be buying his books

Beef which derives from a general unwillingness to engage with any primary literature.

 

[free spirit]

Beef which derives from a general unwillingness to engage with any primary literature.

you missed out the word 'credible'.

a non-peer reviewed book published by transition towns network written by a dr of ecology doesn't classify as a particularly credible primary source for an estimate on the amount of energy required to render current volumes of nuclear waste safe.

Now, if the book sourced it from some credible source in the first place that might be a bit different. Did it?

 

[Falcon]

you missed out the word 'credible'.

a non-peer reviewed book published by transition towns network written by a dr of ecology doesn't classify as a particularly credible primary source for an estimate on the amount of energy required to render current volumes of nuclear waste safe.

Now, if the book sourced it from some credible source in the first place that might be a bit different. Did it?

Fascinating intellectual snobbery. The primary source (as you would know if you had familiarised yourself with the reference before attacking it) is not a dr of ecology, it is a nuclear engineer who has conducted the only fully researched and comprehensive analysis of the whole nuclear energy chain to generate a complete life-cycle assessment - Van Leewen (2008) "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance". (ref)

He is a whistle blower, and therefore criticised. However:

(1) His work is consistent in its evaluation of the energy inputs and outputs of every stage of the nuclear cycle, down to its detail, and derived from the same literature upon which your understanding of the nuclear industry is based. To dismiss his work is to at the same time comprehensively dismiss the literature upon which your understanding of the nuclear industry is based.

(2) Its consistent program of evaluating the energy balances ties the research down to detail, and he strongly encourages comment and criticism at that level, so its accuracy is constantly being assessed and improved. You are free to criticise his assumptions. You are not free to criticise the reference.

(3) The collapse in the quantity of net energy as ore grade approaches 0.02% (you may have no idea what I'm talking about here if you haven't familiarise yourself with the argument before attacking it) is so dramatic that, even if there was substantial inaccuracy in his work, it would make little difference to his essential findings on the life expectancy of the nuclear industry. Even if it required no energy to clear up its waste (or we simply continue to bury it in a hole for our descendants to deal with), nuclear power ceases at the energy neutral ore grade horizon, reached in a few decades at the power demand schedule implied by hydrocarbon substitution.

It's worth a quick example to locate theory in reality. A typical reactor consumes 200 tonnes of uranium a year. Uranium ore is (was) found at concentrations from 0.2% down to 0.01%. Assuming a generous 0.15% concentration and 95% extraction efficiency, you need to shift 140,000 tonnes of ore per year, per reactor. But we've mined all the 0.2% stuff. Olympic Dam in Western Australia is 0.03% and 86% extraction efficiency - 800,000 tonnes of ore per year, per reactor, and it lies under 350m of overburden which has to be removed first. That process, plus the extraction, enrichment, and fuel rod manufacturing processes, is powered currently by hydrocarbon and amounts to 25% of plant output. The waste processing chain is equally energy intensive.

0.01% grade is theoretically energy neutral, but you require an EROEI of between 40:1 and 10:1 to power the society necessary to support a nuclear industry, so the "horizon" is considerably higher in reality.

Life cycle energy assessment is very interesting. Unfortunately, it tends to run a coach and horses through all the charismatic but unviable technologies (such as solar and nuclear) that appear to be viable (because we habitually ignore the role of hydrocarbon in the energy life cycle) - which is why it is rather unpopular.

 

[Dr Jon]

Very interesting.
Do you know how the numbers work out for Thorium?

ETA
Just spotted this from your link:-

The feasibility of the thorium breeding cycle is even more remote than that of the U-Pu breeder.
This is caused by specific features of the thorium cycle on top of fundamental limitations. The
realisation of the thorium-uranium cycle would require the availability of 100% perfect materials
and 100% complete separation processes. None of these two prerequisites are possible, as
follows from the Second Law of thermodynamics [more i42, i43]. It can be argued beforehand
that the Th-U breeder cycle will not work as envisioned.
In addition it would be questionable if the energy balance of any thorium fuelled nuclear power
system could be positive.

 

[free spirit]

Fascinating intellectual snobbery. The primary source (as you would know if you had familiarised yourself with the reference before attacking it) is not a dr of ecology, it is a nuclear engineer who has conducted the only fully researched and comprehensive analysis of the whole nuclear energy chain to generate a complete life-cycle assessment - Van Leewen (2008) "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance". (ref)

so why give the secondary source and refer to it as a primary source?

and no, it's not intellectual snobbery it's basic research methods as taught to first years on any half decent course - check the credibility of the source material. As you only referenced the secondary source and seemed to be referring to it as the primary source, my post is correct - he would have been a shit primary source, but as he's sourced it from a more credible primary source then that's a bit different.

The primary source that you now quote seems a lot more credible, thanks.

I've had a look through what would seem to be the 2 most relevant sections (below), and it looks to be a good detailed analysis of the situation that is broadly as I've understood it for a while - as in we can probably just about manage 1 more generation of nukes at somewhere around current levels or lower, but somewhere towards the back end of this new generations life span the concentrations of uranium in the remaining reserves will fall too low to be viable, and if we were to expand our nuclear power level now then we'd hit that point much earlier.

My view has long been that I'd prefer it if we didn't build a new generation of nukes, but that a low level of new / replacement nuclear power is probably not going to be a major problem (and could well be needed) for one last generation. Any expansion though would be utterly stupid, and we should be looking at it as a managed decline / wind down situation, and this seems to be roughly what the author is concluding as well.

The currently known uranium reserves and resources will get depleted by 5-7 decades, within the lifetime of new nuclear build, assumed the world nuclear capacity remains at the current level or grows with 2% a year.

The net energy from nuclear power will gradually decline during the next decades, due to the depletion of high-quality uranium resources. If no new large high-quality resources will be discovered the net energy will reach about zero when the lowestgrade known uranium resources are to be mined. The nuclear system then falls off the ‘energy cliff’. This could happen within the lifetime of new nuclear build.

http://www.stormsmith.nl/Media/downloads/partG.pdf
http://www.stormsmith.nl/Media/downloads/partH.pdf

I've not seen any data or statements in those reports though that actually say or support the exact statement that you made. Could you quote the relevant sections please.

 

[Dr Jon]

World Energy Outlook 2012 out today.
Executive Summary here (pdf)

 

[ferrelhadley]

Over 1000 rigs to generate a 20% increase in oil, most of those rigs from the dry shale gas plays as that industry implodes.....

US oil rigs

US oil production

US (and likely the world) is now flat out of horizontal capable rigs to increase its production short term and a serious cold winter will eat through the gas storage with no new rigs to make that shale gas miracle keep being miraculous (i.e. investors getting utterly rinsed on the price)

IEA is obviously seeing huge amounts of money sunk into new rig building. Something 5 to 10 times the current us fleet in around 8 years.

Notice conventionals still falling and no word on where the water is going to come from either.

 

[elbows]

A Guardian article about it here, which focusses mostly on the largest issue and assumption in the report - unconventional oil & gas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer

Iraq, peak oil demand, nuclear decline, fuel subsidies and water issues are also mentioned in the report but not really covered by the Guardian article.

The giddy unconventional predictions are causing more 'peak oil not a problem, climate change is' articles to appear, such as this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil

As per my evolving stance in recent years, I am remaining somewhat openminded as to what they will actually manage to achieve with unconventional oil & gas production. It is extremely tempting to write the whole thing of as a bonkers fantasy that will quickly fall apart, and such as scenario would not surprise me, but I also think it would be foolish to completely ignore the possibility that they might be able to pull it off, for quite a while at least. I wouldnt bet on it though.