# Peak Oil



## Makalakumu (Apr 17, 2005)

This is perhaps the fundamental issue of our times and it represents a topic that I have researched extensively in the past.  My personal feeling is that we reached Peak Oil two years ago...and now we begin the slow slide downward to the post carbon world.  I submit the following article for discussion.  This article is accessible to all readers and should provide a good basis for this discussion.



> Published on Friday, March 25, 2005 by Rolling Stone Magazine
> 
> *The Long Emergency*
> By James Howard Kunstler
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2005)

I dunno..while it obviously is an issue that will have to be dealt with, I have to question the "doomsday" attitude that seems to surround the issue. The human race has survived adapted and overcome many issues. While change will most definitely happen, I believe that, as our current culture/economy developed, a new one will develop as well. The issues are how long will the Gvt. and oil companies try to squeeze more money out of the current system and will the change be gradual or abrupt.

Heck, my great grandparents lived in times when the horse was still the primary mode of transportation and had to deal with outdoor plumbing. While (if they were still alive) im sure they wouldnt have wanted to go back to those days, I am also fairly confident that if forced to, they would have done just fine....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2005)

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/reserves.html#

At this point I still wonder if this is a "peak oil" issue as much as its a manufactured crisis to create $$....


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dunno..while it obviously is an issue that will have to be dealt with, I have to question the "doomsday" attitude that seems to surround the issue. The human race has survived adapted and overcome many issues. While change will most definitely happen, I believe that, as our current culture/economy developed, a new one will develop as well. The issues are how long will the Gvt. and oil companies try to squeeze more money out of the current system and will the change be gradual or abrupt.
> 
> Heck, my great grandparents lived in times when the horse was still the primary mode of transportation and had to deal with outdoor plumbing. While (if they were still alive) im sure they wouldnt have wanted to go back to those days, I am also fairly confident that if forced to, they would have done just fine....



Humans will definitely survive, but our current way of life will not.  We consume and waste _way too much energy_.  It's really disgusting when you think about it.  

I think our current administration and subsequent will attempt to squeeze every last drop of oil until it becomes too hard to do so.  This may maintain the status quo for a while, but it sharpens the precipice.  The problem is our consumption, our growth and it is unsustainable.  By definition, this predicts decline.

I'm glad you brought up grandparents.  Talk to them.  In our lifetime, the knowledge they have about living and operating locally with much less will become very important.  Learn all you can from them before they are gone...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Humans will definitely survive, but our current way of life will not. We consume and waste _way too much energy_. It's really disgusting when you think about it.
> 
> I think our current administration and subsequent will attempt to squeeze every last drop of oil until it becomes too hard to do so. This may maintain the status quo for a while, but it sharpens the precipice. The problem is our consumption, our growth and it is unsustainable. By definition, this predicts decline.
> 
> I'm glad you brought up grandparents. Talk to them. In our lifetime, the knowledge they have about living and operating locally with much less will become very important. Learn all you can from them before they are gone...


Well...many of the "snowbirds" seem to have adapted to the oil economy fairly well, with their V8 Lincons and trips to Florida and back. 

Where there is a need and money to be made, new systems will develop. I think its going to start with more people buying hybrid vehicles and then from there who knows....


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 17, 2005)

Here is another article, written by a friend of mine, Mr. Will Rhodes.  He gives the subject a fair treatment and provides extensive research.



> *Peak Oil*
> 
> Will Rhodes
> Reader Weekly
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2005)

The problem with "doomsayers" is that the general population just doesnt want to hear from them...I think a more "want to save money by not depending on oil? Then do this..." approach is much better in terms of general co-operation and mental health.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The problem with "doomsayers" is that the general population just doesnt want to hear from them...I think a more "want to save money by not depending on oil? Then do this..." approach is much better in terms of general co-operation and mental health.



"People cannot stand too much reality."  Carl Gustav Jung

People have been saying things like that for years.  In fact, for thirty years.  The push for conservation and alternative energy has had its voice.  The problem, it all requires sacrifice..._and Americans no like that_.

Peak Oil does not mean the end of all oil, it means the end of cheap oil.  *Our entire way of life depends on cheap oil.*  Consider the following...

1.  For every calorie of food you eat, it takes 10 calories of cheap oil to produce.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...eating_oil.html

2.  If one took all of the calories of energy that a person uses in cheap oil for a single day in this country and divided all of that work by the amount of work a human can do in a day, every person has 150 energy slaves to maintain their standard of living.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_hei...rview_032203.ht

3.  U.S. motorists consume their bodyweight in cheap crude oil each week.  90% of all transportation, including all trade goods depends on cheap oil.

http://www.jc-solarhomes.com/WorldOil.htm

These three things alone show that the loss of cheap oil to our economy would absolutely devestate this nation.

Oil is the most convenient and transportable energy source ever discovered by homo sapians.  It has a very high caloric content, it is highly transportable, and (thus far) it has been easily obtained.  _There will never be another energy source like this again, ever_.

In the oil heyday, we got a 100 to 1 energy return on input with cheap oil.  This number has been steadily dropping despite massive improvements in technology.  After Peak Oil, this number will drop to where it will not economically viable to extract.  

Alternative energy sources get a 1 to 1 energy return on input.  This includes hydrogen.  Furthermore, it requires decades of planning and investment to get alternative energy resources off the ground.  People have known about Peak Oil for years...

Thirty years ago, we could have planned for this.  Five years ago in 2000, we should have been talking about this.  It is too late now.  We have made some piss poor decisions about how we want to live in this country and we will pay the piper.  

History books will look at the development of Suburbia as one of the most titantic wastes of resources ever known.  They will see the gigantic houses that house one to three people, the SUVs driving 50 miles a day just to go to work, the paving over of all viable farmland surrounding a city for a hundred miles as a foolish dream.  

In the post carbon era, our radius of impact, limited by the amount of energy it takes to travel and transport goods will be about 20 miles.  Cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, which depend on transportation of goods because they have paved over everything in 100 miles, will become nerotic wastelands.  

People will be economically forced to leave Suburbia and join each other in communities to support each other.  Now that doesn't sound so bad...

Oh, I forgot WW4...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

The following Graphs and tables were constructed by ASPO, a group of the best and the brightest Petroleum Geologists in the industry.  These scientists had direct access to the largest oil companies secret data on reserves and have published this data despite threats from their former employers.

Using this data, one can see that Peak Oil is now.  In five years, production will fall dramatically.  In fifteen years, the **** will hit the fan.

We need a wake up call. We need it desperately. We need basically a new form of energy. I dont know that there is one.  Matthew Simmons Cheif Energy Advisor for the Bush Administration.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Please consider the following document as you consider the comming crisis.  Please note the key points of the Neoconservative Project for the New American Century.



> *Boldface Emphasis Mine*
> 
> June 3, 1997
> 
> ...



This was taken from here.

This was published in 1997.  The signers of PNAC are all heavily involved in the oil and gas industry.  They were ahead of the curve then and are ahead of it now.  See the following citation.

Dick Cheney, Peak Oil and the Final Count Down
Article: april 2004, quote: fall of 1999. 
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/75

When peak oil hits and slides, these people stand to lose the most (materially) among us.  They have gathered their forces and stormed the White House.  Peak Oil will precipitate WW4 for the benefit of these men.  The plan they have created is a last ditch effort to protect their wealth and power and they will do anything  to see this completed.

Peak Oil is an umbrella issue.  Through it, one can finally understand fully the motives of our national foreign policy...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2005)

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2005)

http://www.abetterearth.org/subcategory.php/300.html


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2005)

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex42298.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717



hmmm



> I'm not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass  the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon tons and tons of dead things, mostly algae and phytoplankton  or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are "inorganic"  the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon chalk, water and a few other odds and ends chemicals.



There is absolutely no evidence for the "abiotic oil" theory.  Also, his understanding of the concept of Peak Oil is wrongheaded to the point of disinformation.

Peak Oil means that 50% of the worlds oil has been used up.  It means that the easiest oil to extract is gone and that the difficult low quality stuff is left.  Sure, there may be lots left, but it will not keep up with demand.



> There's a lot of shale in North America, and the process to synthesize crude from shale is fairly old and well known. It is also water intensive, and not terribly economical right now (because most of the shale is buried out West, where there is very little water). The technology is pretty well established to make synthetic crude oil from coal (lots of North American coal too) or natural gas, or even turkey guts or pig manure  if the price is right.



These processes are so expensive that the price of oil would have to rise to over $120.00 dollars a barrel to come close to breaking even.



> I have to admit at this point, I know very little about how the actual shipping of petroleum  and, more importantly, what it costs  works.



hmmmm



> But there is an oil component to the invasion and occupation, and I believe it is this: the United States, through invading and occupying a nation with significant oil reserves, would show the world  especially the up-and-coming consuming nations of China and India  *that in the event that push comes to shove, and this resource gets scarce, Americans come first.
> 
> "Everyone else gets in line behind us. If there's any left, we'll make sure you get some."*



Now that is interesting...

Personally, I am going to listen to the likes of Dick Cheney if I want to hear an informed opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.abetterearth.org/subcategory.php/300.html



Do you know who propped up this group?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex42298.htm



Again, absolutely no concept of Peak Oil.  They are trying to say that we will run out of oil, which is not true...we will run out of cheap oil.  

Thanks Tgace for popping in on the discussion.  The counter articles are interesting, but I think they are indicative of the "head in the sand" approach to this problem.  

I think that it is key to note that both (informed) sides believe Peak Oil will happen.  The question is when.  The oil interests behind our current administration clearly believe that it will happen soon...

So, in a sense, both sides are agreeing!  There are radically different _approaches _ to the problem out there...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

ASPO is a group of actual experts in the field of petroleum geology and actually have _science _ to back up there claims.  These people worked for the largest  oil companies out there and have/had access to all of the data.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2005)

I think Ill wait before restocking my Y2K stockpile.....

http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think Ill wait before restocking my Y2K stockpile.....
> 
> http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm



Restocking your Y2K supply won't help...

BTW -  great article on the abiotic theory.  I'm going to use it in my class.  I'll address this in a bit...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2005)

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,670731,00.html

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040702-6.htm

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/maugeri%20science%20may04.pdf



> The worst effect of this recurring oilpanic is that it has driven Western political circles toward oil imperialism and attempts to assert direct or indirect control over oil-producing regions. Yet the world is not running out of oil, and catastrophic views fail to take into account the complex reality that will allow reliance on abundant supplies for years to come


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04142/319678.stm



> "To 'cry wolf' over the availability of oil has the sole effect of perpetuating a misguided obsession with oil security and control that already is rooted in Western public opinion," Magugeri said. Western countries, worried over a looming oil crunch, seek to control the Persian Gulf by various means of "oil imperialism," he said.


http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/FJ20Dh01.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040702-6.htm
> 
> http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/maugeri%20science%20may04.pdf
> 
> ...



Peak Oil does not mean running out of oil.  Peak oil means running out of cheap oil.  All of these articles imply that "doomsayers" say we will run out of oil.  That is not true.  Please check the above graphs posted.  Cheap Oil is the Key.  When Peak Oil hits, all of the cheap oil is gone.  From that point on, oil becomes more and more expensive...until our economy which depends on cheap oil collapses.  

These articles are nothing but "head in the sand" disinformation remininiscent of the "smoking does not cause cancer" type.  They talk about extraction of the bottom fifty percent like it will be some technologic wonder, yet NONE of these people have actual experience with the industry like ASPO.

Technology be damned, we cannot do some of the things suggested cheaply... :whip: 

The articles all agree, Peak Oil will happen.  The most "liberal" estimate I saw was 2030 and this was from an Italian agency...   I've seen "estimates" as far as 2040.  This is truly the optimistic fringe and it is still within my lifetime.  My children will have to live through the post carbon era...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2005)

Peak oil is a myth propagated by the Bush administration to garner support for world domination!!!

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/312864.shtml


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Peak oil is a myth propagated by the Bush administration to garner support for world domination!!!
> 
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/312864.shtml



Nice theory... :asian: Where's my tin hat emoticon!

This is from the above article.



> By 1951, what has been called the Modern Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins was born. A healthy amount of scientific debate followed for the next couple of decades, during which time the theory, initially formulated by geologists, based on observational data, was validated through the rigorous quantitative work of chemists, physicists and thermodynamicists. For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals.



Regarding the abiotic oil theory...

Abiotic Oil theory states the following...

1.  In the mantle of the Earth, calcium carbonate from subducted ocean sediments undergoes chemical reactions under the high heat and pressure.  These reactions strip the Ca and O off the molecule to create molecular C.  Further reactions combine molecular C with H to form hydrocarbons.

2.  These hydrocarbons, less dense then the surrounding material, drift upward to replenish the undersides of anticlinic traps that form oil fields.  

3.  According to abiotic oil theory, oil is not a fossil fuel.  Nor is oil a nonrenewable resource.  Abiotic oil theory links the production of oil to the inorganic carbon cylcle, so we will always have oil.

Problems with this theory...

1.  The chemical reactions claimed have never been performed under laboratory conditions.  

2.  No oil feild has ever been observed to repressurize and replenish itself.  In all oil fields, it has been observed that production peaks and then falls off.

3.  In low quality crude oil, the skeletons of fossilized plankton have been observed.

So, what is the deal???

The abiotic oil theory has been falsified by modern petroleum geologists.  Soviet scientists, at the behest of the communist government, created this theory to placate public worry about oil.  Russian oil production was peaking in some areas and was falling off.  The public was worried that they would run out.  Currently, this theory is being used by multinational oil companies to stave off worry about a global oil production peak.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

Check out this regarding Abiotic Oil...



> Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?
> 
> By
> Ugo Bardi
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

Take a gander at this...



> Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil
> Friday 6th August 2004
> 
> by F. William Engdahl
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2005)

http://www.peaceredding.org/Never Cry Wolf--Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

Peak Oil will happen.  There is only one solution.  We waste too much energy.  That needs to stop or it will be stopped for us.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.peaceredding.org/Never Cry Wolf--Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over.htm





> The Hubbert curves do not delineate the complex and dynamic nature of oil production and reserves in the world, because they are the product of a static model that puts an unjustifiable faith in geology and does not consider technology and cost/price functions. The model's success in predicting U.S. peak production merely reflected the peculiar nature of this area, which is the most intensively explored and exploited in the world. Elsewhere, the pattern of production is not rendered by a bell curve but is marked by large discontinuities.



_Science is only good when it tells you what you want to hear_...Hubberts model has been used by Ken Deffeyes to make repeatable predictions of other peaks.  In all instances, the bell curve shape held when more data is analyzed.  Oil fields are statistical.  The bell curve in Hubbert's model is an average.



> Nearly all of the estimates of the world's oil URR, including those by oil doomsters, do not take into account the so-called "nonconventional oils"--such as Canadian tar-sands and Venezuelan and Russian heavy oils--even though the availability of these resources is huge and the costs of extraction falling.



Yes, they do take this type of oil into account.  Anyone who says this, hasn't read the literature.  The technology required for extraction from these _other sources_ only becomes viable when the price of oil becomes astronomical.  By then, its too late.  The other peice of this is that the cost of extraction depends on the price of oil!  As the price of oil rises, so do the costs.  Have you ever seen some of the gargantuan mining equipment they use out west?  The amount of energy it uses is out of this world.  That is the type of mining equipment is what will be needed in order to extract the _alternative sources_.



> The Age of Coal began when declining supplies of wood in Great Britain caused its price to climb. Two centuries later, oil took the place of coal as "the king of energy sources" because of its convenience and its high flexibility in many applications, but coal was neither exhausted nor scarce. Oil substitution is simply a matter of cost and public needs, not of scarcity. To "cry wolf" over the availability of oil has the sole effect of perpetuating a misguided obsession with oil security and control that is already rooted in Western public opinion--an obsession that historically has invariably led to bad political decisions.



The peaks happen and the decline *always * follows despite new technology.  Once you pass the peak, the oil becomes exponentially (in the mathematical sense) harder to get out.  According to Hubbert's model technology can keep up for a while near the top, but as you slip down the side of the parabola, there's not much one can do.

Of course, the writer can keep on dreaming that his "market solution religion" will toss him a Hail Mary or two...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

Here is the story on NPR...



> Morning Edition, August 25, 2004 - The summer's record high oil prices and tight supplies raise questions about how much oil is left. Though oil companies are seeking new discoveries, industry veterans agree oil production will hit a peak -- though estimates on when vary from 10 to 40 years. Hear NPR's Steve Inskeep.



Click here.


----------



## dubljay (Apr 19, 2005)

As part of my research job last summer I attended a Solar Energy conference in Portaland, OR.  This subject was brought up. 

 One speaker (I can't remember his name or credentials I went to 8 presentations in 2 days) pointed out that as our technology has gotten better we are finding more and more oil fields, the problem is that these fields are not producing as much oil as the ones discovered in the past.  The life expectancy of an oil field is getting shorter and shorter, reducing the profit for drilling.

 IMO if this trend continues the oil industry will no longer want to search for new fields to put up new drilling rigs, the cost will be too great for oil companies to make it worth their effort.  A shift away from fossil fuels will not be directly related to dwindling resources, but dwindling profits for the resources at hand.

 As a side note, I have been told that BP no longer stands for British Petroleum, it now stands for Beyond Petroleum.  Also that BP is one of the worlds largest manufactures of Photovoltaic arays (solar cells).  Again I have yet to confirm this information.  Also I have seen billboards in the Sacramento area, for Arco (in the BP network) that claim research into alternative energies.


 Thats my two cents,

 -Josh


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> As part of my research job last summer I attended a Solar Energy conference in Portaland, OR.  This subject was brought up.
> 
> One speaker (I can't remember his name or credentials I went to 8 presentations in 2 days) pointed out that as our technology has gotten better we are finding more and more oil fields, the problem is that these fields are not producing as much oil as the ones discovered in the past.  The life expectancy of an oil field is getting shorter and shorter, reducing the profit for drilling.
> 
> ...



Hey, Josh, thanks for jumping in... :asian: 

The problem with solar cells is that they are expensive (although the price is falling.  Futher, solar cells are made with petroleum based products and they require petroleum energy to make.  As the price of oil rises, so too will the price of solar cells.  

Then, there is the fact that our energy in to energy out ratio for solar cells is so much lower then petroleum.  During the petroleum blowout of the late twentieth century, we were getting 100 calories of energy for every 1 expended (this has fallen dramatically in the last few years which leads me to believe the bottom has already dropped out)  For solar cells, this ratio is close to 1 / 1.  

What does this mean?

We will not find a resource to replace petroleum.  We will not be able to maintain our current lifestyles.  WE MUST CHANGE.  The simple fact of the matter is that we waste a rediculous amount of energy...and we flaunt this fact to the rest of the world!  This cannot and will not continue.  We could put off most of this chaos and give us more time to change in a rational way by cutting our energy usage by 50%, but our psychologic expenditure in this way of life is too great.  We will defend it far into necrocity, I'm afraid...

Anyone who says that capitalism increases efficiency needs to stop drinking the kool-aide.


----------



## dubljay (Apr 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hey, Josh, thanks for jumping in... :asian:
> 
> The problem with solar cells is that they are expensive (although the price is falling. Futher, solar cells are made with petroleum based products and they require petroleum energy to make. As the price of oil rises, so too will the price of solar cells.
> 
> ...


 I am aware of the costs and effeciencies of PV arays as spent a summer working with them.  Capialism is not for effecincy, however, the costs of oil production will increas, we already feeling the pinch.  With the arival of hybrid and fuel cell cars the consumer will have a choice in how to power their vehicle.  At the current rates of increasing price for petrol, these will be viable options as the technology becomes more stable.  Even a drop in 5% in profits due to alternative energy and hybrid vehicles will cause the oil industry to sit up and take action while they still have the financial resources to do so.  

 For home use the prototype house I worked on used 2 kw PVs and was tied to the grid.  The goal was to have an energy bill of zero over the time span of one year.  At times you will draw from the grid, others you will be supplying the grid with excess.  The total prototype system was about $200k for equipment and install which included a ground loop installed for heating.  I really don't want to give out too much detial out of repect for the head or the research project.  

 My point is that out of self preservation Oil compaines are begining to see the light from alternative energies, perhaps too late in the game, we will see.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

> *The Hooverization of Bush*
> 
> James Howard Kunstler
> 
> ...



A friend of mine said that in 50 years, we'd look back on the Bush presidency and we'd see him as a hero.  I laughed and drank more beer...

 :drinkbeer  :drinkbeer  :drinkbeer


----------



## Crom (Apr 20, 2005)

Has anyone given a timescale on the decline? I realise that it'd be hard to predict such a thing but when will supermarkets cease to be viable? For how long will people be driving to their service sector workplaces? 
Should i move back to the countryside and buy a few feilds?

(Sorry if this has been mentioned in any of the previous articles, i read most of them honest)


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

Crom said:
			
		

> Has anyone given a timescale on the decline? I realise that it'd be hard to predict such a thing but when will supermarkets cease to be viable? For how long will people be driving to their service sector workplaces?
> Should i move back to the countryside and buy a few feilds?
> 
> (Sorry if this has been mentioned in any of the previous articles, i read most of them honest)



Check the graphs I posted earlier and buy some fields...


----------



## Ender (Apr 20, 2005)

World may hold vast untapped reserves of oil and gas   
Source: Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa) 

Washington (dpa) - Vast untapped reserves of oil and methane may exist 20 miles below the Earth's surface - and could keep the world supplied with energy long after conventional gas and oil fields have run dry, scientists believe. 

The question of whether large amounts of hydrocarbons really are trapped in the Earth's mantle is unanswered at present, but new research has shown that fuel sources produced by volcanic activity could in theory exist at great depths. 

Oil has been drilled since 1859 from wells that penetrate no deeper than three to five miles into the Earth's crust. 

The oil and natural gas obtained commercially today is formed organically from the crushing of decomposed vegetation. 

Methane, the most abundant hydrocarbon, is the main component of natural gas and often accompanied by liquid petroleum. But many scientists believe there may be reserves of hydrocarbons made without living material within the inferno of the Earth's upper mantle much deeper underground. 

American scientists have now mimicked the conditions that exist at depths of between 12 and 37 miles under the continents. 

Team member Dr Russell Hemley, from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said: "These experiments point to the possibility of an inorganic source of hydrocarbons at great depth in the Earth - that is, hydrocarbons that come from simple reactions between water and rock and not just from the decomposition of living organisms." 

The scientists described the work recently in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Common materials such as iron oxide, calcite and water were squeezed to pressures ranging from 50,000 to 110,000 times that of the atmosphere at sea level. 

The samples were also heated to temperatures as high as 1,500 degrees Celsius. 

The researchers found that methane formed from chemical reactions involving the carbon in calcite over a wide range of temperatures and pressures. 

Dr Freeman Dyson, from the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University, New Jersey, who reviewed the research, said: "This paper is important, not because it settles the question whether the origin of natural gas and petroleum is organic or inorganic, but because it gives us the tools to attack the question experimentally. 

"If the answer turns out to be inorganic, this has huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet as well as for the chemistry of other planets." 


Copyright 2004 dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> World may hold vast untapped reserves of oil and gas
> Source: Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
> 
> Washington (dpa) - Vast untapped reserves of oil and methane may exist 20 miles below the Earth's surface - and could keep the world supplied with energy long after conventional gas and oil fields have run dry, scientists believe.
> ...



Elsewhere, the abiotic oil theory has been addressed.  This theory is incorrect because it is insufficient in explaining all of the data.  This idea that the earth has something like a creamy nougat center filled with oil is a pipe dream...


----------



## Ender (Apr 20, 2005)

Solar cells: The new light fantastic   
By Olga Kharif 
Source: Business Week Online 

One day last July, Ted Sargent was typing away in his office at the University of Toronto when a graduate student rushed in. His excited visitor explained that he had just shone infrared light -- invisible to the human eye -- onto a tiny sample of a special material Sargent and his researchers had developed, and the sample actually converted the light into energy. Always the skeptic, Sargent asked, "Did you turn the [overhead] lights off?" 

Soon, however, it became clear that this research group had stumbled onto something big. Sargent and his team describe their discovery -- the world's first plastic solar cell able to absorb infrared light -- in the February issue of the prestigious industry journal Nature Materials. Their little sample could bring about a sea change in the energy industry, making solar energy so cheap that it becomes a viable alternative to fossil fuels. 

Solar cells in commercial production today are expensive, around $6 per watt. To understand what that means, consider this: If you install $600 worth of solar cells, you can power a typical light bulb for 25 years, figures Ron Pernick, co-founder of renewable-energy consultancy Clean Edge in San Francisco. That's about twice the cost of coal-based electricity. 

Through various technological improvements, solar-cell prices have typically fallen by 5% to 6% a year -- but no more, because cells are manufactured through complex processes similar to those employed for making PC processors and memory cards.


----------



## Ender (Apr 20, 2005)

Energy Dept. notes fuel-cell breakthrough   
Source: United Press International 

WASHINGTON (United Press International via COMTEX) -- A major milestone in the development of fuel-cell technology was announced Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Department. 

The agency said in a release Delphi Corp. had reached a power density level in its fuel-cell program that will greatly reduce the cost of the technology and make fuel cells competitive in the commercial market. 

The breakthrough means fuel cells can now conceivably meet the government's energy-production target of $400 per kilowatt hour -- about one tenth of the cost of energy produced by current fuel cell models. 

The auto industry has committed itself to commercially developing fuel cells as an alternative to gasoline engines; however, the carmakers insist quality and cost goals must first be met before fuel cells can gain the large market share needed to have an actual impact on smog levels. 


Copyright 2005 by United Press International.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Solar cells: The new light fantastic
> By Olga Kharif
> Source: Business Week Online
> 
> ...



If a solar cell can convert infrared photons to electrons, this would mean that the cell could operate at night...a major drawback of conventional solar cells.  

The problem with all solar cells is that they are expensive and rely on hydrocarbons for their peices as well as the energy to produce them.  As the price of hydrocarbons rises, the price of solar cells will also rise.  

We need to be making the decisions NOW to convert to solar, and it would take a decade for any effective system to be produced.  And then, we will only get a fraction of the power that we do from oil...

It will not solve the problem.  The problem is our waste.  The problem is how we have constructed our society to maximize waste.  The coming energy cruch will cure this whether we like it or not...


----------



## Ender (Apr 20, 2005)

Circuit Uses Photosynthetic Plant Proteins  


Source: United Press International 

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (United Press International via COMTEX) -- U.S. scientists have developed an electronic circuit that harnesses a plant's ability to convert sunlight into energy. 

Dubbed a "spinach sandwich," the circuit utilizes microscopic proteins from spinach and is the world's first photosynthetic solar cell, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report in NanoLetters. 

The circuit consists of a bottom layer of transparent glass coated with a conductive material. A thin layer of gold sits on top of the glass and is where the spinach proteins reside. A soft organic semiconductor and a layer of metal are the top of the "sandwich." 

Previous attempts to integrate the photosynthetic molecules of plants with electronics have been unsuccessful because biological materials require salt and water, which are destructive to electric devices. The researchers overcame this by using specially designed nanomaterials that enable the spinach proteins to function without water. 

The device is still in the developmental stages, but researchers hope to get the efficiency up to 20 percent, which would make it a highly efficient power source.


----------



## Crom (Apr 20, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Energy Dept. notes fuel-cell breakthrough
> Source: United Press International
> 
> WASHINGTON (United Press International via COMTEX) -- A major milestone in the development of fuel-cell technology was announced Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Department.
> ...


Fuel cells require hydrogen, most hydrogen is extracted from the methane in natural gas. Also energy's needed to get the hydrogen out of the methane.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

This is still made from hydrocarbons and requires hydrocarbon energy to construct.  Same problems as before...

And it won't even come close to providing the energy needs for our waste.  

These technologic breakthroughs will be important in the future because they will provide enough energy to keep us from slipping back to the dark ages.

Yet, it will not stop the localization that is bound to happen.  It will not stop the splintering and contraction of industry.  It will not replace the automobile, the airplaine, or the tank.


----------



## Ender (Apr 20, 2005)

Atomic energy provides an amazing source of concentrated power. The potential applications that have been proposed are widely varied. There is room for unlimited innovation and creativity.

Imagine what it would be like to have a battery that could provide power for several decades without recharging. Sounds almost like science fiction.

Fact, in this case, matches fiction.

The Voyager space probes carried devices called radioisotope thermal generators. (RTGs) These devices are simply amazing. They work on a simple principle. With semi conductor type materials, a current can be established by heating one side while cooling the other. The effect is known as the thermoelectric effect.

Nuclear Batteries
An RTG uses a radioactive material (like plutonium-238) as the heat source. This kind of plutonium spontaneously produces about one kilowatt of heat energy for every two kilograms of mass.

This energy level decreases slowly over time; after ten years the heat production is about 92 percent of the initial value. Even after 87 years, the material produces half as much heat as it did when it started.

The energy is actually released in the form of an alpha particle which can only travel a short distance before it stops. As the alpha particle slows, its motion is converted into heat. The battery material surrounding the plutonium provides adequate shielding. The batteries are so compact that a lightweight case can be built to withstand the stresses of atmosphere reentry without releasing any plutonium.

Nuclear batteries were essential to the success of the long distance space probes. Solar cells would not have provided enough power to operate the required equipment because the sun was too far away. Chemical batteries can provide enough power to run the instruments for a short period of time, but their total energy storage capacity is many times less than that of a nuclear battery.

The instruments and communications gear on the probes that provided such fantastic pictures of Satun and Jupiter would have been just dead weight without some form of power.

Better than the Rest
Nuclear batteries might have other uses. Imagine being able to buy a 10 year battery for a video camera, a laptop computer, or a portable telephone. Imagine how many rechargable NiCad batteries would have to be replaced during 10 years of continuous use.

Space program RTGs were too expensive for such use, but NASA's first microprocessors were also far out of the reach of average human beings. By using the increasing stockpile of heat producing nuclear "waste" material, it is possible to dramatically reduce the cost of RTGs


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Nuclear batteries might have other uses. Imagine being able to buy a 10 year battery for a video camera, a laptop computer, or a portable telephone. Imagine how many rechargable NiCad batteries would have to be replaced during 10 years of continuous use.
> 
> Space program RTGs were too expensive for such use, but NASA's first microprocessors were also far out of the reach of average human beings. By using the increasing stockpile of heat producing nuclear "waste" material, it is possible to dramatically reduce the cost of RTGs


Never gonna happen.

RTGs are still a potential source of radioactive contamination: ifthe container holding the fuel leaks, the radioactive material will contaminate the environment. The main concern is that if an accident were to occur during launch or a subsequent passage of a spacecraft close to Earth, harmful material could be released into the atmosphere.

There have been five known accidents involving RTG powered spacecraft. The first two were launch failures involving U.S. Transit and Nimbus satellites. Two more were failures of Soviet Cosmos missions containing RTG-powered lunar rovers. Finally, the failure of the Apollo 13 meant that the Lunar Module whichcarried the RTG reentered the atmosphere and burnt up ove Fiji.. The RTG itself survived reentry of the Earth's atmosphere intact, plunging into the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of Plutonium will occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area.

RTGs have been used terrestrially, as long-life batteries for pacemakers, with about 150 Pu-238 powered pacemakers still in service, and as power sources for lighthouses, with many Soviet lighthouses being powered by Strontium 90. These lighthouses represent a significant risk of contamination and or possible terrorist theft, not in the least part because Russia has lost the records on some of their locations.


oh, and it's more precisely the _Seebeck_ effect that RTGs rely upon: the thermoelectric effect describes the entire phenomena, the Peltier-Seebeck effect:wink1:


----------



## Crom (Apr 20, 2005)

There's not as much nuclear waste lying around as people think. Most of the waste is low level and not radioactive enough to be of any use, this consists of container liners etc.

Then there's the fact that there's only around 50 years worth of uranium (from which the plutonium is made) left at todays usage rate and price, the price would have to increase significantly for other production techniques to become viable.  Thats not to say that we'll run out of uranium, there're huge amounts in the ocean but to extract them costs at least 10 times conventional mining and so they can never do anyhting but slow the decline, it'll never replace oil.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Atomic energy provides an amazing source of concentrated power. The potential applications that have been proposed are widely varied. There is room for unlimited innovation and creativity.
> 
> Imagine what it would be like to have a battery that could provide power for several decades without recharging. Sounds almost like science fiction.
> 
> ...



I have no doubt that nuclear energy will be a factor in the Peak Oil problem...despite environmental consequences!  Yet, Crom said it best.

Here is the problem...and some are the same problems we have been discussing...  

1.  We should be doing things like converting over now.  The Peak is probably here, yet we remain focused on oil...This is going to bite us in the *** in the end.

2.  It requires energy to build all of these things and all of the new powerplants in the US are methane based.  As the price of energy rises exponentially, these technology may become too far out of our reach.

3.  Good uranium and plutonium for these types of technology isn't available on the kind of scale that oil is available.  Therefore, these technologies will have specialized uses in the future.  

I do not think that any of these new technologies will have the power to prop up our current standard of energy waste.  None of them are as easy to obtain as oil, nor do they have the ability to fill the gap in magnitude.  This concept of continual growth and development is not going to last far into the next century because of this energy crisis.  We are going to be forced to rethink everything about how we live.

They say everything is big in Texas...OK...they'll be first to go down.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2005)

The End Is Near...war...famine....destruction....repent! The End Is Near!

:shrug:


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2005)

Crom said:
			
		

> There's not as much nuclear waste lying around as people think. Most of the waste is low level and not radioactive enough to be of any use, this consists of container liners etc.
> it'll never replace oil.


I wouldn't say that, either.....don't have time right now, but I'll weigh in on this in a bit...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The End Is Near...war...famine....destruction....repent! The End Is Near!
> 
> :shrug:



There are solutions, Tom.  We can do something about this.  We must become more _conservative _...in the good sense of the word.  We need to cut our waste.  Americans need to cut their energy usage by 50%.  We need to start planning for this.  Alternative energy can help, but it will not replace oil.  Nothing will replace oil and nothing will prop up our current standard of living.  We need to get our head out of the sand while we still have the chance.  If we continue this myopic focus on oil, the economy is going to eventually tank and by then, it *will * be too late.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2005)

What do you think of this article once you put it in the context of the Peak Oil problem?



> *House votes for oil drilling in Alaskan refuge*
> Stage set for clash with Senate; Bush wants energy bill by summer
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 21, 2005)

Heres a couple ideas to start with folks:

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me2.html

 More of this = Less oil use... Granted, it might keep the farmers busy... :O


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 21, 2005)

One can only hope we're peak oil. I'm sick to death of the carbon club and all their lies, thievery and pollution.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 21, 2005)

You and everybody else who buys into this......


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You and everybody else who buys into this......



You sound like you don't buy into this.  Why?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2005)

*The planet earth weighs 1.3 E 25pounds. *(130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)


Or, if you prefer, 4.6 *E 18*tons. (46000,000,000,000,000,000)


Or, 6 E24 kilograms. ( 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) 


Of that mass, less than 1% was oil prior to the age of large scale oil use (call it sometime after Henry Ford), and that mass has been exponentially decreasing with increased consumption-I think the U.S. alone currently conumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day. The Hubbert oil peak is merely common sense,as the earth, and all its bounty-not just oil-is _finite_, and no one can say for certain when the peak is or *was,* though we can probably be fairly sure that it has already passed, or is just about to: the Association for the Study of Peak Oil puts it at 2007. 


The U.S. would require at least an eightfold increase in nuclear power production, from 10% of all energy supplied to about 90%, to replace both the current amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels and gasoline usage. Nuclear engineers estimate that the world can derive 400,000 quads of energy (1000 years at current levels of consumption) from uranium isotope 235, if reprocessing is not employed. 

Fast breeder reactors are another possibility. As opposed to current LWR (light water reactors) which burn the rare isotope of uranium U-235, fast breeder reactors produce plutonium from U-238, and then fission that to produce electricity and thermal heat. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years' worth of U-238 for use in these power plants, and that they can return a high ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) and avoid some of the problems of current reactors by being automated, passively safe, and reaching economies of scale via mass production. There are a few such research projects working on fast breeders  Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory being one, currently working on the small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR).

The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of nuclear power have not been solved, although onsite spent fuel storage in casks has allowed power plants to make room in their spent fuel pools. One possible solution several countries are considering is using underground repositories. The U.S nuclear waste from various locations is planned to be entombed inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I dont think this is a viable solution. In fact, Im hoping to get funding for a proof-of principle experiment and prototype for Accelerator Transmutation of Waste here at LANSCE in the next couple of years, a process that would get rid of waste, produce electrical power and hydrogen-of course, it has its own potential dangers. 


As for what *you* can or should do, well, as someone who has been anticipating this since 1973, I recommend the greasel alternative-Ive converted two vehicles to run on pure plant oil, if necessary, as well as our generator. Id also see to other alternative sources-we have extensive photovoltaics and a windmill, and can be grid-free at any time, though we still get power form the electric company. Lastly, start your gardens and raise chickens and rabbits.Get on the bicycle, if you can, and get horses, if you're able.And conserve, conserve, conserve.

Its not about some doom and gloom survivalist scenario, its about self-reliance.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2005)

D'oh-U.S. oil usage is 18.5 million barrels/day-I *knew* that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2005)

Nuclear power is safe ???

Unfortunately, it may be our only alternative.  I'm still not sure it can totally replace oil though.  Especially in regards to transportation which is 90% oil based.  

Otherwise, Elder999 has it right on!!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

This thread takes on an entirely knew light once you understand the issue of Peak Oil.  I wish I would have had more of this information back then when I was arguing this point...

Especially the Dick Cheney speech...

Live and learn...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 22, 2005)

Using fission to boil water is only exeeded by exploding fission bombs in our atmosphere as the stupidest thing humans have ever done.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 23, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Using fission to boil water is only exeeded by exploding fission bombs in our atmosphere as the stupidest thing humans have ever done.


No, they were both brilliant........the *first* time. Everything after that was pretty stupid, though. 

Nuclear power can be used to produce electricity safely, especially given the experience of the last 40 years. If LWR reactors are kept well below 1000mW electrical output-say 600mW or so-they are remarkably safe: a look at the history reveals that the majority of serious U.S. nuclear industiral incidents have occured in plants whose output exceeded 800mW. The principle stupidities in the U.S. are not having a solution to the waste problem, which was magnified by our forced departure from the closed loop fuel cycle, and allowing such a widespread variety of designs and outputs in the name of free-market capitalism, when the whole issue should have been more thoroughly controlled by the federal government from its inception.

....and, no, it can't completely eliminate our transportation problems, but mass-transit has been underedeveloped for years...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 25, 2005)

A Saudi Oil Minister gave an interview on NPR this morning.  As you all may know, A crown prince will meet with President Bush this week at his ranch in Crawford.  The president is expected to ask the Saudis to increase their production of oil.  

The Saudi Oil Minister said that this was impossible.  Saudi Arabia could not produce any more oil (implying that they are Peaked).  He then went on to say that the Saudis understand the problems this will cause and that it will probably precipitate "Oil Wars" in every sense of the word because there is no other option for energy right now.  

Economists are predicting that this summer the price of oil will rise over 70 dollars a barrel this summer.  We can expect the price of a gallon of gas to rise over $3.00 a gallon.  _This rise will be permanent_ and it will only increase further.  I expect that we will be seeing some fancy multiton lawn ornaments this summer with for sale signs on them...


----------



## kid (Apr 27, 2005)

wow this is scary stuff.  We need some sort of alternate energy source.  I'm no scientist, so don't ask me what will replace oil, cause i don't know.  I say need cause our economy thrives on energy.  I think the entire U.S needs to start conserving more of that energy, we need to stop living like the spoiled brats of the world.  But this is'nt going to happen not anytime soon.  We are addicted to being spoiled, and many selfish people are not going to want to give that up.  And we have to respect their stand, CAUSE THIS IS AMERICA.  I got to go to class.  Maybe i'll say more later.


kid


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I expect that we will be seeing some fancy multiton lawn ornaments this summer with for sale signs on them...



Hehe..already traded my truck in last week. I'm putting $120+ a month back in my pocket now.

If the gov't really wanted to make a difference on our wallets, they'd remove all the tax that's associated with the gas price.

Prices at the pump may go up, but it's the heating oil that will crush most people come winter. Better get a wood/pellet stove.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Hehe..already traded my truck in last week. I'm putting $120+ a month back in my pocket now.
> 
> If the gov't really wanted to make a difference on our wallets, they'd remove all the tax that's associated with the gas price.
> 
> Prices at the pump may go up, but it's the heating oil that will crush most people come winter. Better get a wood/pellet stove.



Heh.  That is a good idea!  Lets cut the taxes on gas and screw our transportation system!  The damn thing was created by a corporatist government and removed all choices of transit from the people.  Every time the taxpayer builds a road, it is a subsidy for an automobile.  No wonder other forms of transit cannot survive.  No wonder America is so addicted to oil!

It's weird to think that rail is probably going to be the cheapest long distance transit method in the future...

I'm glad that you sold your truck and found other means.  It is thinking like that that will win out in the end.  Mike and I may be pretty opposite politically, but enonomics wins out for the both of us...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 28, 2005)

Everything that I've been saying and posting in various citations is all here.  If you understand anything about Peak Oil by now, you will understand the administrations actions.  They know about this stuff...and I find it funny just how in the dark just about everyone else in the US is about it!



> *Bush pushes nuclear power*
> 
> *ENERGY: President says nuclear power is a long-term solution, but offers no short-term relief plan*
> 
> ...



A few tidbits I found interesting in this article...



> Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference, Bush hailed nuclear power as part of a long-term solution to the nation's energy challenge and outlined plans to encourage construction of oil refineries and facilities for storing liquefied natural gas. Experts said the proposals might help ease America's fuel pinch in the long run, but wouldn't break the nation's reliance on fossil fuels or foreign oil.



The Bush plan for Peak Oil is drill for more oil and gas, weaken pollution regulations so we can burn more fossil fuels, stabilize regions where we can get more oil and gas, built a crapload of nuclear plants, and attempt the very expensive and very dangerous process of shipping LGN.  The experts are right, none of this will break our reliance on fossil fuels.  More on nuclear power in a bit...



> The biggest controversy may erupt over Bush's proposal to direct federal agencies to consider letting petrochemical companies convert closed military bases into oil refineries. Critics focused on his pledge to simplify regulations governing the expansion of refineries.



This will be a big waste of money and is actually collosally stupid in the long run.  In 15-20 years, oil will be so expensive that these things are probably going to be abandoned.  They will make our Presidents friends and family a lot of money in the short term though...the land is free and it is accessible to many large population areas.  A very attractive deal...

Also, it is interesting to note that most of these old military bases are superfund sites.  Putting a refinery on these areas pretty much ensures that the land will never spring back or be useful to humans again.  



> The Bush plan also calls for providing a new incentive to build nuclear power plants by reducing the "uncertainty in the licensing process" and providing "federal risk insurance to mitigate the additional cost of unforeseen delays."
> 
> Industry analysts questioned whether this would be enough to spur construction. Investors have been leery of the upfront costs needed to build a nuclear plant compared with other forms of electricity production.



For one thing, fissile material is also a non-renewable resource.  It will run out too.  What then?  Building nuclear plants will only be a short term fix for Peak Oil, but it will leaves some very long term consequences.  The waste produced is highly dangerous and will outlive us by thousands of years.  The amount of waste that will be produced if we try to provide for our countries energy needs with fissile energy will be absolutely staggering...

And the laughable plan of this administration is to put it in a hollowed out mountain that is criss-crossed with active faults.  In fact, every few years, Yucca mountain, the entire mountain, jumps on a system of normal faults.  The land around Yucca mountain is literally tearing itself apart!  Reno Nevada and Salt Lake City Utah have been measured by sattalite to be moving away from each other!  Some of this nuclear waste will be dangerous for millions of years!  I cannot even begin to rant at how utterly stupid this is!

Our energy glut in this country is so bad that we will have to build a crapload of these things in order to keep up.  This will take a long time and it will be very expensive.  A nuclear power plant takes years to build.  You can't rush this kind of technology.  It may take 15 years before some of these plants can come online to relieve the energy shortage.  

Meanwhile we have an infrastructure that depends on oil.  We have a fleet of cars, trucks, ships, airplains, tractors etc that need oil.  The price of oil is going to rise and rise and rise and nothing is being done to convert this over to electric...and somethings can't be converted to electric.  Can you imagine an electric 747?

The Bush plan is truly a Hail Mary.  They are hoping the high gas prices don't tank the economy before they can get this thing off the ground.  Fat chance.  Our Wal-Mart way of life depends on oil.  Everything you buy somehow has the price of oil worked into it.  High oil prices will raise the prices of everything in this country!  

A much better solution in my opinion is to invest in building a new infrastructure now.  Invest in alternative energy sources.  PUSH FOR CONSERVATION!!!!!  These are the only real solutions that will make a difference.

Our entire way of life depends on oil and wasting energy.  This will not continue.  Our leaders are making decisions about a gargantuan problem that very few people even know about.  These decisions will make our leaders and their friends money hand over fist, but it will end up hurting everyone in the long run.  

We are right now wasting our money and our time for the benefit of the few.  Is it any wonder why some people who know about this have taken on a "glood and doom" attitude?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## elder999 (Apr 29, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For one thing, fissile material is also a non-renewable resource. It will run out too. What then? Building nuclear plants will only be a short term fix for Peak Oil, but it will leaves some very long term consequences. The waste produced is highly dangerous and will outlive us by thousands of years. The amount of waste that will be produced if we try to provide for our countries energy needs with fissile energy will be absolutely staggering...
> 
> And the laughable plan of this administration is to put it in a hollowed out mountain that is criss-crossed with active faults. In fact, every few years, Yucca mountain, the entire mountain, jumps on a system of normal faults. The land around Yucca mountain is literally tearing itself apart! Reno Nevada and Salt Lake City Utah have been measured by sattalite to be moving away from each other! Some of this nuclear waste will be dangerous for millions of years! I cannot even begin to rant at how utterly stupid this is!
> 
> Our energy glut in this country is so bad that we will have to build a crapload of these things in order to keep up. This will take a long time and it will be very expensive. A nuclear power plant takes years to build. You can't rush this kind of technology. It may take 15 years before some of these plants can come online to relieve the energy shortage.


A couple of things (since this is, after all, *my* field.)

Modest estimates put the amount of usable "fissile material" for nuclear power-_currently in the ground_- at being sufficient for all the worlds electrical production, at current rates of consumption, _for the next *1500* years._ At the dawn of the nuclear age, when the U.S. was developing the "atomic bomb," General Leslie Groves actually spearheaded a U.S. attempt to monopolize all the uranium in the world. It didnt succeed, simply because its that common. Its found in abundance on almost every continent.
The use of breeder reactors would also do a great deal to eliminate the whole "finity" problem of the nuclear fuel cycle. Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.



France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization. 

In order to see how this can be done, it's first necessary to review some basic physics: Plutonium-239 produces significantly more energy than Uranium-235. And the process continues to produce the additional isotopes Plutonium-240 and 241 and 242. This raises an interesting question.

Can we take these fuel rods-currently in storage all over the country and awaiting consignment to Yucca Flats- that contain all this Plutonium, separate out the Plutonium and whatever Uranium was not used, and make more fuel rods? You bet. In fact, we actually end up with more fuel after the process than what we started with. Why is this not being done?

Plutonium is used in atomic bombs - the fact that it's pure Plutonium-239 that makes an atomic bomb work, and not the other three isotopes, apparently didn't matter, because in 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that banned the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the United States. The rationale was that the Plutonium could possibly be stolen, and terrorists might be able to use it to make atomic bombs.

Never mind that in the real world, it is essentially impossible to separate out the Plutonium-239 from the other isotopes in sufficient purity to use it for bomb making. The British tried it, the Russians tried it, the French tried it, and we tried it, but nobody did it very well, even though we had the best scientists and all the money in the world to throw at it.

If you try to make a bomb with such a mixture of Plutonium isotopes, forget about it - it won't work, ever. We're talking about the laws of physics, Greenpeace notwithstanding. Unless you have pure Plutonium-239, your bomb will fizzle. So throwing away all that valuable nuclear fuel to prevent terrorists from making a bomb that won't work anyway is just plain dumb.

How do we get the Plutonium-239 for our atomic bombs? We built reactors fueled with Uranium-238 whose only job is to create Plutonium-239. These systems are some of the best-guarded plants in the world. Our weapons grade Plutonium is safe. And we use the stuff over and over and over, as necessary, to keep our supply of weapons grade Plutonium up to date and available.

Can we do the same thing to produce nuclear fuel? The answer is a resounding *yes.*

This type of reactor, called a Breeder Reactor, actually produces more fuel than it consumes. A reactor designed to use a mixed Plutonium fuel is basically the same as the Uranium reactor we have already discussed. However, the neutrons that sustain the reaction contain more energy - they are commonly known as "fast" neutrons.

In order to regulate the internal neutron flux, the primary coolant typically is one of the light metals like Sodium. Since Uranium-238 is one of the more abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Breeder Reactors make it possible to have an essentially unlimited source of fuel for nuclear reactors - which means an unlimited supply of electricity.

At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years!

Imagine a transformed energy landscape, where there is no nuclear waste problem, no power shortages, a safe and inexhaustible supply of inexpensive electricity. France has constructed and used Breeder Reactors like this for many years. So have the British and the Japanese-and Canada. So why not the United States?

[font=Arial, Helvetica]We invented the technology but then made a political decision back in 1977 that has accomplished nothing but to create immense piles of long-lived, highly radioactive material that we cannot use for anything, and worse - we must safely store for more than its half-life of 25,000 years.

[/font]

2) The waste problem is a real problem, but it is not technologically insurmountable. While Im not an advocate of the Yucca Falts long term storage plan, I have been to Yucca Flats, been privy to most of the data, and none of what youve said about it is nearly as threatening as it sounds. Ask about ground water percolation, though. I'm also no fan of the *B*u*S*h administration, but you can hardly blame Yucca Flats and the plan to store waste there (virtually _forever_) on him or his administration; it's been around since he was sniffing coke(actually, the plan's inception dates back to almost 1957...)

At any rate, Ive already posted about Accelerator Transmutation of Waste, something Im hoping to do development work on in the near future, and that would completely solve the problem _that is almost entirely of our own creation._ (see above) You can read about ATW here and , in _embarrassingly_ less detail, here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 29, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> A couple of things (since this is, after all, *my* field.)
> 
> Modest estimates put the amount of usable "fissile material" for nuclear power-_currently in the ground_- at being sufficient for all the worlds electrical production, at current rates of consumption, _for the next *1500* years._ At the dawn of the nuclear age, when the U.S. was developing the "atomic bomb," General Leslie Groves actually spearheaded a U.S. attempt to monopolize all the uranium in the world. It didnt succeed, simply because its that common. Its found in abundance on almost every continent.
> The use of breeder reactors would also do a great deal to eliminate the whole "finity" problem of the nuclear fuel cycle. Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.
> ...



Thanks for the honest and informed estimate of nuclear power.  I have no doubt that it will be used in the future.  It's nice to know that current technology is making it safer then the technology we have now.  However, I still have a few concerns...

1.  Building these plants is really expensive.  
2.  I've seen estimates for natural fissible material at around 40 years given our current rate of energy consumption.
3.  I still don't like the Yucca Mountain plan.  I know the geology of that region and have done some field work in fault/block spreading zones.
4.  I don't think that our current focus on oil will allow a smooth transition into this type of power.  We are doing absolutely nothing to convert this economy over to electric based...and it will be years before this is done.  If the oil prices tank the economy before we make the transition, we may not have the capital to do so.
5.  And lastly, I'm not sure everything can be converted to electric.  As has been mentioned before, France has been using this technology for a while, yet that country still uses its fair share of oil...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 30, 2005)

I still think that planning and changing our focus, say... Motor oil and Gasoline from a petroleum based fuel to a plant based one, like the bio-diesl engine conversions is a great first step... if we build Hybrid Electric cars that run on a Biodeisel engine as opposed to gasoline, imagine how much LESS oil we, as a single nation would use, and consequently how much longer we might be able to stretch the oil we do have... I don't have any facts and figures, but I can imagine the numbers to be, not a solution by any means, but a big step in the right direction.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2005)

I've posted about all I can on this topic. The points I was trying to make are...

1. Our entire lives are sickly addicted to oil.
2. Oil prices will rise sharply and permanently in the future as we pass the global production peak.
3. This will change EVERYTHING about how we live.

It doesn't matter who you are. This change in environment will make choices for you. Yet, there are a couple of ways that one can proceed.

1. "Supply siders" would have you think that phantasmagoric "market forces" will find the best route through this quagmire of change. My view is that these "culturally informed choices" will make decisions, but not good ones. Look at where "Market Forces/Culturally Informed Choices" have led us now? We have the most wasteful society on the planet that is literally teetering on an energy cliff. This, in my opinion, is the hard way. To let things slide until and continue until we hurtle off that cliff hoping that these "market forces" will suddenly change people's minds about "how they have always lived" shows a misunderstanding of human psychology. It just isn't that simple. Following this path will lead to an energy crash that will not allow us to make the best changes in our society for everyone. Sure, changes will occur after the crash, but they will be informal, unplanned, and haphazard. 

2. Here is the easier way. We can create a true energy plan that weans this country off of oil and shifts our infrastructure to one that uses a different source of energy. Further, we can start this now while we have the energy and capital to do it cheaply and do it right in an orderly fashion.

NOW I think all of the cards are on the table regarding oil. None of this is easy to talk about. I don't see any easy solutions, though...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Brother John (May 18, 2005)

The article seems more "Doomsday, the sky is falling" than real.
I've read as much on both sides of this issue, some tend to try scare tactics.
It is something to be concerned about though, something that needs our attention so that we never get to THAT point. But I don't think we are quite there.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> The article seems more "Doomsday, the sky is falling" than real.
> I've read as much on both sides of this issue, some tend to try scare tactics.
> It is something to be concerned about though, something that needs our attention so that we never get to THAT point. But I don't think we are quite there.
> 
> ...


I agree, it doesn't have to be that bad, if we make good decisions...but it could be if we make the wrong decisions.


----------



## takadadojokeith (May 25, 2005)

I read this thread and really enjoyed it. Good links and a good debate. I wanted to contribute this link on wind power from the Discovery Channel home page. Its about a new study that claims wind power could meet global energy needs.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050523/windmap.html?msn=dsc_news


----------

