Peak Oil - myth or reality ?

[flecc]

Flecc, if mine are biased, perhaps yours are just a little rose tinted

That's for you and others to judge John, but my view in that last post is expressed by nothing but quoting factual information, so any tinting isn't mine.

I do take a more optimistic view of such matters though. I fall out completely with most of the environmental lobby including many members in here over their blinkered support for renewables only, with a completely negative view of anything else.

My view is inclusive, using human ingenuity to take advantage of all methods and technologies, including renewably sourced energy.
.

 

[flecc]

The thing with all of this nuclear tech is the incredible cost. We really should be making this investment in renewables first, and then supplementing as we need to. Not the other way round, its just a recipe for disaster environmentally and economically.

John

Oh dear, this old chestnut trotted out again!

Things change John, modern nuclear stations are cost effective, almost approaching even dirty coal in this respect and certainly far cheaper than gas and oil now, including allowing for waste disposal. Most of the many low cost South Korean products we buy are produced with nuclear power, and to deal with another objection, they build their PWR stations to internationally licenced standards in as little as two years each, never more than four.

I've never promoted only having nuclear, as seen in my reply to John above, but I'm not so blinkered as to shut out anything else.

It's not me who's putting all the eggs in one or few baskets, it's you and the environmentalists. We need all options, including nuclear, since renewables will never do the whole job. That happens to be government policy too, one I support.
.

 

[andysmee]

We need all options, including nuclear, since renewables will never do the whole job. That happens to be government policy too, one I support.
.

We will most certainly use every option available to us and that means extracting every last possible drop of oil be it from the Tar Sands or opening up the ANWR.

Economic growth is the religion!

The human species is a blight on this planet, our greed will ensure we never reach an equilibrium with it.

 

[mikepepler]

Just a thought - nuclear power provides electricity, and what we're short of is liquid fuels and natural gas.

Yes, we can use vehicles running on batteries or hydrogen, but there are several problems:

• to replace the energy currently used in transport in the UK we would have to increase our electricity supply by something like four times
• over the next 10-15 years we're going to be struggling to keep our existing electricity generation capacity, with nuclear stations reaching the end of their lives, coal plants shutting down due to the EU LCPB and North Sea gas declining fast
• it will take years to replace all our oil-fuelled transport with electric, and doing so will cause a massive rise in the prices of the raw materials (i.e. catalysts or battery chemicals)
• the infrastructure for charging batteries or supplying hydrogen will also take years to build

There's also problems like the efficiency of using hydrogen - from power station to traction, the efficiency can end up being 50% or lower, requiring even more power stations to be built. And all this is before we start to think about the practicalities of moving hydrogen around, whether fuel cells are up to the job physically, and whether there's enough platinum and other exotic elements available.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have electric cars, hydrogen fuel and nuclear power - these can all play a part in mitigating peak oil, but they will not provide the same amount of energy or convenience of use. We will be forced to reduce transport use - going slower and not as far. Electric bikes help here, but moving goods is the killer - hence the need to re-localise food production, etc.

And remember we still have that issue of making fertiliser from natural gas...

Oh, and aeroplanes need oil-based fuels. Biofuels freeze at high altitude, and hydrogen is too bulky, so we're going to be flying a lot less in future.

But this isn't all doom and gloom - I think we will probably be a happier society if we lead less hectic lives and are more involved with the people we actually live near. As has been pointed out, endlessly chasing economic growth will have to stop, but from the point of view of people's happiness and the survival of the environment that's a good thing.

The key point is that these changes are going to happen anyway - there isn't an endless supply of oil, gas, phosphorous, iron, copper, etc. The choice we have is this:

• Do we plan ahead and start changing our way of life and national infrastructure to be ready for what's coming (and there is not much time left to do this...)
• Or do we just sit and wait, and leave it to "natural process" like famine, poverty, disease and war to bring the numerical size and way of life of our species back in line with what the planet can actually support long term.

I realise discussions like this are maybe a bit big and off-topic to have here, another place to go is the PowerSwitch forum, where this kind of stuff is discussed in much more detail.

 

[flecc]

Just a thought - nuclear power provides electricity, and what we're short of is liquid fuels and natural gas.

Electricity in large quantities is needed to produce hydrogen Mike, and that hydrogen can replace the liquid fuels used in most transport. That's where nuclear comes in, producing the electricity for the hydrogen production.

There's also a chemical method of direct hydrogen production from nuclear reactors which would possibly become the primary means over time.
.

 

[JohnInStockie]

It's not me who's putting all the eggs in one or few baskets, it's you and the environmentalists. We need all options, including nuclear, since renewables will never do the whole job. That happens to be government policy too, one I support.

I think you are missing the point Flecc. If we invest whole-heartedly in nuclear (as we are going to), it leaves little to nothing left to invest in renewables.

If this wasnt the case, we would see a much higher percentage of our electricity today coming from renewables. The reason we arent investing in them is simple greed on the part of the energy companies.

I am not ruling out nuclear, as I stated earlier if you read my post, but I dont want to use it. If we are getting all that we can from renewables and supplimenting that with nuclear, then thats fine with me. But what we really have despite the pro-nuclear lobbies best attempts to show nuclear as a 'perfect' solution (maybe for their bank balance), is the complete opposite.

John

 

[flecc]

I think you are missing the point Flecc. If we invest whole-heartedly in nuclear (as we are going to), it leaves little to nothing left to invest in renewables.

John

Sorry John, but that simply isn't true, government policy isn't to invest wholeheartedly into nuclear, the policy is only replacement of the original nuclear, i.e. 20% of our generation. It's not me missing the point, the point being that there is no choice, since renewables cannot match our needs in time in the quantities required.

Nor can renewables do the future job, the quantities of electricity needed to generate hydrogen are far in excess of what we have now, and we need the hydrogen to cleanly replace our present oil consumption. At best renewables could only reach about 20% of our present electricity needs within a lifetime, and just maybe 30% eventually. The quantities needed for hydrogen production can never be met that way, and that's why we must go ahead with nuclear, now and in the future.

If the budget doesn't stretch far enough, it's renewables which will have to take a back seat since their very high cost and very poor return are unacceptable as a primary way forward.

I know you don't agree with that, but like the majority, I don't want a primitive "hair shirt" future but one of continuing advancement. Whether thats motivated for some by profits, I don't care, I'm happy for them to profit.
.

 

[JohnInStockie]

I appreciate you point of view Flecc, and I think we arent going to agree on this one . I just dont take for granted that our (UKs) decisions have been made with either the best intentions, or that our vision of the future is remotely accurate. If we believe that we will need triple our current energy consumption in 10 years and so build for it, then you can guarantee that we will use it all too, and be looking at a new energy crisis 10 years from now. I see our energy usage akin to our road usage, build more roads, get more bigger cars.

I think we need a step change in our philosophy, as thats why we are where we are now with resource issues and waste problems.

Sorry John, but that simply isn't true, government policy isn't to invest wholeheartedly into nuclear, the policy is only replacement of the original nuclear, i.e. 20% of our generation.

I also understood that the end goal was to reduce CO2 and that going Nuclear was seen as a 'green' way of doing this. I dont believe that it will stop at 20%.

Nor can renewables do the future job ...At best renewables could only reach about 20% of our present electricity needs within a lifetime, and just maybe 30% eventually.

I think that they can, although as we have had such small investment in comparison to Nuclear over the past 50 years I can see how people might think it impossible. I agree using solar panels and wind that thats all we could achieve today, but this doesnt include any of the projected returns from tapping tidal and ocean currents, nevermind the potential micro-hydro returns that are as yet uncalculated and not considered. Nor how we could reduce our consumption by using newer technologies like underground heat-sumps for all new buildings in the UK, commercial or private.

...the quantities of electricity needed to generate hydrogen are far in excess of what we have now, and we need the hydrogen to cleanly replace our present oil consumption. The quantities needed for hydrogen production can never be met that way, and that's why we must go ahead with nuclear, now and in the future.

I agree with you here Flecc. If we move to Hydrogen then we will still need massive amounts of energy, and we wont change our 'car' culture, in fact it will reinforce it. Not sure where that leaves us bikers then

If the budget doesn't stretch far enough, it's renewables which will have to take a back seat since their very high cost and very poor return are unacceptable as a primary way forward.

I agree with this if your comparing todays solar and wind technologies vs todays Nuclear. If you were to consider the last 50 years RnD into Nuclear vs the last 10 years RnD into renewables AND include the 100years waste management costs, then I dont think renewables are anywhere near as expensive in the longer term.

I know you don't agree with that, but like the majority, I don't want a primitive "hair shirt" future but one of continuing advancement.

just let me take my Jesus sandals off ....

I firmly believe in a future of continued advancement, but I want a future 'on earth' too

Whether thats motivated for some by profits, I don't care, I'm happy for them to profit.

They are all motivated by profits, and thats absolutely fine and proper, but its the tiny handfull of companies that profit from Nuclear initiatives compared to a vast number of companies that could profit, and be competitively priced with renewable investment that gets my goat. Normally these Nuclear 'corporations' end up having directors by the very ministers that have the deciding vote to go Nuclear, nice for them!

I am just not keen on 'fat cats' getting fatter.

John

 

[mikepepler]

I agree with you here Flecc. If we move to Hydrogen then we will still need massive amounts of energy, and we wont change our 'car' culture, in fact it will reinforce it. Not sure where that leaves us bikers then

Which is why as soon as my pair of bikes arrive I'll be buying a suitable inverter to run the charger from my off-grid solar system as a backup. I'd need to get some more solar panels if it was going to see regular use though, as at present they're just for backup lighting and charging small batteries.

 

[flecc]

John, I agree on many of the points you make. Nuclear is unlikely to stop permanently at that 20%, at some point it will take off again for hydrogen production since at pressent no alternative can be seen for transport.

That won't be a problem for e-bikers though. There have already been three hydrogen powered fuel cell electric bikes, two corporate and one privately made. Since the one man privately built one was demonstrated to do 30 mph with a range of well over 50 miles, we'll be better off than at present, since the corporate ones would probably be better.

I'm certain that we can only go the green renewable route if we have a wholesale change in the way our society is administered, by taking away many of the rights people have today. Many of the methods you propose would currently be delayed for years and possibly dropped in many cases because of the planning opposition that inevitably occurs with each and every one. The more diverse the schemes, the more impossible things get at present.

Just look at the massive objections to tidal generation in the Bristol Channel and you can see what I mean. It's such an obvious case for generation, and in fact if we got really bold in the Chinese fashion and threw everything at the idea, we could have two barrages utilising almost the whole of that intrusion in our coastline. With power stations in each barrage utilising a reciprocal flow between the three "reservoirs" to generate continuously for 24 hours a day, we could supply at least a third of our entire present national requirement.

Yes, I've actually designed a proposition on this basis, even to the point of outline planning for the huge migrant workforce needed for such an immense project, taking around 15 years. That should show you just how seriously I've considered the available green options, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone on the "green" side who'd thought anywhere near as deeply about nuclear provision.

The government sees that they can achieve the 20% nuclear replacement simply by using the existing sites, and thus avoid all the objectors, since those areas are very favourably disposed due to the employment prosperity the present stations have given them, and that's why they are going that route, it doesn't lose votes. The green options would by contrast be opposed at every step with every scheme, wind, wave, river and stream, there would always be some group of NIMBYs determined to stop it.

To achieve it we'd have to do one of two things. One, convert our national character into the French one where they welcome the new with open arms and towns compete to get each new thing. Or two, remove many of todays rights and use alien oppressive methods to prevent and overrule objectors.
.