Peak oil: an Outlook on Crude Oil Depletion

[pseudobrit]

I've quoted most of the excerpt because it was hard to find bits that weren't wholly relevant and concise.

This is going to hurt:

Peak oil is a turning point for Mankind. The economic prosperity of the 20th Century was driven by cheap, oil-based energy. Everyone had the equivalent of several unpaid and unfed slaves to do his work for him, but now these slaves are getting old and won't work much longer. We have an urgent need to find how to live without them. It is stressed that we are not facing a re-run of the Oil Shocks of the 1970s. They were like the tremors before an earthquake, although serious enough, tipping the World into recession. Now, we face the earthquake itself. This shock is very different. It is driven by resource constraints, not politics...

...

In summary, these are the main points that have to be grasped:
-Conventional oil provides most of the oil produced today, and is responsible for about 95% all oil that has been produced so far.
-It will continue to dominate supply for a long time to come. It is what matters most.
-Its discovery peaked in the 1960s. We now find one barrel for every four we consume.
-Middle East share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world peaked in 1997, and is therefore in terminal decline.
-Non-conventional oil delays peak only a few years, but will ameliorate the subsequent decline.
-Gas, which is less depleted than oil, will likely peak around 2020.
-Capacity limits were breached late in 2000, causing prices to soar leading to world recession. This situation seems to be repeating itself now with prices around $30 as a brief economic recovery stimulates demand. The high prices may themselves trigger another economic recession in an increasingly vicious circle.


link (http://www.altenergy.org/printer_friendly.lasso?id=268)

[blackfox]

The ghost of Malthus...

[Thomas Veil]

* Sigh. *

Anybody for getting on the Jupiter 2 and heading for Alpha Centauri?

[Hoef]

I happen to be an oil expert:

Conventional oil provides most of the oil produced today, and is responsible for about 95% all oil that has been produced so far ==> The key is that the non conventional oil reserves are very very large (larger that Saudi reserves)

It will continue to dominate supply for a long time to come. It is what matters most. ==> True

Its discovery peaked in the 1960s. We now find one barrel for every four we consume ==> Key point is not discovery but resevoir and capacity

Middle East share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world peaked in 1997, and is therefore in terminal decline. ==> Better get friends with the Middle East!

Non-conventional oil delays peak only a few years, but will ameliorate the subsequent decline ==> Not true, most specialist cannot even comprehend the size of non-conventional oils

Gas, which is less depleted than oil, will likely peak around 2020 ==> Not true, most specialist cannot even comprehend the size of gas resevoirs

Capacity limits were breached late in 2000, causing prices to soar leading to world recession. This situation seems to be repeating itself now with prices around $30 as a brief economic recovery stimulates demand. The high prices may themselves trigger another economic recession in an increasingly vicious circle. ==> Not true, there was plenty spare in 2000. If any issues, it is today where we may run into capacity constrains. However, OPEC announced capacity increases for this and next year. We already see some of that happening. If anything, there is spare capacity in refining in the US, combined with poor policy from Washington which creates price pressures

[IJ Reilly]

Hmm. Then I guess those record prices for oil and gasoline are figments of our collective imaginations. Well, it didn't take much search effort to locate one of the sources of our delusions.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

[Roger1]

* Sigh. *

Anybody for getting on the Jupiter 2 and heading for Alpha Centauri?

I'll go! I'll even pitch in 5 bucks for my share of the gas! :D

BTW, wasn't Shell recently thinking of shutting down a refinery to help drive up prices??

[Xtremehkr]

I happen to be an oil expert:

Conventional oil provides most of the oil produced today, and is responsible for about 95% all oil that has been produced so far ==> The key is that the non conventional oil reserves are very very large (larger that Saudi reserves)

It will continue to dominate supply for a long time to come. It is what matters most. ==> True

Its discovery peaked in the 1960s. We now find one barrel for every four we consume ==> Key point is not discovery but resevoir and capacity

Middle East share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world peaked in 1997, and is therefore in terminal decline. ==> Better get friends with the Middle East!

Non-conventional oil delays peak only a few years, but will ameliorate the subsequent decline ==> Not true, most specialist cannot even comprehend the size of non-conventional oils

Gas, which is less depleted than oil, will likely peak around 2020 ==> Not true, most specialist cannot even comprehend the size of gas resevoirs

Capacity limits were breached late in 2000, causing prices to soar leading to world recession. This situation seems to be repeating itself now with prices around $30 as a brief economic recovery stimulates demand. The high prices may themselves trigger another economic recession in an increasingly vicious circle. ==> Not true, there was plenty spare in 2000. If any issues, it is today where we may run into capacity constrains. However, OPEC announced capacity increases for this and next year. We already see some of that happening. If anything, there is spare capacity in refining in the US, combined with poor policy from Washington which creates price pressures

You wouldn't be upset if I chose to believe the article over your claim would you?

Being an Astronaut, we can be a skeptical bunch at times.

[brap]

Middle East share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world peaked in 1997, and is therefore in terminal decline. ==> Better get friends with the Middle East!
...or invade them. Save a bunch of OPEC hassle.

[pseudobrit]

...or invade them.

check

[Ugg]

Since markets are driven by equal parts of emotion, logic, guesswork and more recently, fear, unconventional supplies will have no effect on the market until there is a proven, cost-effective way to utilize them. It's great they're out there but for all intents and purposes in the short term it's like finding pure veins of gold on Mars.

Those non-conventional sources will also cost a lot more to produce and the environmental impacts can be huge, the shale oil extraction in Alberta come to mind.

The price is going to continue to go up as long as those selfish Chinese and Indians keep building roads and buying cars, with no regard for us poor Americans and our NEED for the internal combustion engine. :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

Since markets are driven by equal parts of emotion, logic, guesswork and more recently, fear, unconventional supplies will have no effect on the market until there is a proven, cost-effective way to utilize them. It's great they're out there but for all intents and purposes in the short term it's like finding pure veins of gold on Mars.

Those non-conventional sources will also cost a lot more to produce and the environmental impacts can be huge, the shale oil extraction in Alberta come to mind.

The price is going to continue to go up as long as those selfish Chinese and Indians keep building roads and buying cars, with no regard for us poor Americans and our NEED for the internal combustion engine. :rolleyes:

IOW, it's more a matter of supply unable to keep up with demand.

[skunk]

Two very good posts! :D

[Desertrat]

Seems there are some cross-purposes. There's a difference between the existence of oil and the availability of oil, whether conventional or non-conventional.

Hoef's correct as to the comparative amounts of non-cnventional oil. The obvious reason it hasn't been utilized is cost. We'll wind up using it; the cost of driving from point A to point B is gonna go up, Prius or no.

Natural gas? The US is importing it because of constrainsts against drilling here. Gotta have it; it's the current savior of California's electric generating systems. But, it means the probability of LNG plants for imported gas, which are Good Things if you like having the hazard nearby. (The current schemes involve having the hazards in Mexico, with the NIMBY principle doing its usual good job.)

There is a direct correlation between the consumption of energy and the GDP. There is a direct correlation between the GDP and the quality of life. The next several years oughta be interesting...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

You left a few important factors out of your analysis.

Yes, we import more natural gas and oil than we might because of restrictions on development here, but in fact the fossil fuels available in the US are inherently more expensive to exploit and many would remain unexploited no matter what else happened, until the market price rose sufficiently to make investing in this extraction profitable. So we also import these products for much same reason we import shirts and consumer electronics. Also keep in mind that much of the industrialized world imports most if not all of their petroleum products. They manage to have a high standard of living, perhaps because they already know what we refuse to learn.

Also, the single largest factor currently driving the energy market is China's rapid industrial development. We can't produce our way out of that problem.

[Desertrat]

"...but in fact the fossil fuels available in the US are inherently more expensive to exploit..."

Than imports, I assume?

"and many would remain unexploited no matter what else happened, until the market price rose sufficiently to make investing in this extraction profitable."

True, but the market price looks bullish for this investing. Note China's investment in Canadian tar sands.

I've offered this before, in another thread on this subject: The Exxon oil exec who, in around 1977 commented, "There's all the oil you want, at $100 a barrel." At the time, the spot price was around $25 or so and they were investigating the oil shale in the "Pizeance Creek" area of Colorado. This was shelved because of no profit below $40/bbl in 1977 dollars; I guess $80/bbl, now? (It is thought that there is a little old lady in tenny-runners in the basement of the USGS in Denver. Her job is to render old-time place names more palatable for family viewing. Ergo, Pizeance Creek, vice Pissant Creek.)

There are various ways to make motor fuel. One is direct conversion of natural gas, using palladium as a catalyst. (The reason for palladium's rise in price from around $160/oz a few years back) Shell and a couple of others are doing this in Indonesia, for use there and I think in Australia/New Zealand.

Hmmm. A return to the days of coal-fired steamers? Stanley, anyone? :)

The geopolitics of oil always have been and I guess always will be troublesome, as long as the developed/developing world is centered on it. Hell's bells, who ain't? Afghanistan is a major pipeline route. Iraq is a major source, as is Iran. The Balkans are a primary pipeline route into central/western Europe.

So since the end of the USSR we've had three oil wars: Gulf War 1, Balkans (1?) and Gulf War 2.

Gasoline is priced at $1.76 in south Georgia; around $2.20 in Terlingua. I wonder how long before the minimum is around $2.50 and, down the road, even higher? It'll get even worse as the dollar drops more and oil gets priced in Euros...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Imports, yes. Oil shale is an idea that came and went. It may come again, but at what price? Supply does not always follow from demand.

One thing I've come to understand better over the years is that investment in new industrial capacity doesn't always follow directly from higher prices for products. Capital needs to have the confidence that higher prices are here to stay. Also, where scarcity is an issue, producers might very well find it more profitable, or at least less risky, to sell their current capacity at higher prices than to invest in increased production.

The California gasoline market is a case in point. It's widely acknowledged that production runs perilously close to demand here. Yet no additional production is forthcoming; in fact Shell plans on closing one of the handful of refineries in the state. The state's environmental regulations aren't a complete explanation either. The fuels could easily be produced in Nevada or Arizona, but that hasn't occurred either, despite the fact that pump prices in California are consistently above the national average by 20% or more.

Try to explain this in supply and demand terms. I don't think it can be done.

[Desertrat]

IJ, it well could be that Shell is closing the plant because of production inefficiency, compared to other plants. It could be in part due to such things as the costs of replacing equipment, the amortization of which is part of operating overhead. When the operating overhead, per gallon, is notably higher, and the age of the plant has allowed a write-down for depreciation, it's cheaper, overall, to close it.

The same sort of thing holds for power plants, whether coal or nuke. And other endeavors, of course.

Oil from shale? If and when the price of crude gets high enough that there can be profit from investment and operation to produce petroleum products from that shale, somebody will be interested. Why not? Canada's tar sands are now becoming a profit-potential endeavor...

Entrepreneurial efforts are nothing more than finding needs and filling them--at a profit. Doesn't matter whether it's a lemonade stand or a new refinery.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Shell claims a lack of suitable local supplies of crude oil, but that's not much of an explanation IMO because they didn't even try to sell the plant to someone else who might be able to operate it profitably. Still in this environment, the logic of supply and demand would certainly suggest adding production, not reducing it. The reality of a less than competitive market, which is what we've already got for gasoline in California, is that there's little appetite for investment in production when disinvestment pays off just as well. The truth about the theories or laws of economics (whichever you prefer to call them), is that they only work in a competitive market. In a market with very few players, the profit incentives can change drastically, and all kinds of screwy things can happen.

[Desertrat]

Truly.

One arguement for tax reform to sales/flat is that if there were no complex tax games for business, corporations would be forced to act in accordance with the marketplace. No games about tax shelters and the like. But I don't wanna go further, with that. :)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I don't blame you. Markets aren't competitive by definition, and even old Adam Smith recognized that fact. No amount of tax policy will change the tendency of some markets to develop into oligopoly and monopoly.

[IJ Reilly]

Speaking of LNG terminals, apparently Congress' solution is to eliminate local control entirely. (Not that anyone in Congress knew they were voting that way. Plausible deniability etc.)

Congress Fuels Fire Between FERC, States

WASHINGTON — State officials from California to Rhode Island are fuming over a provision, slipped into the massive year-end spending bill expected to clear Congress next week, that says federal regulators should decide where liquefied natural gas terminals are built.

Many lawmakers say they didn't know about the provision when they voted for the voluminous bill last month.

But state regulators know about it — and they don't like it. They said it could make it harder for them to block facilities that could harm the environment or pose safety and security risks.

The provision seems to leave the Republican-controlled Congress leaning against its natural tendency to support states' rights. But the language reflects the determination of President Bush and his congressional allies to increase energy supplies, especially in the face of predicted increases in natural gas prices.

California appears to be the target of the provision. The state has gone to court challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's claim that it has sole authority to decide whether an LNG facility will be built in Long Beach. The facility would receive imported natural gas that had been cooled to a liquid so that it could be transported by ship rather than pipeline.

...

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), who has sponsored legislation that would essentially give the language the force of law, said he saw no conflict with states' rights.

"Imports to the nation are a national commerce issue," he said. "Natural gas supply is a national issue, so it is quite appropriate for Congress."

The Long Beach terminal, proposed by Sound Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp., is among more than two dozen new LNG terminals proposed throughout the United States.

Thomas Giles, executive vice president and chief operating officer for Sound Energy Solutions, said his company did not lobby for the provision. "What we want is resolution to the dispute" between California and federal officials, he said. "We'd just like certainty as soon as possible."

An LNG facility off the Ventura County coast also has been proposed, but state officials do not dispute federal jurisdiction because it would be built in federal waters. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for such terminals.

Four LNG terminals are in operation in the United States, on the East and Gulf coasts.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-lng3dec03,1,6256123.story

[zimv20]

i'd always thought the GOP had been built on:
- fiscal conservatism
- states' rights
- christian morals

seems they're down to just one these days.

[pseudobrit]

i'd always thought the GOP had been built on:
- fiscal conservatism
- states' rights
- christian morals

seems they're down to just one these days.

That's because they've gotten hold of the federal government (state's rights) and its chequebook (fiscal conservatism) and wish to use the apparatus to leverage their religious beliefs on the general population ("Christian" morals).

I would argue they've lost all three; what they call "Christian morals" exist simply to alienate the secular and are quite often in direct conflict with Christ's teachings.

[Ugg]

That's because they've gotten hold of the federal government (state's rights) and its chequebook (fiscal conservatism) and wish to use the apparatus to leverage their religious beliefs on the general population ("Christian" morals).

I would argue they've lost all three; what they call "Christian morals" exist simply to alienate the secular and are quite often in direct conflict with Christ's teachings.

It's amazing how Jesus Christ has been kicked out of any discussion on "Christian morals" and has been replaced by the old testament. Actually it's incredibly sad that religion has been bastardized to such an extent merely for political gain.

[Desertrat]

About the sanest proposal for an LNG terminal is for it to be offshore of the Gulf coast. The lower Texas coast has the least populated area that could be affected by an explosion. With the terminal some ten miles offshore in 100 feet or so of depth, blast effects would be minimal. There's already an extensive natural gas pipeline network around the state.

South of (roughly) Mobile, Alabama, and west of the Florida coastal bend would also fit this parameter. And, I guess, south of Cameron, Louisiana.

I have far more fear of an accidental explosion at an LNG facility than of an excursion at a nuke plant...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

We're looking at an off-shore LNG terminal close to where I live (the one mentioned near the end the article). The jurisdiction for review on that one is clear; of course now they could locate it on-shore, and not be subject to any local review whatsoever. Nice deal, if you can get it.

[Desertrat]

Bummer.

From the department of "If a frog had wings...":

If we hadn't gotten so emotionally ca-ca over the word "nuclear", we wouldn't' have been using nearly so much fossil fuel and we probably would have much less need for the import of natural gas.

If back in 1975 the Mexican government hadn't been so greedy, we'd have a pipeline from Campeche to the US, buying the natural gas which at the time of the proposal they were flaring. A pipeline method would at least partially obviate the need for LNG. (At a time when regulated natural gas was selling on the world market for $4/MCF, a consortium of US companies offered Mexico $3/MCF and the consortium would pay the construction cost of the pipeline. Again, this was flared gas, burned and wasted. Mexico demanded $4/MCF and no contribution to the construction costs.) SFAIK, the flaring continues, unless they're shipping LNG.

If California had not opted for low-particulate natural gas electric generation, maybe the demand wouldn't be great enough for such large quantities of imports...

And so it goes.

Addendum: The common environmental objection is that the water used to warm the LNG to gaseous state becomes too cold as compared to the ambient conditions of the discharge line exit point, creating a change in the local ecosystem.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Addendum: The common environmental objection is that the water used to warm the LNG to gaseous state becomes too cold as compared to the ambient conditions of the discharge line exit point, creating a change in the local ecosystem.

A light just went off in my head! A few clicks north of me sits Three Mile Island, in all her half-potent glory (I'm just outside the range of the 10-mile evacuation zone).

Now, TMI messes up the Susquehanna River's ecosystem by pumping -- you guessed it -- warm water into the river.

I think a hybrid LNG/nuclear facility would be just the solution to giving us a balanced water temperature..

[mactastic]

I think a hybrid LNG/nuclear facility would be just the solution to giving us a balanced water temperature..

Ooo now THAT would be a hell of an explosion were it to ever have an 'excursion'.

'Rat, do you doubt that temperature changes due to pumping of either heated or cooled water into the ocean exist, and that they create a change in the local ecosystem? Could this effect be ameliorated by the company if they felt like it?

[IJ Reilly]

And another thing. California opted for natural gas steam generating plants out of necessity, that necessity being the attainment of federal air quality standards. All of which has nothing whatever to do with Congress taking away local review authority on LNG terminals, which is a separate issue. Isn't it?

[Desertrat]

No doubt whatsoever, mac. The changes can create circumstances that are far different from some unknown horror, though.

In 1976-ish, an LNG plant was proposed to be built at Seadrift, Texas, on Lavaca Bay. At a; public hearing, an environmentalist spoke of objections based on this very temperature change in an area of the bay waters. The entire audience was surprised when he was followed by an entrepreneurial chap who favored the project: He wanted to set up a lobster farm, using this new, cold area which would replicate New England habitat.

At about the same time, give or take a year, a power plant was completed at the headwaters of Trinity Bay, near Houston. There had been objections to the plant's release of warmed waters from its cooling pond into the bay, because of raising temperatures. Well, yup, the temperatures in the local area increased. Soon thereafter the sheriff's office began patrolling the area on a regular basis. Seems people were fighting over places to stand and cast nets, to catch shrimp which were running as big as eight to the pound. "Jumbo" shrimp in restaurants run twenty or so to the pound.

IJ, yes, the real issue is local control. Isn't it always? Two common caveats apply: Objective science is a control; lack of a conflict of interest is the other. I do note in passing that outside control becomes favored when one side of an argument over regulatory control sees itself losing.

The "air quality standards" argument is a cop-out. California could have built nukes years before--and thus have been more in the spirit of Kyoto. :)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, yes, the real issue is local control. Isn't it always? Two common caveats apply: Objective science is a control; lack of a conflict of interest is the other. I do note in passing that outside control becomes favored when one side of an argument over regulatory control sees itself losing.

The "air quality standards" argument is a cop-out. California could have built nukes years before--and thus have been more in the spirit of Kyoto. :)

Hardly, on either point. As someone who regularly argues against "nanny-state"-ism I'm a bit surprised to find you make an apology for it, even in "passing." Second, no, it was never possible for California built more nuclear power plants. Even if you believe they can be built and operated economically (against all evidence, I would note), we in California have got this little additional issue known as "earthquakes."

[Desertrat]

IJ, I wasn't apologizing for anything. I just noted that the behavior exists, even on the part of those noisy for "local control".

Earthquake zone? Sure, but not statewide. Also, consider the transmission distances common to that state's present supplies. Wheeling electricity from as far away as Grand Coulee has been a staple supply for decades, so plants don't have to be all that close to use-centers.

Has there been damage from earthquakes to the nuke plant on the coast, I believe north of LA? I disremember the name. (In advance of serious consideration of the nuke plant site, the proponents deliberately chose a name that wouldn't create sympathy for the environs. Something to do with satan or devil were names considered. Sorry about the rusty memory. But "Ocean Vista" or "Fern Canyon" were definitely out.)

A bit of a grin: Which is more important, money or the environment? Nukes might not be as economic as one might like, but no particulate emissions nor CO2.

I know more about earthquakes than I ever really wanted to know. As a kid, I was up near Baguio, P.I., when an 8.3 hit in 1949 or 1950. That was scary! I was in Vegas, on the 23rd floor of the Sahara Hotel when the Northridge quake hit. The building's sway was definitely spooky. Knowing my utter helplessness, I rolled over and went back to sleep--for which the BossLady has yet to forgive me.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I wasn't apologizing for anything. I just noted that the behavior exists, even on the part of those noisy for "local control".

Earthquake zone? Sure, but not statewide. Also, consider the transmission distances common to that state's present supplies. Wheeling electricity from as far away as Grand Coulee has been a staple supply for decades, so plants don't have to be all that close to use-centers.

Has there been damage from earthquakes to the nuke plant on the coast, I believe north of LA? I disremember the name. (In advance of serious consideration of the nuke plant site, the proponents deliberately chose a name that wouldn't create sympathy for the environs. Something to do with satan or devil were names considered. Sorry about the rusty memory. But "Ocean Vista" or "Fern Canyon" were definitely out.)

We've been through the apology thing. Making excuses for a thing which you know to be wrong is a form of apology.

You would be hard pressed to find any part of California which is not seismically active.

The power plant you can't quite recall is called Diablo Canyon, in San Luis Obispo County. It is called the Diablo Canyon plant because it is located in Diablo Canyon. The fault on which it is located wasn't discovered until after the plant was built.

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=10&n=3899446.99990975&e=697805.000033518&datum=nad83

[Desertrat]

IJ, you're reading way more into "I do note in passing that outside control becomes favored when one side of an argument over regulatory control sees itself losing." than my intended meaning, for sure. I'm talking about what people do, how they behave. In no way whatsoever does that mean I either favor or disfavor local control or stae or federal or even UN control! (FWIW, I'll repeat that I favor local control to the greatest extent feasible.)

Diablo Canyon, yeah. Thanx. I coulda had it backwards about the selection. That location was favored because of an unattractive name, from among some small group of similar locations...I just remember a discussion in San Francisco among some engineers, "way back when".

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Well it's true that people tend to favor the means that gains their end, but I am only pointing out the irony (if not hypocrisy) of the party of "states rights" jerking that particular rug out from under local government whenever it suits their purposes. This is hardly the only instance, and I suppose I'll need to continue to point out the growing gulf between party rhetoric and actual behavior.

I've never heard that particular story about Diablo Canyon. I was under the impression that the site was chosen for its distance from major popular centers and faults. Since it was built, the population centers have moved closer and apparently so have the earthquake faults.

[Xtremehkr]

Harnessing wave power is the latest proposal that could yield huge amounts of energy. Would be good for the coastal states as well.

The only time I would really support Nuclear power was if it were completely automated. With robots to run everything, and lots of redundancy.

The Japanese occaisionally have shocking lapses at their plants, the human element is just not reliable.

That and all of the expense associated with nuclear waste. Which none of the proponents ever seem to consider.

[Desertrat]

"The Japanese occaisionally have shocking lapses at their plants, the human element is just not reliable."

The results of "lapses" tends to be money and downtime. Three Mile Island was an example of the inherent safety: There were three major human errors and 22 minor human errors, yet the only release of radiation--in the form of radon--was equal to the local population spending the summer at Aspen, Colorado. Higher elevation (from 300 at TMI to 7,400 at Aspen) means greater exposure to cosmic radiation. $3 billion in losses.

The US Navy seems to maintain reliability. And don't say problems have been hushed up; can't be. No way a sailor won't talk, particularly after he's left the service.

"...all of the expense associated with nuclear waste. Which none of the proponents ever seem to consider."

Yup. Expense. Not considered? No way, Jose. SE New Mexico; Nevada. The argument isn't over geology or engineering or shielding; it's the usual political NIMBY stuff. The result of these decades of arguments have resulted in "hot stuff" scattered from hell to breakfast all over the country. Yes, spent fuel rods are dangerous, but nobody's being cavalier about how to store them.

Just as a personal opinion, I believe that in some 20 or 40 years, they'll be raw materials for some other style of power reactor. Personal regret? That we've not been successful in fusion-power R&D.

Just as "Rambo" ain't a training film, "The China Syndrome" ain't a documentary.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

The results of "lapses" tends to be money and downtime. Three Mile Island was an example of the inherent safety: There were three major human errors and 22 minor human errors, yet the only release of radiation--in the form of radon--was equal to the local population spending the summer at Aspen, Colorado. Higher elevation (from 300 at TMI to 7,400 at Aspen) means greater exposure to cosmic radiation.

I was a 4 month old fetus about 13 miles from TMI during the accident.

TMI officially gives the radiation level of being equivalent to a chest x-ray. Pregnant women don't usually have x-rays done for a reason. Wanna guess why?

I see the rad level is being downplayed quite well by the apologist crowd, though. It's good to know that I was "only" subjected to a summer's worth of high altitude radiation involuntarily :rolleyes:

[Xtremehkr]

"The Japanese occaisionally have shocking lapses at their plants, the human element is just not reliable."

The results of "lapses" tends to be money and downtime. Three Mile Island was an example of the inherent safety: There were three major human errors and 22 minor human errors, yet the only release of radiation--in the form of radon--was equal to the local population spending the summer at Aspen, Colorado. Higher elevation (from 300 at TMI to 7,400 at Aspen) means greater exposure to cosmic radiation. $3 billion in losses.

The US Navy seems to maintain reliability. And don't say problems have been hushed up; can't be. No way a sailor won't talk, particularly after he's left the service.

"...all of the expense associated with nuclear waste. Which none of the proponents ever seem to consider."

Yup. Expense. Not considered? No way, Jose. SE New Mexico; Nevada. The argument isn't over geology or engineering or shielding; it's the usual political NIMBY stuff. The result of these decades of arguments have resulted in "hot stuff" scattered from hell to breakfast all over the country. Yes, spent fuel rods are dangerous, but nobody's being cavalier about how to store them.

Just as a personal opinion, I believe that in some 20 or 40 years, they'll be raw materials for some other style of power reactor. Personal regret? That we've not been successful in fusion-power R&D.

Just as "Rambo" ain't a training film, "The China Syndrome" ain't a documentary.

'Rat

So how does that change anything? The human element came into play and too many cuts were made in order to maximise profit, showing that no one in the change of command is immune to making poor decisions. The same thing has happened here and there are far too many people susceptible to greed.

I find it hard to believe that so many avowed christians can overlook lauded leaders like Reagan saying "greed is good" when it is one of the deadliest sins according to Biblical text.

It's reasons like that, that lead me to believe religion is more of a tool for control that a guide for a better society. I know firmly beleive that there is a definite disconnect between those who believe in religion at all costs and those who merely promote it in order to profit from it.

[Desertrat]

One chest X-Ray affecting a fetus is in the gazillion-to-one realm of odds. No argument from me about risk reduction, but the risk is very small--and in today's world of medicine are now many diagnostic techniques besides X-Rays.

The administrative and technical-training aspects of TMI provided an expensive learning experience, sure. $3 billion worth. But nobody died as a result. (Better than "Challenger", or even being President.) The learning experience has led to notable upgrades in training and in the design of both control and warning equipment.

Life itsownself will always be hazardous, whether it's for a coal miner or a person living downwind of a coal-fired powerplant. Involuntarily getting radiation from an excursion of a nuke plant is no different from involuntarily getting T-boned in a car wreck when somebody runs a red light. The odds are far better, as regards the nuke plant vs. the car wreck...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

In terms of basic risk analysis, you are right -- a person is more likely to be killed in a car wreck than by a nuclear power plant accident (or any number of other hazards). This all comes under the category of "acceptable risk" -- calculations we all make many times every day, whether we know it consciously or not. One very real problem locating any public facility is that most of them have wide-area benefits but the brunt of the risks and impacts are taken locally by a relative few. The same is true for power plants, landfills, jails, airports... you name it.

The process is often short-handed as NIMBY, but that's just a thing to call the natural desire we've all got to stay as far away as possible from hazards or other noxious impacts, especially when the benefits of taking the risk accrue equally to people far away enough from the facility to avoid any of the risk (the "fairness" issue you'll often hear expressed in battles over siting public facilities). Nuclear power plants only multiply the effect because although the statistical risk of accident are small, the impact on the people who live around the plant if one occurred, could be large, if not total.

Short of instituting some some form of authoritarian government or command economy, I don't see how nuclear power plants can be seen as a practical solution to our energy problems. Statistical risk is just a number.

[Ugg]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65936,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

An excellent article in wired.com. The beauty of solar hydrogen is the ability to decentralize power generation and potentially eliminate large swaths of the power grid.

Although the chance of dying in a car wreck are much greater than dying as a result of nuclear meltdown, the effects of a car wreck tend to be localized whereas meltdown has the potential to shut down huge economic, environmental and social areas. Why pour money into nukes when a much safer, cheaper source is available?

All the money being poured into oil extraction technology should be switched over immediately to improve solar, wind, water and hydrogen power. This would not only reduce our dependence upon socially expensive foreign oil, it would also return power supplies to local control.

Santa Rosa, CA this spring, started pumping its treated wastewater north to the Geysers which were running out of steam. By injecting the wastewater into the ground, the Geysers are getting at least a thirty year leas on life. The benefits from this alternative and admittedly rare source of energy are incredible. At the same time it keeps sewage out of the Russian River which helps both the salmon and human populations and generates valuable electricity. Being California, there was a lot of rancorous debate, but you'd find few detractors now.

The potential is there to use treated waste water as a source for solar generated hydrogen power. The possibilities are endless if only there was support for them.

[Xtremehkr]

I wonder why some of the more famous liberal billionaires have not tried anything in terms of power generation. Cheap energy goes a long way towards making life better. The potential seems to be there, it would not even have to be an individual. It could be an organization with the environment in mind.

There are Biomass producers already in california and they were doing well before the gas companies undercut the market. BioDiesel also has great potential in a warm state.

These ideas won't be taken up unless there is a push though, and some advertising/spin. Spin/advertising, no difference. It can make for a more positive outcome though.

[mactastic]

Repeal the Price-Anderson act, which every free-market conservative here should agree with, and then see how competitive nuclear energy is.

[Desertrat]

No way that nukes are as economical as fossil fuel electric plants. Aside from the cost of the lawsuits, there's the shut-down cost which is almost as much as the original construction cost. The only reason I favor them at all is the fossil-fuel problem--both availability and environmental.

I recently saw where one wind generator can produce 3.2 megawatts, up from the 1.2 of a few years back. 400 WGs, then, would equal one unit of any sort of conventional large power plant; these units are typically around 1,200 megawatts...I've not been able to find true cost numbers for wind generators. Lots of subsidy money in them.

The joke about solar-panel "farms" is that you'd have to cover Arizona to power the LA Basin. Sure, it's an exaggeration, but it's indicative of the problem. Building solar systems into new housing could work, particularly when looking at today's high housing costs; the system would be a much smaller percentage of the total cost. "Normal lifestyle" in a 3BR/2Ba house would mean about $20,000 or less. Retrofit would cost more.

'Rat

[mactastic]

No way that nukes are as economical as fossil fuel electric plants. Aside from the cost of the lawsuits, there's the shut-down cost which is almost as much as the original construction cost. The only reason I favor them at all is the fossil-fuel problem--both availability and environmental.

My problem with nuclear is twofold. One is it's basically a gamble that nothing really bad happens. Sure we've been lucky this far, but a major nuclear catastrophe (or sabatoge/attack) could render some big metropolitan areas uninhabitable. I'm skeptical of the lack-of-lifeboats-because-we're-unsinkable line of saftey reasoning.

Two is that I find it very irresponsible to be generating waste products that are poisonous for thousands and thousands of years. Religious discussions of our origin aside, we've been human for less time than some of this stuff will be dangerous. We have no way to assure ourselves that any storage solution will remain intact for 10,000 years. The best I've heard anyone do is claim that we are putting our problems off onto future generations. I find that distasteful in both fiscal policy and environmental policy.

I recently saw where one wind generator can produce 3.2 megawatts, up from the 1.2 of a few years back. 400 WGs, then, would equal one unit of any sort of conventional large power plant; these units are typically around 1,200 megawatts...I've not been able to find true cost numbers for wind generators. Lots of subsidy money in them.

If we're going to subsidize anything it should be renewable sources of energy. Those are the ones deserving of our government largess, not ones that are limited in supply or dangerous to the surrounding area. Not that all renewable sources of energy are problem-free, hydro power is in decline as we realize what we've done to river ecosystems by damming them. Wind power can be fugly in it's implementation, and is only useful in windy (really? :) ) areas. But it does behoove our government to be supporting the effort to develop energy sources that are sustainable over the long haul.

The joke about solar-panel "farms" is that you'd have to cover Arizona to power the LA Basin. Sure, it's an exaggeration, but it's indicative of the problem. Building solar systems into new housing could work, particularly when looking at today's high housing costs; the system would be a much smaller percentage of the total cost. "Normal lifestyle" in a 3BR/2Ba house would mean about $20,000 or less. Retrofit would cost more.

'Rat

It's not a matter of high housing costs, but rather high energy costs that will encourage solar power integration into buildings. One side effect of the California energy crisis has been a huge upsurge in interest in electric meters that run backwards as well as forwards. Utilities, however, are working diligently to ensure that homeowners will pay retail prices for electricity flowing into their house from the grid and will be paid wholesale prices for any energy they generate and send out onto the grid.

And I assume you've never heard of solar (http://www.wipp.ws/science/energy/powertower.htm) power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2628361.stm) tower? (http://www.wcsscience.com/enviromission/page2.html)

[IJ Reilly]

I toured the Solar One facility back in the late '80s, when it was still on line. An interesting, if expensive solution. The construction and operating costs of these sorts of power plants tend to be high, but probably not dramatically so when compared to nuclear, at least not when all of the back-end costs of nuclear power plants are considered. IIRC, Solar One was a product of research underwritten by state alternative energy programs initiated during the Jerry Brown administration. Quite a few of the wind farms in the state were also built during this time period. Sadly a lot of the smaller alternative power producers were seriously screwed during the "energy crisis" in California, when the big utilities stopped paying them, which of course only made the situation worse.

[Xtremehkr]

No one has seriously promoted solar power in quite some time. It is all dependant on developing technology, which could make it viable.

There are already viable alternatives out there.

For any SoCal Edison users, every now and then your power bill will detail where Edison gets its power from. BioMass is listed, as are a few other alternative sources that have great potential.

But the most likely outcome will be that very little is done, until someting has to be done.

[Desertrat]

No, mac, I'd missed the solar power tower deal. Interesting use of the chimney-effect. Thanks. Back some thirty or so years ago, a science fiction story used the concept as a way to get smog out of the LA Basin when a stagnant-air situation set in. You wouldn't want to get near the intakes, of course; it would be like walking closely in front of a 747's engine.

From the bits and pieces I read, the methodology of generating electricity is changing. What's not readily apparent is the sheer magnitude of our demand for electricity. That is, compare the total present demand with the construction rate of new systems. New stuff costs money, and money isn't an endlessly available thing.

As far as two-way meters and rates: PG&E buys wholesale and sells retail. Example: Remember the California Acqueduct and all that water-transfer system? The C.A. folks release water through hydropower generators during the day and get paid a higher rate than when they buy electricity at night and pump the water from the holding reservoir back up to the main reservoir. The difference in rates allows this to be profitable to the C.A. and helps PG&E deal with the varying loads that are would otherwise demand extra generating capacity at peaks.

While it sounds good for a homeowner to sell back into the system, the actual total amount of electricity from all homeowners is way, way small. It's more of a PR thing than anything else, at present. Add another two million or more homeowners and it would then be a Good Thing. What's presently good is that it's enabled; now work on homeowners...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

As far as two-way meters and rates: PG&E buys wholesale and sells retail. Example: Remember the California Acqueduct and all that water-transfer system? The C.A. folks release water through hydropower generators during the day and get paid a higher rate than when they buy electricity at night and pump the water from the holding reservoir back up to the main reservoir. The difference in rates allows this to be profitable to the C.A. and helps PG&E deal with the varying loads that are would otherwise demand extra generating capacity at peaks.

Not quite right I don't think. AFAIK, PG&E doesn't buy any power during the night to pump water back into reservoirs, but they are able to use their own excess generating capacity at night simply because the demand is so much lower. This system helps them meet peak customer demand during the day, not make more money for the company. Also, it doesn't happen on the aqueduct, but on the reservoirs they own in the Sierra Nevada.

In the FWIW file: For many years the utilities (in California, at least) could and did refuse to allow customer's meters to run backwards, so essentially any power a customer generated on his own in excess of his needs were gifted to the utility. Nice work, if you can get it.

[mactastic]

As far as two-way meters and rates: PG&E buys wholesale and sells retail. Example: Remember the California Acqueduct and all that water-transfer system? The C.A. folks release water through hydropower generators during the day and get paid a higher rate than when they buy electricity at night and pump the water from the holding reservoir back up to the main reservoir. The difference in rates allows this to be profitable to the C.A. and helps PG&E deal with the varying loads that are would otherwise demand extra generating capacity at peaks.

Indeed PG&E buys wholesale and sells retail. The customer isn't asking to purchase power at wholesale prices, just asking to get a credit for energy produced (which tends to be at peak times when people aren't in their homes).

While it sounds good for a homeowner to sell back into the system, the actual total amount of electricity from all homeowners is way, way small. It's more of a PR thing than anything else, at present. Add another two million or more homeowners and it would then be a Good Thing. What's presently good is that it's enabled; now work on homeowners...

I'm working on adding homeowners, but like any new technology there are early adopters and the rest of us typically follow along later. I'm sure at one point someone said that cellular phone technology was 'more of a PR thing than anything else, at present'. Today mobile phones are ubiquitous. ;)

[Desertrat]

Cell Phone Alert: Gary North sez that the telemarketers are now able to make calls to cell phones, which for many means extra charges. Are y'all on the "Don't Call" list?

IJ, re-read: The Acqueduct folks sell during the day to PG&E; they buy from PG&E at night. (I probably could have phrased it more clearly...)

mac, I remember the kicking and screaming by the power companies against the reverse-flow meters. IMO, homeowners oughta get the wholesale rate as a credit against their electric bills, like any other wholesaler to a retailer. Whatever reduces the need on an electric company to add equipment to meet peak demands is a Good Thing.

I wish building codes called for R-30 walls and ceilings, plus the aluminum foil-on-styrofoam underlayment in roofs. And I wish tax rebates for retrofit insulating were higher. "Heat it with a match, cool it with an ice cube."

I dunno. If electric companies really want a profit, they sure don't want customers like me. My house and its insulation? Well, it was closed up for almost two months. I got back and it was 112 at sundown, on the shady-side porch. I checked the indoor thermometer; 94. "Not bad," sez me with my usual grin. With 20% humidity, the ceiling fans made it quite tolerable. (But the next day, early, the swamp cooler got installed. 80 is better than 94. :D)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, re-read: The Acqueduct folks sell during the day to PG&E; they buy from PG&E at night. (I probably could have phrased it more clearly...)

I think you'll find that PG&E owns the system of reservoirs that they use to release water through turbine generators during the day and pump it back up at night. The state even tried to take over these facilities during the "energy crisis" in exchange for reliving PG&E of some of their debt.

An example of this are the Courtright and Wishon reservoirs (which I happen to know about first-hand because friends of ours own a cabin on Courtright).

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sierra/recreation/lakes/courtrightlake/index.shtml

[Desertrat]

I haven't kept track of the specifics, IJ. I got a dog-and-pony guided tour in 1969, from Oroville Dam on the Feather River on down to the Tehachapi pump station. They were still building the big ditch at that time, somewhere south of Stockton in their progress.

They said they'd release from Oroville into an afterbay and pump back from there. Same sort of deal for the off-channel San Luis Reservoir about mid-route (roughly). The (name?) California Water Commission would sell power during the day for PG&E's peak use, and buy back at night to provide load and reduce no-$-income spinning reserve.

(Large unit generators can take many hours to be brought up to speed. No power company likes to maintain spinning reserve when there's no load, but they've gotta keep the units up and running for when loads pick up.)

Anybody from California really ought go look at that project. It's the world's largest water-conveyance system.

For that matter, the Corps of Engineers' physical model of San Francisco Bay is amazing to watch in operation. It's a scale model, in hydraulic similitude with the Bay. Located on the waterfront in Sausalito.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Yup, California does have the world's most remarkable plumbing system, starting with the Owens Valley Aqueduct, then the Colorado River, and the California aqueducts.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, you gotta give credit to those century-ago city fathers in LA. They stole water rights and water from all over the west. :) Of course, without that water the LA Basin would probably have about two million people there.

'Rat

[skunk]

Of course, without that water the LA Basin would probably have about two million people there.
And they'd all be Native Americans...

[IJ Reilly]

Without looking it up, I'd say that number is about right if not a little high. Even after the construction of the Owens Valley Aqueduct, by the 1920s Los Angeles was already back into a water crisis and had started pushing for the Colorado River project.

[mactastic]

I've seen the Corp's model of the bay, it's fascinating. The depth under the GG bridge is amazing when you compare it to the rest of the bay.

[Xtremehkr]

Speaking of water, that's another resource that will become a scarce commodity soon. There are already hundreds of water treaties that exist, and it is essential for growth.

Maybe London can loan California some of its weather.

[skunk]

We like it damp. Don't you understand? :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

skunk, a couple of decades back I ran across an article talking about the changes in weather patterns in England as a result of changing from coal to other sources for heating and for electric generating. Less particulate matter, so less fog and fewer fully-cloudy days. Also, winter low temperatures were a bit lower due to this lessening of cloud cover; same for high temperatures in summer.

These changes also occurred along the Normandy coast of France, not unexpected, given the proximity.

We had a similar micro-climate cycle northeast of Gary, Indiana. The rise of the steel industry there resulted in a doubling of annual rainfall in the prevailing downwind direction. An elliptical area, roughly 25 miles wide by 50 miles long. As particulates in the air were reduced, so was the rainfall...

'Rat

[Xtremehkr]

We like it damp. Don't you understand? :rolleyes:

:D

Hey, my sister lives in London, she loves it.

[IJ Reilly]

We like it damp. Don't you understand? :rolleyes:

Oh, sure -- which is why Southern California has such a large British expat community.

[pseudobrit]

Oh, sure -- which is why Southern California has such a large British expat community.

They're no longer Londoners. Obviously there's been a self-purge of non-damp-weather-loving Brits.

[skunk]

Huh. Losers! :p

[IJ Reilly]

They're no longer Londoners. Obviously there's been a self-purge of non-damp-weather-loving Brits.

A kind of wringing out, you might say.

If you want to talk to an enthusiastic Southern Californian, find a transplanted Briton. They love the place a whole lot more than I ever will.

[blackfox]

There are also quite a few expat brits up here in Oregon and Washington (and BC), where the weather is pretty wet this time of year. My family is but one example. fwiw.

[Desertrat]

Heck, even Terlingua has four ex-pat English. One guy from Monaco. Several Germans have second homes, here.

:), 'Rat