220 comments on Saturday Open Thread and News Dump
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
220 comments on Saturday Open Thread and News Dump
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
The above factors have resulted in a general increase in the price level and oil sands projects are seeing the impact on their budgets but capital does not appear to be a constraint.
Khebab's links made reference to new technologies which have the potential to increase recovery, lower costs, and minimize environmental impacts. Given that this is the case, I expect we may see delay, rather than acceleration, as companies begin an in depth review of all the associated technological challenges and seek the best economic means to address them. They have the leases locked up. The goal now is to increase ROI.
From an oil industry perspective, PO is irrelevant. The industry has been dealing with depletion since the day of the first completion. Your company does not survive if you do not replace your reserves. Our PO discussion simply changes the frame of reference to a broader concern with the survival of a sociocultural meme rather than the survival of a single unique firm.
And from yet another perspective, your question, if placed in the context of the Industrial Revolution, is a little like asking how do we go from Stephenson's Rockett to Union Pacific's Big Boy? The question is one which it is important to ask but the chances of obtaining a credible "accelerated answer" is low.
And if someone suggest's a form of new Manhattan project the only credible response is "Surely you are joking Mr Feynman?" Do you really belive that the process that gave the world "heck of job, Brownie!" the Iraqi civil war, and an unsupportable national debt can turn the oil sands into anything but a vast KBR boondoggle? And, most unfortunately, Mr Feynman is no longer available.
1. has the enormous resources that World War Two mobilization put into the hands of
2. someone as capable as Robert Oppenheimer, who was not only a very bright guy but one who could deal with prima donnas such as Edward Teller, but also:
3. You have to pretty much turn the physicists and mathematicians loose, because engineers keep telling you about all the things that cannot be done due to their inherent conservatism (which BTW is very good to have in engineering).
Can electricity from hydrogen fusion work? Impossible to say. But nobody knew if the atom bomb would work either, and the concern was that it might work and Germany might get it first.
The potential benefits of fusion energy are so great IMO that if there is a 50:50 chance that it can be made to work that we [including all the very brightest physicists on earth who can be dragooned into the project] should be willing to invest up to $100 trillion over a period of thirty years. If it doesn't work by then, then we can fall back on uranium.
But suppose--and I know of no reputable physicist who states that electricity from fusion is impossible in theory--that it could be made to work?
What then?
I think when current politicos throw around "Manhattan Project" they forget that it was a short project, really short. This is especially true when compared to the long expensive projects we now have underway (like fusion energy or fuel cell cars). Wind and solar have paid off to some degree, but they also have been 30 year projects, essentially.
Basically if there was an Einstein who could write a letter saying "wait a minute, a magic bullet is possible on this energy stuff" then maybe we could do a crash construction and implementation project. But that hasn't happened.
Instead we've had people misapplying the "Manhattan Project" symbolism, and making it mean "let's have a crash project to find a new idea" or "let's keep slogging away on this idea that we have."
Anyway, instability in the plasma due to "caps" on the end or curves is the long standing frustration of fusion researhcers.
"Compressing jello with rubber bands" is the basic analogy, and problem.
One idea that has floated around is a VERY long* straight tube. Plasma could start in the middle and run out the ends. By the time they get to the ends, fusion would have occureed, and the energetic plasma would "spray" into a capturing field to harvest the energy put in + new energy from fusion.
Miles and miles of compressing magnets would squeeze the plasma as it ran past, reaching thr critical point for plasma fusion. Length would provide the time. This approach is the only one that solves (in theory) the plasma instability casued by "caps" and curves. (some are concerned that the minor magentic bumps between magnets would create an oscillation. Putting each magnet 0.05 mm closer (reducing spacing) MIGHT prevent this oscillation).
*An interesting question is how long and how intense. a relatively short linear fusion with VERY strong magents (beyond superconducting intensity) or weaker superconducting magnets and longer. Constant magentic force, or stronger on the ends ? A single prototype was expected to cost $3 to $5 billion in the 1970s. Many design variants.
One killer in the 1970s was, would any utility want one of these if perfected ? A single source, subject to unexpected downtime, of, say 10 GW average power with massive capital costs, DC power pulses of varying voltage every second or so. (the pulse would not be a constant power or voltage, but would be DC with a millisecond peak of ~300 GW every second or so).
The brainpower assembled for the Manhatten Project was a one-time event. BTW, most of the people who did the most important work did not have English as a first language. Physics is a universal language, as is mathematics, and my guess is that the very brightest physicists and mathematicians worldwide would be delighted to go off into the New Mexico desert (or some other isolated place) and work eighty or ninety hours a week to tackle the project.
Hardest thing to do, IMO, would be to find another Oppenheimer. Many physicists are not especially good at management tasks, and that is putting the matter politely;-)
I suspect that after the first prototype is built and put in operation, the problems will be identified and the costs for the next projects will drop drastically. I wonder if homo sapiens is sapiens enough to choose the path of cooperation.
Get Hollywood stars like George Clooney and Bruce Springsteen and others to go around America explaining the reasons behind this new national effort to make America energy independent by 2026. There is so much talent and energy going to waste in America. It's kind of tragic. Get some real national pride and patriotism working here! Let's have the Real Stuff back, not all this crap "Sham Partriotism" and "fake national pride" about the "Global War on Terror" and we're spending 7 billion a month in Iraq to bring them "democracy." Christ, it almost makes one want to weep, seeing how we're wasting time and resources, on a perverse "dream", resources that we need in other areas, like alternative energy. The U.S. is literally pissing away its future in the sand in the Middle East! Bring the boys home and put the money to good use in Ameica, not tax cuts for the super rich!
If America really is at war, let's start acting like we're really at war. Form a government of national unity, not the present government of national dis-unity. I mean America is a fantastic country, with an incredible culture, full of brilliant, smart and creative people - witness the Todders; and we allow a bunch of third-rate, incompetent lawyers to run the U.S. into the ground, how the hell did this every happen? It truly beggars belief. It's time for True American Patriots to take their country back, one way or another!
Returning to planet Earth for a moment, beamed down from the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, have a nice weekend everyone, in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. It's really time to start taking those words seriously and thinking about what they really mean. Power to the People!
If America is at war it is somewhere other than Iraq. Iraq is not at war with any other state. American does maintain an army of occupation in Iraq but the war was over three months after it started. Remember "Mission Accomplished?" Don't you understand the meaning of that phrase?
And please do not claim that there is an ongoing civil war in Iraq. Your President has stated that this is not the case and you don't want to be caught speaking out against your President. After all, you gotta remember, there's a war on!!
I want to see us utilizing the same kind of resources and attitudes we normally reserve for wartime, for purly peacefully purposes. I want to see a new definition of "partriotism" employed in a practical and intellectual "war" directed at the dire consequences of Peak Oil.
No to imperialism. No to militerism. No to colonialism. No to more wars for oil. Yes to using all of society's vast human and economic resources to solve our real problems, and the sooner the better. And if the current crop of politicians aren't up to the job, out on the streets and kick them out! Call it a "revolution", call it whatever you like, but let's get going! Power to the People!
Fermi's pile under the stands at the University of Chicago provided physical proof of concept; the rest of the Manhattan Project was a set of engineering challenges.
You are correct in regard to the conservatism of the PEng fraternity. Manhattan Project engineering was handled not by engineers but by the best physicists available. Think of having a basic mechanical repair on your car undertaken by Murray Gell-man and Richard Feynman. Working from basic principles, they could perform the fix but today we would view such a process as a waste of scarce resources. I do not believe the same level of human resources are available. To the degree they are available, they speak chinese.
Since neither Grove, nor anyone else, really understood what the physicists were up to, they were free to undertake a few leaps of faith and WAGs. They built two different production processes as they were not certain which one would work. Feynman invented parallel processing on punch card equipment and likely moved the project ahead by several years. All of this activity was funded by the unlimited pocketbook of Uncle Sam operating in a command economy where everything belonged to the state. Given the current insult to your constitution, do you really wish to encourage your government in this direction?
America now has a debt problem. You are throwing close to a trillion dollars at Iraq and you are further from a solution then you were four years ago. Now you want to print more dollars and hope that your creditors applaud? Remember your creditors have a vested interest in black muck.
And given the unlimited funding currently available to DARPA how is it they have not yet made the breakthrough?
So I invite you all down from your Ivory towers. Come to the battlefront. Lobby your politicians. Grow a garden. Plant a Tree. Invest in a Home solar electric system (the tax benefit makes it pay for itself in about three to five years) Do something Talk is Cheap as is Typing.
I've beaten a dead horse with Iraq/terrorism. My point is this If you can't conceive of a solution you'll never find one. If I were stranded in the desert they would find my skeleton at the end of a LONG set of footsteps. Don't patiently or Gleefully await your doom be proactive.
At a time when we need to be pushing for solutions to our looming problems, I see too many people discussing how to survive the coming collapse of civilization. We're better off simply avoiding collapse altogether.
I, too, believe that there ARE solutions. We ARE in for some difficult transitions, but I don't believe this is the End of the World. Survivalists are going to be disappointed, though oil prices ARE going to go through the roof. We'll change the way we live, but we aren't going to have a massive die-off. More mass transit, more in-fill (which my town already practices), alternative fuels, the return of TRAINS: these are all possibilities. Smaller homes, economic depression, a loss of our (U.S.) superpower status: this MAY also come to pass. No matter what, though, we will see this through and won't end up in the stone age.
CONTRIBUTE! Help solve the problem! Defeatist outlooks lead to defeat.
Adding to the list of things you can do: live near your work. Commuting is the biggest use of oil we have. If gasoline goes to $10 a gallon, but you can bike to work you aren't nearly as hurt.
Oilrig Medic: Good post. I wish The Oil Drum had a system like SlashDot for tagging -- I'd mark you as "Friend" because your head is screwed on right!
However, I think you are being naive on a number of issues. First, I believe there is an acknowledgement among peak oilers that time is of the essence. If you take the Hirsch report's "wedges", action is already years too late to have a significant impact on societal transition.
Second, before the general public demands action, they have to be convinced that such action is warrented since it will involve not only major changes in life style but also reallocating tax money for these major projects.
Third, as Kunstler has stated, the money has been spent for the current infrastructure. To replace it will require, essentialy, spending almost as much money as was done in the first place. Where is the money to come from?
Fourth, I have observed a lot of naivety even in people who want to relocalize. For example, there are several groups in my rural California county working on this subject; and they are all going in different directions. But what they haven't come to grips with is the simple reality that this county cannot feed the current population regardless of what agricultural methods are used or the little food people could grow in their yards. The population has to go down either because residents move out or die off.
Fifth, the only Manhattan project that will have any impact is a project to get people to radically change they life styles to ones that are sustainable - and that assumes there isn't an economic collapse in the process (I personally believe a collapse will occur first.).
I'm better positioned then most people to weather a rough tranisition. However, I don't delude myself that even with all my stuff that it will be anything but terribly hard and I'm used to a hard, rural life.
Probably more. And we're in much worse financial shape now. We really should have all started when you did.
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/03/far06005.html
that accounts for a good percentage , and many will be swayed by those who seem " the most commited " ....
i feel rather uncomfortable when i agree with doom's lawyer ...
My cup runneth over with single malt scotch.
You have the right idea. Let us get together and pray.
Cherenkov - clash the cymbals and cue the alien technologists to enter stage right.
V
I'd like to nominate this for the "sentence of the month" award here at TOD.
You wouldn't consider living in the desert, rather than dying trying to get out?
Would be no end of embarrassment if you had been walking in circles around the oasis.
Oh I forgot. You are dead. No embarrassment then.
There is no need for apology and hand wringing over the past, move forward and plan aggresivly for the future.
I think we have a serious economic crisis ahead (10-20 years) and nothing more.
Boldly going where no man has gone before!
THERMAL SCIENCE: Vol. 9 (2005), No. 3, pp. 69-83
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SOLAR DISH ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
by Mihajlo FIRAK
Concentrating solar power technology relies on beam component of solar radiation i. e. on clear sky without clouds and short path length of radiation trough the atmosphere (air mass). Both conditions are fulfilled in dry and desert climate region of the Earth (usually located around north or south tropics +/-10°). In terms of irradiated solar energy (kW/hm2 per year) premium regions should receive more than 2550 kWh/m2 per year. Excellent regions receive 2370 to 2550, and good be tween 2200 and 2370 kWh/m2. For example, systems like SAIC/STM SunDish begin to work at solar flux above 400 W/m2 what is difficult to expect on a cloudy day. According to this, the best geography region are South-West part of North America, west costal part of SouthAmerica, north and south parts of Africa, Arabia peninsula, Central Asia, and Australia.
A short calculation which would rely on assumptions that only 1% of that dry and desert land could be utilised for solar power generation, and that it receives 2200 kWh/m2, we can produce 8.8 10^13 kWh/year of electricity. This is 7.3·10^9 tones of equivalent oil (toe) or 780 times more than global world primary energy consumption was in the year 2002 (9.4·106 toe [33]).
Assuming that one SAIC/STM SunDish system produces 35,000 kWh/year, it should be produced about 3.2 million systems to cover all world's primary energy needs. Assuming the cost of 20000 USD per system the whole price would be 64 billions USD.
it should be produced about 3.2 million systems to cover all world's primary energy needs. Assuming the cost of 20000 USD per system the whole price would be 64 billions USD.
- 20,000? Doesn't the company say $50,000 in mass production?
- For each dish - what about the concrete base, the copper wire to take the power from the countryside into the city?
- 'solve the worlds primary energy need'? Oil is used as a feedstock to many chemicals. How does electrial power replace that embedded energy?
Now, I've been waiting a low-cost stirling helostat. http://www.redrok.com - all heliostat action, all the time.Omacharon http://www.omachron.com/projects.html at one time talked of a 'close to production' nitrogen charged 1hp engine with a $89 price point (when you bought a shipping container worth) Whispergen http://www.whispergen.com/ has went from $35,000 to $12,000 USD (while the strength of the dollar has dropped) Kamen seems to be shipping his stirling, and the Tamin ppl are supposed bbe involved with http://www.microgen.co.uk/
But $20,000 as a price target? Ha! The end of cheap energy to mine the ore, refine it, et la is here.
Private industry on the aggregate has had a negative incentive to develop this and other promising alternatives. Like in the 70's, I'm guessing that the coming crisis will shake loose the bucks needed to prop up at least some of the great existing and proposed small companies in this area. I have had my heart broken so many times watching great companies (based on future service to civilization) go under time after time simply because the government didn't prop them up during the times of cheap oil - timing is everything...
The end to end solution would involve X millions of these dishes and perhaps Y thousands of the Changing World Technologies plants to produce synthetic oil (their feedstock is "anything" (see April 2006 Discover magazine).
My point is that #1 both of these technologies exist (versus, say, fusion), and #2 costs can be estimated for both parts.
So, I'm starting over. From a table of world energy consumption it appears that 40% of energy is oil and 22.5% of energy is natural gas. If we held the other stuff (coal, nuclear, hydro, and other) constant for 20 years then we would have to replace 62.5% of 400 quad over 20 years -- or 250 quad over 20 years -- or 12.5 quad per year. If we did this with the previously mentioned stirling engines this would take 12.5x2.931x10^11 kwh divided by 25000 kwh (for each engine) which equals 146.55 million engines per year. And at $50000 each this would be $7.3275 trillion per year for 20 years. Wowee! Obviously if the cost dropped to $20000 each, then we could scrape by on about $3 trillion per year. World economic output is about $59 trillion so probably over 12% of world output invested in energy production for 20 consecutive years.
Just for yucks, if we look at this as only an electricity problem, and restricted ourselves to the U.S., then starting with the average (electrical) energy consumption of a home is the U.S. (using NY state as a baseline) at 17.1 kwh per day (DOE/EERE). We can calculate:
17.1 kwh/day * 365 day/yr = 6242 kwh/yr (for one American house)
6242 kwh/yr * 120 million households (120*10^6 ballpark number) = 7.5*10^11 kwh/yr (for U.S.)
7.5*10^11 kwh/yr divided by 25000 kwh/yr for each Stirling Engine = 30 million Stirling Engines
30 million Stirling Engines at $50000 each = $1.5 trillion
The U.S. economy is over $10 trillion so this would be 15% of our economy (for just one year).
Some conversion factors:
1 kilowatthour = 3.600 x 106 joules = 3,412 Btu
1 quad = 1015 Btu = 2.931 x 1011 kilowatthours
"I don't think that a new 'Manhatten Project' is an unworkable or bad idea--if it is focused on getting energy from fusion..."
It's both terrible and unworkable. It's absolutely true that there is no single, simple reason that fusion is impossible. After all, the sun works on a version of fusion, as does the hydrogen bomb.
But on the empirical level, it's been worked on for over 50 years with tons of money spent on it, and success remains a constant 40 years in the future. That's a really big clue.
The other thing is, we're lucky fusion is so difficult to produce! Fire was relatively easy, which is why man discovered how to control it (mostly) a million years ago. Also, it occurs spontaneously, without human involvment. Fission is extremely rare sponstaneously in nature, at least now, although it seems there might have been spontaneous fission reactions someplace in Africa, long ago. All that's really required is to whap two pieces of above critical mass U235 together. But U235 is less than 1% of uranium, and needs to be separated out. Anyway, it's at least conceivable that nature might somehow do this on its own under certain circumstances, but not too often or we would be in big trouble.
But hydrogen bombs are set off with regular uranium or plutonium (fission) bombs, which are in turn set off by chemical explosions. The fusion reaction is several order of magnitudes harder to get going that fission reactions. LUCKILY!
BTW, that's why cold fusion is such a crock. In any case, if, big IF, controlled fusion were ever to be possible it's becoming evident that it will necessarily be highly capital intensive and require an incredible degree of infrastructure support -- which is precisely what is becoming harder and harder to guarantee going forward.
It is my firm belief that we must no longer gamble on high-tech Manhattan-like projects saving us, but that we must proceed on the assumption they won't (while not abandoning all research on the possibility -- and do it internationally to save on expense -- and to get friendly with the rest of the globe?)
We are going to have to scale back on the high-capital-intensity stuff (energy, materials, etc.) and live within the energy and resource budget we think we will have -- that is, learn how to live sustainably. Anything else is a mad, mad gamble, which, if we lose, will cost us, or rather, our descendants, very dearly.
Unfortunately, modern capitalism (as well as Soviet style socialism), much prefers the highly capital-intensive solutions. But Shumacher's day will come (small is beautiful). Cuba has been forced into after getting orphaned.
I am no expert on the nuclear stuff and would love to see someone who is critique the above, for better ow worse.
Science 10 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5766, p. 1380
Fusion Power: Will It Ever Come?
http://www.energybulletin.net/13698.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5766/1380
"Heat removal is troublesome even with the D-T reaction. A large amount of energy (17.4 MeV) is released from each fusion. Although 14 MeV is carried away by a neutron--to be slowed and absorbed in a blanket containing lithium and thus "breed" more tritium--the energy released will make everything radioactive out to the radiation shield beyond the blanket. Worse, the material of the reactor vessel will undergo radiation damage, which alters its physical properties. Any material used for the reactor vacuum vessel will become increasingly brittle. Back in the 1970s, design studies indicated that the vessel would need periodic replacement."
"Scaling of the construction costs from the Bechtel estimates suggests a total plant cost on the order of $15 billion..."
"The history of this dream is as expensive as it is discouraging. Over the past half-century, fusion appropriations in the U.S. federal budget alone have run at about a quarter-billion dollars a year."
The Author - William E. Parkins worked on uranium separation at the University of California during World War II and later was chief scientist at Rockwell International. This Policy Forum was edited to shorter length by the Editor-in-Chief from a manuscript received just before Parkins's death last October.