<DrumBeat: February 26, 2007The Oil DrumThe Oil Drum celebrates 4M unique visits and ~10.4M page views>

108 comments on Peak Oil Update - February 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dissident on February 26, 2007 - 8:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Unfortunately as gas and oil production decline we will have coal burning on a massive scale. So we are not going to get out of the CO2 crisis so easily. A good thing that will come out of the liquid fuel constriction is that current fossil fuel guzzling cars and SUVs will disappear (ethanol will not save them). People will be forced to use electric vehicles that are powered from the grid. Aside from that they will have to use public transit.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TheTransition on February 26, 2007 - 10:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually it is not necessary to increase coal burning on a massive scale to solve transportation if people move to electic. The electric route is 5 - 10 times more efficient than ICE's. Replacing the US's fleet of auto's with electric, increases electricity demand by about 20%.

That said, it is quite possible to replace current coal fired power stations with Nuclear Plants as well. Other people have other opinions about Nuclear, but it works now and is likely to be significantly cheaper in the future.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on February 27, 2007 - 1:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My biggest problem with nuclear energy is not nuclear but powe r companies that engineer nuclear power plants.

I've seen a number of reasonable designs for power plants with the pebble bed based reactors seeming the most promising.

Next I think its possible to handle radioactive waste in a responsible manner. I'd think "burning" it makes sense
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401010

Basically you use the neutron flux to further degrade the isotopes to ones with short half lives. This seems possible and I don't like the fact that what seems to be a reasonable disposal route has not been aggressively perused.

Maybe forming a international consortium to create standard safe reactor designs and disposal methods is the right answer.

On the same hand and aggressive well funded program on fusion is a must. We should be spending a significant amount of the worlds GNP or is it GWP ? On fusion and cleaner fission and radioactive waste processing.

I'm not saying that the nuclear industry has not done better lately but they need to go into overdrive and show people that clean safe nuclear power is possible and the operation and design of the reactors is open and well understood.

I think that nuclear fission and later fusion reactors for base load and industrial use are a must. I wish we could get by without them but we need them.

On the same hand conservation and solar/wind renewable that don't have a massive negative impact on the land should be perused to lessen the need for nuclear power of any kind.
Other solutions like run-of-river hydro also look like that have a reasonable minimal impact while traditional dams have problems.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SGeier on February 27, 2007 - 5:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Other people have other opinions about Nuclear, but it works now and is likely to be significantly cheaper in the future.

I wonder whether these words were spoken about oil about 120 years ago. If so, they would've been true, of course.

But why should we use the event of the end of a non-renewable source at the basis of the global economy to restructure that economy to be based on another non-renewable resource? Only to be faced with the exact same problem again one or two centuries later? Aren't we smarter than that? Aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes?


--
Sven Geier, Ph. D.
Yes, I speak for the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati; Nasa, MI-5, and the Trilateral Commission. Really. Trust me.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TheTransition on February 27, 2007 - 8:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The Nuclear fuel supply is huge and will almost certainly last for many centuries.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132#more

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ANewLand on February 28, 2007 - 2:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From the link:

It has an average crustal abundance of about 2.7 Parts Per Million (PPM), which about the same as tin and zinc. There is an estimated 40 trillion tonnes of Uranium in the Earth's crust. To date we have mined less than one ten-millionth of this

there are doubts this diffuse fuel can be constrained and delivered at a cost in energy less than the final product contained. Though this mental externality may be considered mundane (by some), it is a necessary consideration when considering such a primary fuel.

How can we run a complex society on a fuel that does not leak itself out for mom and the kid's shopping Excursion (tm)?

Pete

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SGeier on February 28, 2007 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The Nuclear fuel supply is huge and will almost certainly last for many centuries.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132#more

That is a nice and informative link there - it doesn't seem to support your claim, though.

According to the material at the other side of that link, using his own most optimistic numbers, the author states "Thus, the provable uranium resources amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves."

Nuclear currently supplies about 16% of the world electricity production, 0% of the worlds non-electric heating and 0% of the world transportation fuels, so if I were to increase the world consumption level of Uranium by, say, a factor of 10 or so to cover for the current use of oil, I get the most optimistic estimate by a proponent of nuclear power reduced to about 50 years of "estimated" reserves (and less than a decade of actually proven supply).

And that's the optimistic reading where I'm simply granting the numbers given by the author, i.e. without even examining the assumptions those were based on.

I can only see one way to read that article and conclude that the worlds nuclear fuel supply will "almost certainly last for many centuries": if I were to assume that current consumption levels will not increase, i.e. that nuclear power will NOT replace oil.


--
Sven Geier, Ph. D.
Yes, I speak for the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati; Nasa, MI-5, and the Trilateral Commission. Really. Trust me.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.