 | Extrapolating UK's oil production history to the World case | The Oil Drum: Europe | Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group |  |
UK Energy Developments
Posted by Chris Vernon on May 16, 2006 - 2:24pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: electricity, energy, gas, nuclear, united kingdom [list all tags]
Today we finally received the famous JESS report.
Available here: Energy Reliability page at DTI
We have also received the Winter Outlook 2006/07 consultation from National Grid.
Available here: Ofgem, New Publications
And tonight Tony Blair is giving a speech where he will give his strongest signal yet that he backs the building of new nuclear power:
The prime minister will tell the CBI later on Tuesday that the issue is "back on the agenda with a vengeance".An audio recording of the relevant section is available here: Tony_Blair_Energy_16May06_64kbps.mp3 (904KB)
BBC News
This position is clearly at odds with David Fleming's recent report on the nuclear life cycle inspired by the work of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS).
Available here: Nuclear Life Cycle
Meanwhile the World Wildlife Fund UK (WWF-UK) suggests the UK energy gap is a myth:
The much talked about 'energy gap' is simply a myth which has been perpetuated to justify the resurgence of nuclear power. This report shows that a renewed focus on reducing demand for electricity and increasing the use of renewable energy and microgeneration would make new nuclear redundant. We can not only meet energy demand without resorting to new nuclear power, but with the right measures we can reduce emissions from electricity generation too.Their report is available here: Energy gap is a nuclear myth
These reports between them contain a vast amount of information about UK energy and we'll be looking at them in more detail over the coming month. I'm going away for a few days now so I'll leave this material with you.
Re Tony Blair and Nukes.
I am 100% behind this. I only hope he can last long enough to pull it off.
I am no great fan of Blair, but at last, he is grasping the nettle. If he is looking for a legacy, then Nukes would be it, and help this country get past PO and mitigate GW. Without Nukes, the lights start to go out within 10 years. And that means no work, no means of electrified rail to work, no computers, no teleworking, people trapped in lifts, lights out in hospitals, schools and homes.
We need about 40 nukes.
More or less , they can be sited on existing nuke sites.
Public opinion and NIMBYS should be bull-dozed out the way.
A nuclear renaissance would lead to a renaissance of high value quality jobs in Engineering, construction and Science in General.
Skill sets in Oil Engineering would be transferable.
Oil Majors could , with persuasion, use the cash and inherent skill sets to get involved.
Capital and Operationally intensive,the money gets kept in the UK. It gets spent by workers in the UK. Proper jobs and careers, not 'Mac Jobs' and selling bollix to each other.
There... I've said it...now knock it down.
If he sticks with it I will vote for the bastard.
We will need the electricity soon enough. However we need to consider some points:
Timescales : Can we build the nukes in time to prevent power cuts? Or is that not important?
Also, will the energy being used to build the reactors bring forward the date where we hit shortfalls? If so, the reactor building program will need to have priority over industy & the populace.
Waste : We already have a dreadful nuclear waste problem in the UK - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/11/nbio111.xml
so why do we expect anything better in the future?
Decommisioning : All reactors need to be decommisioned at some point. You can find the costs for the current reactors here http://www.nda.gov.uk/Our_Business--Strategy--Financials_Per_Site_Estimated(1509).aspx?pg=1509
... total sum £35 billion. So what will the next set cost to decommission ... and more importantly where will the energy in say 30 years to do this come from?
Staff : Most nuclear engineers have now retired or died. How many of the rest are tied up in decommissioning? Where are the new ones to come from? How good will they be in view of our now crap education system?
Staff makeup : We now have a multicultural society. Are we going to ban Moslems from working in our nuclear plants, just in case they have radical tendencies?
Uranium supplies : We need to check long term availability of Uranium to fuel all the new nukes ... I leave that to others better informed than me.
Costs : Can we afford the new nukes? (Please include life cycle costs in your calculations!)
Design cockups : The history of nuclear reactor design in the UK is awful. So many design types, of varying success. Can we afford the same sort of mess this time around? (see next point)
Honeypot effect : The huge amount of money needed to build the new nukes will attract all sorts of grasping corporations, organisations & individuals scurrying around for money & status. How can we ensure that this pack won't loot our economy and/or screw up the reactor design and construction?
Europe : Will the EU get their sticky fingers into our new toys? Will we be obliged to export some of our power to keep them happy?
Imported technology? : If we import the reactors as flat-packs from say France, what control/expertise/money will we lose/gain?
Although I am a physicist and a technophile, I don't feel that building new nukes is going to be a wise move. There are simply too many ways that the design, construction, staffing, operation, fuelling, waste management & decommissioning can be totally messed up. If that happens then we REALLY will be in trouble.
2) Waste: We have a dreadful problem with indecision in the UK. This could have / should have been dealt with already. Geologically suitable sites exist.
3) Decommissioning. Yes, big issue , time, manpower and energy intensive. You said `and more importantly where will the energy in say 30 years to do this come from?' - Perhaps from the nukes we would need to build in the next 20 years?
4) Staff. Again, a big issue. Lead staff , experienced engineers will most likely have come from abroad. While we train up UK staff to work with them. Our education system will feel the strain, but we could still deliver. We could start by dropping all the Psychology courses and pumping money back into physics, chemistry and engineering.
5) Staff make up. Why would we wish to stop a Muslim from working in N-Power? . We have government vetting. Right wing fundamentalist Christians scare me a hell of a lot more than Muslims do.
6) Uranium. Yes, we will be in competition for U. Australia and Canada are good sources.
7) Costs: Look to the French example and the Finns. Yes we can afford them. We could ring-fence UKCS oil tax revenues - while we still have them. This money could kick start the building program. Instead of windfall taxes on Oil Companies going into the general coffers, these taxes could equally be used in this way. Indeed what is to stop say BP and Shell being involved in Nuclear Energy? They are , after all Energy Companies. If my asset base (reserves ) were slowly bleeding down and If I was cash rich, I would look to investing in an alternative, rather than slow motion liquidation.
8) Design Cock ups. UK's record was bad. This, like any other prototype industry is always the same with initial, differing designs. It doesn't have to be this way this time around. The French don't have this problem.
9) Honey pots: Agreed. But then I have always maintained that UK Energy is a strategic issue and look back to the days of the CEGB. Everybody says ah yes, but look how cheap our electricity bills are compared with the bad old days? `The bad old days' allowed for spare capacity and planning ahead in the long term. The gas market is a similar case in point (IMO). Water in England looks like a similar foul up. Short term profits always screw up long term , national imperatives. This issue will need to be dealt with in a less than free market way.
10) Europe: I have no doubt that Europe will try to control energy, what success `Europe' will have is another matter. By 2020 it may be a case of `save your selves'. I would rather be a vendor of surplus capacity than a beggar looking for hand outs.
11) Imported technology: I can see the French getting involved here as well. But I would rather import French cooperation in building Nukes than import gas from people who may switch it off whenever they please.
12) Your last point: There are many ways that a lot of things can mess up. Nukes are just one of many. The UK still has the money, the people and imagination to resolve these issues. I maintain that Nukes must be a strong part of the UK energy portfolio. This portfolio will comprise of many low carbon, home grown solutions. Which will comprise of Wind, Solar, Tidal, Micro-generation. Coal with sequestered Carbon and last but not least, Conservation and efficiency. We don't have to bet on one system as we almost did with the `dash for gas'.
Yes , there are lots of problems. No , they are not insoluble.
We can solve the electricity gap relatively easily. It will not be pleasant if we are fighting the electricity gap, the liquids gap and the fertilizer gap all at the same time.
Or we could just roll over, face the wall and die
I see your point. Sadly I can imagine everything being left too late.
Can you REALLY imagine a successful mass migration to your portfolio of energy sources within say 10 or 15 years?
This would require a "backs to the wall" push from the government plus huge investment plus authoritarian government. I just can't see it happening with the class of politician that we have today.
The middle classes will probably set up their own private systems ... but what the heck will happen to the innner city regions?
Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but I suspect that Peak Water, Peak Oil, Peak Gas (dare I say it, Peak Immigration & Peak BNP), Peak National Debt, Peak Outsourcing, Peak Coal could all interact at about the same time to cause a Peak Mess.
The only safe thing for anyone concerned for their family is to make some basic preparations of their own.
However I would be most grateful if someone could please convince me that when I retire in 15 years time I will have a pension, access to the NHS, access to electricity & food & warmth, fish & chips on Friday, Panorama on TV and a car with fuel.
I look foward to your heartwarming comments full of ebullient confidence ... I really, really do NOT want to be playing Mad Max when I am 65!
Thanks, that is the first time I have been tagged with that.
We may not manage it, but (IMO)we have to give it a go.
The alternatives appear much worse if left even another 5 years. Some already think its too late. Some are positively salivating at the possibility of it all going badly wrong; most notably the BNP (I dont think we are at Peak BNP). I think Peak BNP is more likely If we cannot keep the lights on. Regrettably, these guys have latched on to PO in a big way. If you can stomach it, go to the BNP Website. It has a very large section on PO and what I means.
Hopefully, Blair's speech has stirred up a hornets nest. If it brings the debate to the forefront , be you pro or anti nuke, then maybe this year It will be debated and a plan worked out. But we are running out of time for considered, calculated responses.
I am pro - nukes. I think we will need nukes to help cover essential base load. If I believed any other way(s)were possible, I would go for them.
We will know soon enough. This next Hurricane season and our next winter may be a wake up call.
That seven year build time is as fast as reactors are ever built, I don't think it's conceivable the UK could be a world leader in fast reactor build. Your suggestion of just picking a builder doesn't recognise that all organisations capable of building are already building elsewhere in the world - there's a waiting list.
Again, those experienced engineers aren't just twiddling their thumbs abroad, they are already working. Perhaps the UK could lure some people here though.
Didn't China just sign a deal for most of Australian U output from 2010?Look at the Finns? The EU is investigating the financing arrangement there since there is suspicion of excessive French government subsidy to get the first reactor built. Also the Finnish reactor is being built specifically for a consortium of industrial users and won't have to sell it's electricity in the Finnish energy market proper. As for UKCS tax revenue, well they are already earmarked for other things and private investment from the oil majors (or any cash rich entity) is unlikely since there are better investments with less risk and quicker returns.
If we were talking about this a decade ago and the decision to build was taken in 1996 rather than 2006 then maybe new nuclear build could be come on-line to replace decommissioned nuclear plant. Gas decline could be met with powerdown. As it is I have no confidence that new nuclear build can come on fast enough to be any use regarding the energy gap. For this reason I think the financial and political capital should be spent in areas that can deliver results (both supply and demand side) before 2020 not after as new nuclear sure would.
I appreciate your efforts to defend the rationality in planning for our energy future; However I strongly doubt that currently you have even a slightest chance for winning this battle.
The rejection of nuclear power by the majority of people in the UK (and in other countries for that matter) is not a result of logical analysis of all the pros/cons/alternatives etc. Rather it is determined by the ruling preconcptions and irrational fears amplified by the servile media. The reality is that modern life has made us a conservative and spoiled society, totally detached from the hardships that accompanied the lives of our parents and grandparents. We don't know what is cold or hungry and we can only be reminded by personal experience - not by rational argumentation. Otherwise it sounds like something abstract for most of the people, including many writing in this blog.
I already accept this situation as what it is, and started to adapt to it and just plan for what will inevitably come as a result from our collective stupidity. My prediction for UK:
- Chronic NG and electricity shortages begin in 2-3 years. There is a rush to import electricity and NG (via LNG and pipelines), but not enough export capacity is available.
- Coal power plants return "with a vengeance" the next decade or so, temporary patching the situation to some extent. The costs to the environment are harsh but the public opinion is already on the other extreme.
- The scheduled decomissioning of NPP is delayed because we realise we don't have much choice; new ones are commenced in a hurry, both greatly increasing the risks and reducing the public control of the process.
Of course, all of this could be prevented if we act rationally now, but like I said - this is what it is.Your statement is clear, but I cannot knock it down, because your argument, in favour, is not clear.
Are jobs for us Brits your main concern? Or the end of home-generated electricity?
What are the costs? Who shall pay? What of time scales?
Respond to the "Energy Gap" fact/fiction.
May we end up with Mac-Power stations anyway?
Tesco Air-Miles with your electricity bill anyone? The more you use the more you fly....
Tony Blair is the best politician I have ever seen, and I voted for him, but that doesn't mean he is right!
We need Nukes for the following reasons:
1) To cover the energy base load requirements currently supplied by Coal and Gas fired power stations.
2) Security of supply
3) Other sources, Microgen, Tidal, Solar, Wind will all help.
4) Blair mentioned Conservation in the same speech: That is very new. This is more serious than they are letting on.
High value , high skilled jobs for Brits is a very useful by-blow. Better than paying through the nose for out-sourced gas which may not even be available in two decades.
But 1) and 2) remain the main reasons.
`'Energy gap fact / fiction. `' No, I don't think the coming gap is a myth. It is a looming reality.
What are the costs? -lots But we can do this now , before we start bleeding money out of the exchequer to pay for outsourced gas and oil.
Who Shall pay? - we will. Ring fence Oil revenues, get The Oil Majors on side, there are many options
What of Time scales? - Just in time (I hope). From decision to switch on could take as little as a decade. But, no doubt it will take longer in the UK. 2020 is still feasible if the decision is made now.
rgds
In any event imports for a long period on this scale look unaffordable for UK plc especially as our manufacturing base has moved to China etc.
Nuclear power won't really address the energy trade balance as it cannot readily replace fossil fuels for transportation and doesn't produce plastics, fertilizer etc. Gas would also still be required in large quantities for domestic boilers unless it is proposed to convert homes to electric space and water heating on a large scale, if so who would pay for such conversion?
Given that new nuclear plants won't be commissioned in sufficient quantities until well after 2015 there still looks to be a large supply and funding gap (trade balance) for oil and gas. Also I'm rather in the camp that doesn't really like NP in view of cost, decommissioning and waste disposal issues. Private industry won't take NP on without Gov't guarantees to fund these 'big ticket' issues - to me that indicates energy is still being underpriced as consumers rather than taxpayers should meet the entire cost. It's also worth noting that the Scottish Executive has a current policy not to accept new NP plants until the issue of waste disposal is totally addressed, regardless of what Westminster decides. My understanding is that the SE can prevent their construction in Scotland via the planning rules.
At best I see new NP builds as simply filling the gap due to decommissioning of ageing coal and NP plant. Consumers will still face big hikes in energy costs and have to conserve big time.
So lets all (all 60 million of us that is) go back to 'Hobbiton'.
I am sure we can all hack it down at the Prancing Pony after a leisurely couple of hours working in the fields.
Conservation will play a very big part, but conserving down to zero is not an option.
All wanting the best things in life.
Hope you got yer Mithrail Waistcoat handy.
The problems of long term waste disposal is mainly political- deep underground storage is feasible and not too costly- the technology-loving Finns are building theirs right now. And after a few hundred years it's not going to be dangerous, given that its so deep and the 'hot' elements will have decayed away to almost nothing.
Bravo to Tony Blair's plan. Relying on the Russians and ME countries for security of supply in the future strikes me as a terrible gamble, and a combination of new nukes, renewables and conservation sounds like a sensible long term plan as well as good for CO2 emissions.
If we started now it would take 10 years to commission maybe 2 nukes - realistically all that could be built given the huge scale of the projects. But we won't start now, we will be lucky to start this decade and by then the whole world will be trying to build nukes - possible shortfall of nuclear engineers perhaps ?
We might have 2 in operation by the time the last AGR is planned to be decommissioned (though that will change). Meantime who would want to bet gas imports will plug the gap. Who will build the gas fired power stations required to plug the gap.
We are in a mess and there will be blackouts - whenever Putin and his successors decide to jerk the chain a bit.
If it was not for the public opposition and if a large scale program is initiated now, in just 15 years UK can easily double its nuclear fleet. After all most of the current fleet was built for 20 years (1970-1990) using old technologies and without any urgency.
Breeder reactors (which theoretically could make nuclear 'renewable') also have huge practical and technical problems which have never been overcome, plus they would produce loads for raw materials suitable for nuclear weapons and provide tempting targets for terrorists - hardly a recipe for energy or more general security!
The other key peak oil point that you have missed is that peak oil is also a crisis of liquid fuels for transportation. Nuclear does not address this. See the Hirsch Report (SAIC, Feb 2005).
There is no getting around that we will have to make do with less energy. See Paul Mobbs' book "Energy Beyond Oil" and Richard Heinberg's "Powerdown". We can either manage the energy descent or let it unfold chaotically.
The nuclear engineers and scientists should be focusing their efforts on figuring out how we are going to store all the waste created by the current generation of nuclear stations. Meanwhile there are plenty of other energy engineering challenges out there: better forms of energy storage and reducing solar panels' high energy/financial capital cost and increasing their energy conversion efficiency. There are also lots of jobs for town planners and (enlightened) economists reconfiguring our towns and businesses for a lower energy mode of operation.
Wow! 8 messages on the normally sedate TOD UK.
Back to the question, what do we do?
There are 60 million souls on these islands. We were last capable of growing our own food supply in the 19th Century when we had 30 millions. We cannot go back to coal. Too dirty and depleting as well. Re-newables will help, but not cover the base load.
So what do we do? Cut back to 1930's levels of energy per capita use. How about 1930's levels of unemployment, nutrition, demagoguery, medicine and class structure?
I agree that we will have to get by on less energy. I have always said this would be the case. This will include conservation, driving habits, cutting out all flagrant waste. Including cheap air fares, SUVs you name it.
True, Uranium is a depleting resource, true, Fast Breeders are more theoretical than real at present, (Lets not even discuss Fusion.). Waste is easy. Bury it deep in tectonically stable areas. (Aberdeenshire would be perfect, and this is where I live.)
You said that we can either manage descent or let it unfold chaotically. That too is true. How about frequent rolling blackouts, hyper unemployment, a renaissance of Fascism ? all of these chaotic facets of energy depletion could easily start happening within the next two decades unless we can at least keep the lights on.
So, what do we do? How do we decide who lives, who dies, who is fed, who is starved
Who lives, your kids or mine?
When and How do we decide who gets to live in Hobbiton?
The liquid fuels crisis (Hirsch) will happen. But do you also want it to occur at the same time as a Voltage crisis as well?
Your town planners and enlightened economists wont have much planning to do when the lights are off, the computers are out of juice and the mob are prowling the streets looking for food and someone to blame.
Gas depletes/becomes expensive/ becomes unavailable, Current Coal is dirty / inefficient and our nuke fleet is due for decommisioning.
I have said before: All energy generation methods will be required and we will still need massive conservation.
And there is still no certainty that we will avoid Mad Max or 1984.
Still , yesterday was a very good day.
Where does that leave the banker?
Taxation income, 'source of carrots', will fall as the economy inevitably contracts. 'Aware' private investment may sense that returns are too distant, too precarious with Nuclear.
Are we to believe that markets will fail to deliver, and that government must overtly fund our light, TVs, PCs...?
How about 1950s society? Most parameters were preferable to today. I wouldnt hold up todays low unemployment as a marker of anything. Outside of the SE region, good jobs are thin on the ground.
If President Blair really wanted to do a 'difficult choices' speech, he needs to tackle the key issue - 60 million. Forget the economist baloney about needing unlimited slave labour. Lets have a 1 child policy while we still have a UK economy. Then, in about 30 years, we might be better off in every way.
There is no reason to aim for the 230V -6+10% that the EU decides we need. We don't need a continuous supply either
as and when the wind blows is fine for everyone except hospitals etc. If you can't live without guaranteed Eastenders, people will make TVs with batteries. Legislate to say all new houses will have 5 amp per bedroom supplies - we are now in the 21st Century and don't need valve TVs or filament lighting. Energy storage is trivial anyway. You just fill a few ponds with seawater then pump them out during peak and refill via generators. Just bang it in the grid along with the wave, tidal and wind and we will all get along fine.
The primary causes of population increase in the UK are:
- inward migration ... never ending & uncontrolled.
- The FIFTEEN times higher birthrate of Asian families.
So exactly how do you intend to control these factors?Do you plan to stroll into say the Asian area of Birmingham and ask the one million people there to stop having babies? Quite seriously, you might not make it out in one piece.
Or perhaps you will go to Gloucester city centre and ask the Kosovan gangsters who control most of the crime there to go home? Again, an unwise move.
The cost of simply providing energy (or the systems to supply the energy) for this never ending increase in population is non-trivial.
Moreover, I don't think that either group mentioned will give a fig about Peak Oil or other explanations when their lights go out ... they will get very annoyed and won't accept no for an answer.
Sadly our weak governments will probably kowtow to the loudest voices and provide electricity to the troublemakers before anyone else. (Cynic? Moi?)
No, breeder reactors do not make nuclear renewable. The do not 'make their own fuel' as keeps being said in the popular press. Fast breeder reactors allow U238 (which is 99.3% of natural uranium) to be used as fuel in a 2 step process via conversion to plutonium.
This makes the worlds uranium last about 140 times longer than using only the U235 (which is 0.7% of natural uranium) in thermal reactors. It also removes the need for isotope separation as natural uranium can be used with the small amount of U235 forming a small beneficial side reaction.
This is not the same as renewable .
There are so many ways to achieve this, both technologically and politically. Technology includes efficiency via CHP, distributed generation and smart grids. Political solutions include a revenue-neutral carbon tax and/or an inverted pricing structure (as mentioned earlier in the thread).
We are talking about the looming gap and how to cope with it.
Getting back to Blair, he said:
Nukes (with a vengeance)
Renewables
Conservation
Now assuming he was being straight with us at the CBI dinner, then I would say the magnitude of the problem has finally dawned on him. Maybe he knows something that even we at TOD dont...
Fewer children means in the longer term, fewer young workers to support an increasingly elderly population via taxes, etc. Even more pension plans being liquidated, increase in retirement age (if indeed there is one!).
It seems to me that Britain and much of the developed world is reaching an energy crossroads. Option 1 is to go for controlled "powerdown" with planning for a future of low energy use, renewables, localisation, etc., by gradual and not-too-painful adaptation. The alternative is the "go-for-broke" high-energy, high-tech option - loads of nuke stations producing electricity and maybe also hydrogen for transport fuels. A decision SHOULD be made in the next 3-4 years before peak oil starts to demolish what´s left of the economy and there is no money to invest in anything.
As for uranium running toward depletion - would would be pretty fast in the latter case - the hope will be that technology will turn up something in 20-30 years time, fast breeders, fusion or some as-yet undreampt of energy source. This would need gigantic resource investment of energy, manpower, money, etc. If it goes right we maintain what we currently call "progress" for the rest of the 21st century. Trouble is, if it all goes wrong we´ll have no power, no money left, polluted land and it´s Mad Max time. Maybe this is the gamble Tony and MUDLOGGER want to take.
However, the most likely outcome is the traditional British fudge of a bit of everything - a few nukes that take 20 years to come online, some more wind, wave, some subsidies to improve Britain´s lousey housing stock, etc. And the most likely result of that is a slow decline and increasing hardship for almost everyone. Which, looking at inflation, share, commodity prices, may be starting almost this very week ...
I like my life the way it is now. But I understand that there is limited shelf life in my / our current arrangements.
I fear that powering down in an organised way is less likely of all the scenarios to succeed. People will not easily give up what they have for a greater good, voluntarily and in good order. We lack a tangible 'clear and present danger'. Convincing people of GW has been tough, Convincing people of PO will be incredibly tough.
The required national response (similar to 1940?) may be too late, if at all. But whereas GW took 30 years, PO may start seriously smacking into us within 10 years.
During 'power down' we will still need to keep the lights on until we reach whatever state in 2106, be it Hobbiton, 1984, or whatever.
Keeping the 'lights on' - shorthand for the ever present , daily requirement for almost every manifestation of a civilised country will be tough enough, even with nukes.
Well, who doesn´t! I´m just saying that taking such a gamble that the investment of commodities, money and expertise in a nuclear future will work out, is mighty risky. I´m sure there will enormous opposition to nuclear power from anti-nuclear groups, followed by demos, passive and active resistance, etc., and even more so if the planning/appeals process is circumvented.
I´d also agree that selling Powerdown to the public in the UK, never mind USA, will be extraordinarily difficult. Most people just are not willing to give up their lifestyles just because some tells them it´s unsustainable - just look at how most people use their credit cards. As with many environmental issues, it´s the political realities rather than the scientific difficulties that give grounds for pessimism.
Also interesting comment from a colleague today, who often visits China: major cities are ringed and laced with new highways with 5-6 lanes in each direction, but currently are mostly used by bicycles. They have obviously been built with the intention that the populace fill them with cars as soon as they are able to afford them. So lots (like tens of millions) of extra cars with road space to actually drive them, all using fuel when we will be at or past peak oil.