Peak Oil and The Irish Government's Response

stasiu

Some small problems who think we acn just adapt and change over to hybrid- it takes 20 barrels of oil just to make a car, hybrid or no hybrid. There is NO easy substitute.
Asphalt for road surfacing is also an oil product.......
The trend now for hybrid vehicles is just a desperate attempt by car makers to deal with this issue, but it will merely delay Peak Oil for a short period assuming everyone switches over to hybrid.

You're missing the point - we can't go on living as we have been up to now. Very soon life will drastically change, become simpler, more modest and TOTALLY different. If you have any doubts look at history when oil prices go up -recessions inevitably follow. But this time oil prices will stay high: currently 65$ a barrel (it reached $70 recently) while a year ago it was $31.
Sure it will go up and down for maybe 2/3 years, but the trend will be upward and after that will stay high.
Look at what happened to the Roman Empire when resources were squandered-this time it's on a global scale and almost ALL resources are stretched to the limit.

Zaph0d

The government can't believe that oil is going to peak soon or they wouldn't have given the NRA €17bn to spend on roads over the last decade. There are no subsidies for geothermal or solar home heating. However you can get a subsidy for air travel within Ireland between locations already linked by rail.

Planning guidelines are still full of aesthetic rules about not building anything out of step with its neighbours rather than obliging people to build near public transport nodes. Up to 40% of new housing each year is granted permission to be built in isolated, car-dependent locations.

We're considering building a motorway beneath Dublin Bay and we've already decided to spend €1bn on increasing the peak hour caapcity of the M50 so that more people can drive to work. Meanwhile we've run out of money for buses (but still have cash to build empty QBCs, like the N32).

A lot done, more to do.

soma

Nuclear power is not a long term solution, the world's resources of the materials used in nuclear power production are just as finite as oil. Last estimate I heard was about 80 years.

amp2000

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That's a flawed theory when it comes to energy.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It doesn't work like that, and your 2.40 a litre example is laughable, it's going to go alot higher than that till something gives, ie the economy crashes.
Within the past few months for the first time, oil demand has exceeded supply, that's why the price keeps going up without dropping, what your seeing now is demand destruction.
There isn't enough to go around so expect the price of a barrel to continue to go up till people can't afford it.

Do the research into it yourself, we seriously have no viable alternatives to just switch to, it should have been done 20 years ago using a combination of solar/tidal/wind & maybe nuclear but I think we could do without nuclear. Since absolutely none of this is being done I've come to the conclusion we are screwed.

Anyway, that's the bad news, the good news is america is in a situation 10 x worse than us They havent enough natural gas to last a cold winter & will have a major oil crisis if Rita does much damage to the oil refineries in texas this weekend. We can watch what happens to america on tv & the internet so we have an idea of what's coming.

Anyone want to bet against oil hitting $80 a barrel next week? LOL

fly_agaric

amp2000 wrote:

Anyway, that's the bad news, the good news is america is in a situation 10 x worse than us

Sorry, I fail to see what's "good" about that?

I wouldn't gloat too much about the US's massive oil habit anyway seeing as we are treading a similar path with car-dependant sprawl around Dublin and other cities and a government that doesn't really like funding any kinds of public transport too well but loves to blow the big bucks on building new roads.

soma

fly_agaric wrote:

I wouldn't gloat too much about the US's massive oil habit anyway seeing as we are treading a similar path with car-dependant sprawl around Dublin and other cities

Arent we, per capita, the most car dependent society on the planet now..?

BolBill

The gov are only interested in building roads, FF are all builders. They dont give a toss about the price of oil or anything else, they know we are stupid enough to pay over the odds for everything and still vote them in again. Lets face, Ahern is hardly someone to respect, the idiot shouldnt be allowed to dress himself FFS so this thread seems quite pointless.

ISAW

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

what will you do with the waste?
And what do you mean "when we have to"? You seem to think Nuclear power provides costless electricity when even disregarding wast it is only slightly cheaper and the power stations still only last 30 or so years. Decommissioning them is VERY expensive.

There is currently no real alternatives,

There are currently several alternatives. Heat exchange from the ground for one. If you refer to transport I have no idea how you think we are going to have nuclear powered trains and cars!

with Nuclear we'll have cheap electricity which will allow us move to Fuel Cell cars powered by Hydrogen which can be extracted using electrolysis since we'll have excess electricity from the Nuclear Power.

I have two problems with this. first you dont seem to grasp the economic reeality. Nuclear power promised "meterless electricity" in the fifties and sixties. It just isnt so. Second you don't seem to grasp the laws of physics. Everything runs down in the end. Power stations have to be replaced. Radioactives have to come from somewhere. Everything runs out. Even the Sun! But at least with the sun we have 4,500 million years! With nuclear and fossil fuels we havent much more than a century. We will eventually have to move to a different energy paradigm. Mass distributed electricity is NOT going to last forever. People will have to have their own heat and power. Personal transports probably will as well.

Moriarty

Mass distributed electricity will continue because our entire society is built around it. Ways will be found. Generating electricity really isn't that difficult, it's just a matter of swings and roundabouts over which way(s) we'll continue to do it.

rsynnott

ISAW wrote:

what will you do with the waste?
And what do you mean "when we have to"? You seem to think Nuclear power provides costless electricity when even disregarding wast it is only slightly cheaper and the power stations still only last 30 or so years. Decommissioning them is VERY expensive.

The first generation of nuclear power plants, being decomissioned currently, were not a great success. That is not a surprise. First generation ANYTHING is generally not great. Some of the more modern designs are rated for centuries, and there's one design which results in no transuranic waste. Waste disposal is, in any case, not the great problem people think it to be. Very far underground in a tectonically stable area, just as the Swedish are doing at the moment (Sweden is the first country to implement a permanent disposal plan)

ISAW wrote:

There are currently several alternatives. Heat exchange from the ground for one. If you refer to transport I have no idea how you think we are going to have nuclear powered trains and cars!

Trains; electricity. Electric road vehicles can be built, particularly larger vehicles. And there ARE designs for atom-powered trains, you know.

ISAW wrote:

I have two problems with this. first you dont seem to grasp the economic reeality. Nuclear power promised "meterless electricity" in the fifties and sixties.

Yes, those were lies. No-one who understood the subject, presumably, fell for them.

ISAW wrote:

With nuclear ... we havent much more than a century.

This is not actually the case. It was the case (within an order of magnitude at least) before fast-breeder reactors, use of Thorium as a fuel, improved reprocessing and many, many other modern innovations.

You are thinking of the nuclear energy of the 50s, and that is the problem. Things really have advanced hugely.

ISAW wrote:

We will eventually have to move to a different energy paradigm. Mass distributed electricity is NOT going to last forever. People will have to have their own heat and power. Personal transports probably will as well.

What do you mean by "their own heat and power"? Local generation, from some mysterious magic source? Sounds... expensive. Economies of scale.

amp2000

Moriarty wrote:

Mass distributed electricity will continue because our entire society is built around it. Ways will be found.

Funnily enough, most people actually believe that :rolleyes:

rsynnott wrote:

What do you mean by "their own heat and power"? Local generation, from some mysterious magic source? Sounds... expensive. Economies of scale.

I'm pretty sure he means renewable energy like wind, solar etc.

Moriarty

Funnily enough, most people also believe the earth is round.

Those crazy fruits!

amp2000

Moriarty wrote:

Funnily enough, most people also believe the earth is round.

Classic, how can I argue with that :rolleyes:

Moriarty

amp2000 wrote:

Funnily enough, most people actually believe that :rolleyes:

amp2000 wrote:

Classic, how can I argue with that :rolleyes:

Can somone connect the dots for me?

amp2000

I'd have given you a better response if you actually had something to add, saying "Mass distributed electricity will continue because our entire society is built around it" is retarded. It's actually so retarded there is little point in even telling you why it's retarded.

Good luck, your gonna need it

rsynnott

amp2000 wrote:

I'd have given you a better response if you actually had something to add, saying "Mass distributed electricity will continue because our entire society is built around it" is retarded. It's actually so retarded there is little point in even telling you why it's retarded.

Good luck, your gonna need it

Okay, please detail your magic decentralised power system.

amp2000

rsynnott wrote:

Okay, please detail your magic decentralised power system.

It's not magic, it's common sense, we could probably do it is with a basket of alternatives such as wind, solar & tidal power. The problem is it takes time to ramp this up & waiting till were in a full blown energy crisis is too late IMO.

And it's not my job to detail a decentralised power system, what would be the point, it's not like it would be actually implemented. So what I'm hopefully going to do is get some solar & wind power on my own bit of land & look after myself & my family cos it's painfully obvious the government cant or wont help me when we start experiencing rolling blackouts & a crashing economy.

What most people don't realise is when they are reading reports putting the peak 20 years away they are assuming saudi arabia are telling the truth about their reserves. If the saudis are lying as I suspect they are then we have ALREADY passed the peak. I can't think of any other reason why the saudis will not let outsiders verify their reserves.

By the way, someone mentioned "The end of suburbia", I've met the producer of this film & he has no problem with people downloading it for free, you can get it on torrent sites.
This is also a good site with lots of videos & interviews about peak oil http://globalpublicmedia.com/
There is some good stuff here aswell, check out BBC's war for oil. http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm

rsynnott

amp2000 wrote:

It's not magic, it's common sense, we could probably do it is with a basket of alternatives such as wind, solar & tidal power. The problem is it takes time to ramp this up & waiting till were in a full blown energy crisis is too late IMO.

Err, you know the wind stops blowing sometimes, right? The sun stops shining? Tidal power's frigteningly expensive to build and (especially) to maintain? And certainly not for home use.

And, no, batteries ARE NOT a solution.

"Oh, sorry, Mr Smith, we'll finish transplanting your heart when the lights come back on. A force 4 should get us some visbility, anyway".

amp2000 wrote:

And it's not my job to detail a decentralised power system, what would be the point, it's not like it would be actually implemented. So what I'm hopefully going to do is get some solar & wind power on my own bit of land & look after myself & my family cos it's painfully obvious the government cant or wont help me when we start experiencing rolling blackouts & a crashing economy.

Same problem as before. And if you advocate it, you really should be willing to expain why you believe to be possible or practical.

amp2000 wrote:

What most people don't realise is when they are reading reports putting the peak 20 years away they are assuming saudi arabia are telling the truth about their reserves. If the saudis are lying as I suspect they are then we have ALREADY passed the peak. I can't think of any other reason why the saudis will not let outsiders verify their reserves.

This may well be the case. That doesn't make "individual power through magic" a good solution. Fission would tide us over until fusion becomes practical.

amp2000

rsynnott wrote:

Err, you know the wind stops blowing sometimes, right? The sun stops shining? Tidal power's frigteningly expensive to build and (especially) to maintain? And certainly not for home use.

This is our problem, I know they are not perfect but they do work. or at least they will help.

rsynnott wrote:

Same problem as before. And if you advocate it, you really should be willing to expain why you believe to be possible or practical.

That's all I can think of doing for some power on an individual basis although I'll probably do some research on geothermal. I know it's not a perfect solution & I don't expect to always have power, a little power would be helpful though, don't you agree.
You see this is what worries me, we have NO viable alternatives to switch to so we can continue to consume the way we are now, all we can do is implement things that will help. If we dont & we run out of oil & NG then that's it, the party is over.

rsynnott wrote:

This may well be the case. That doesn't make "individual power through magic" a good solution. Fission would tide us over until fusion becomes practical.

I never said it was a good solution, it's the only solution I can think of. To depend on nuclear would be to depend on the irish government which I'm not doing as they clearly have their head in the sand & have already left it too late.
Also, I dont know much about nuclear but I do know uranium is a finite resurce.
Aside from nuclear if you have any better ideas I'm all ears if it's not a net energy loser.

rsynnott

amp2000 wrote:

Also, I dont know much about nuclear but I do know uranium is a finite resurce.

Nuclear fission uses uranium and thorium, and we have enough for millenia. Nuclear fusion uses hydrogen, and we have an effectively unlimited supply of that.

Moriarty

Basics on nuclear fission for energy production

Basics on nuclear fusion for energy production

Specifically about fuel for these..

At the present rate of use, there are 50 years left of low-cost known uranium reserves - however, given that the cost of fuel is a minor cost factor for fission power, more expensive lower-grade sources of uranium could be used in the future. Also, extraction from seawater or granite is possible. Another alternative would be to use thorium as fission fuel in breeder reactors - thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth crust than uranium.

Current light water reactors make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, leading to energy waste. More efficient reactor designs or nuclear reprocessing would reduce the amount of waste material generated and allow better use of the available resources. As opposed to current light water reactors which use Uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use Uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of Uranium-238 for use in these power plants. Breeder technology has been used in several reactors.

Proposed fusion reactors assume the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in most current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global ouput and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.

ISAW

rsynnott wrote:

Err, you know the wind stops blowing sometimes, right?

WRONG! even in Ireland the wind is usually blowing somewhere. If you lived in the doldrums it might not be advisable. I have only ever once (in two decades and looking at it about 50 days a year) seen a local bay in conamara completly flat like glass without waves.

The sun stops shining?

Now that would be a problem. the sun will not stop shining for at least about 4,500 million years. maybe you mean clouds obscure the sun. In which case I would ask how do the clouds get pushed in the way?

Tidal power's frigteningly expensive to build and (especially) to maintain? And certainly not for home use.

was it you above who stated "first generation anything is expensive"?
Anyway if you are suggesting that the (economic) running cost of fossil fuels is LESS than using renewable energy then I will ask you to show by how much?

"Oh, sorry, Mr Smith, we'll finish transplanting your heart when the lights come back on. A force 4 should get us some visbility, anyway".

So you do not think we should have colonies in space then? I mean where will they drill for oil and get the gas for their generators where will they put the power stations? we dont live in nuclear power stations her so should we do so in space?

Same problem as before. And if you advocate it, you really should be willing to expain why you believe to be possible or practical.

You are shifting the burden. Though the paradigm is germane to the discussion, it is not for me to show how low entropy systems work when the topic is the problem associated with oil in particular and non renewables in general.

The point is they will run out eventuallty. To claim that over the next hill or round the next corner that science has an answer is scientism. The science has been known and understood for a century. Nuclear power works on the same science discovered a hundred years ago. They use un renewable (FINITE) resources. You may claim that FUSION will be achieved to which I ask where is it? Other than that there is an energy problem. Do you want your children to live with a crisis you ignored?

This may well be the case. That doesn't make "individual power through magic" a good solution. Fission would tide us over until fusion becomes practical.

This si based in the hope that fission will become available and the idea that fission is currently a cheap alternative. You have shown neither claims to be justified. You seem to dwell in the "energy rich" mindset. Have you ever considered reducing consumption as part of the solution? Or that society need not be organised into energy wasting cities or transport systems?
Or do you suggest people subscribe to the "im all right Jack" mentality and if they can afford it then good for them.

You are aware that if the rest of the planet lived at our level we would be out of energy quite rapidly ... i mean in a year or so? do you not find it politically inequitable that we overproduce food for example and a third of the world go hungry every day? Why should we do the same with energy?
I dont see anyone recommending the first Fusion plant be sited in Bukino Faso or whether the locals tghere have a need for mass distributed electricity.

rsynnott

ISAW wrote:

Now that would be a problem. the sun will not stop shining for at least about 4,500 million years. maybe you mean clouds obscure the sun. In which case I would ask how do the clouds get pushed in the way?

Funny. I don't see it at night all that much these days.

ISAW wrote:

was it you above who stated "first generation anything is expensive"?
Anyway if you are suggesting that the (economic) running cost of fossil fuels is LESS than using renewable energy then I will ask you to show by how much?

We don't have the luxury of waiting a few decades for tidal power to develop (assuming it ever does; there are fundamental problems with the maintainance of any device with moving parts that lives under the sea.

ISAW wrote:

So you do not think we should have colonies in space then? I mean where will they drill for oil and get the gas for their generators where will they put the power stations? we dont live in nuclear power stations her so should we do so in space?

What are you talking about? Power for space; solar for low-power applications, radiothermic for low-power distant applications, ROTSAT-style nuclear reactor for high-power applications. And I think we should renew research into nuclear rockets, as well, by the way; NASA's NERVA rocket and Pluto ramjet were both tested successfully before being killed by political pressure.

ISAW wrote:

You are shifting the burden. Though the paradigm is germane to the discussion, it is not for me to show how low entropy systems work when the topic is the problem associated with oil in particular and non renewables in general.

I'm not saying that we should stay with fossil fuels; I'm saying that we should move to nuclear. Using fast breeder reactors, we have anywhere from 10,000 to 4 million years worth of Uranium-238 left, and far more than that of Thorium.

ISAW wrote:

The point is they will run out eventuallty. To claim that over the next hill or round the next corner that science has an answer is scientism. The science has been known and understood for a century. Nuclear power works on the same science discovered a hundred years ago. They use un renewable (FINITE) resources. You may claim that FUSION will be achieved to which I ask where is it? Other than that there is an energy problem. Do you want your children to live with a crisis you ignored?

The first energy-positive fusion reactor was JET in Cambridge. The first fusion reactor to produce a sensible amount of power will probably be ITER in France, due to be completed in 2018. The first fusion reactor designed for power production is currently aimed to be in operation by 2030.

Realistically, we have at least 10,000 years on fission. That's time enough to get something else going.

ISAW wrote:

This si based in the hope that fission will become available and the idea that fission is currently a cheap alternative. You have shown neither claims to be justified. You seem to dwell in the "energy rich" mindset. Have you ever considered reducing consumption as part of the solution? Or that society need not be organised into energy wasting cities or transport systems?
Or do you suggest people subscribe to the "im all right Jack" mentality and if they can afford it then good for them.

Like it or not, we are now an industrial energy-dependant society. This has its downsides, it also has tremendous good sides.

ISAW wrote:

You are aware that if the rest of the planet lived at our level we would be out of energy quite rapidly ... i mean in a year or so?.

No, I'm not aware of that. As I have noted, with nuclear energy, it is not the case. (In any case, you exaggerate a bit; well over a billion people live in fully industrialised energy-rich nations).

do you not find it politically inequitable that we overproduce food for exampe and a third of the world go hungry every day? Why should we do the same with energy?
I dont see anyone recommending the first Fusion plant be sited in Bukino Faso or whether the locals tghere have a need for mass distributed electricity.

Fission power plants are already being built in quite poor countries. India and China are increasing their nuclear capacity hugely. Like ANY other technology, this has to start in the developed world and filter downwards as energy demand in the developing world increases. Do you think the average person in the developing world can afford one of your magical decentralised electricity generation systems?

amp2000

rsynnott wrote:

Like it or not, we are now an industrial energy-dependant society. This has its downsides, it also has tremendous good sides.

I don't know about you but I fail to see the good side of being energy dependant on a finite resource, it's a recipe for disaster as you will soon see.

Take this for instance, the EIA are the International Energy Agency

"IEA chief says heightened buying of E.U. gasoline could lead to a global energy shortage"
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/03/news/international/katrina_global_crisis.reut/

Nuclear power although it will work is utterly useless in the short term as it's too little too late.

At least with (hopefully) my solar & windpower I'll have some chance, the people waiting for nuclear will more than likely starve waiting on something that probably won't even come. The time to implement it was years ago.

Do you think I want peak oil? No I don't, I read up on the subject so I could dismiss it as a conspiracy, unfortunately it's not, it's real & it's happening. Just have a look at current events from energy experts in independant media, not corporate controlled media as it's basically just a show for the consumers who lap things up without verifying if it's actually BS or not.
Although in saying that, parts of the reality of the situation are now spilling over to corporate controlled media like the link I quoted above.
I could give more links but I thought a mainstream cnn article would be enough for this thread. Anything else would probably be dismissed as conspiracy.

Here's a quote I think fits this thread nicely

Take care of reality or reality will take care of you

Unforunately most in this thread are letting reality take care of them.

ISAW

rsynnott wrote:

Funny. I don't see it [the sun shining]at night all that much these days.

I suppose you will now advise sending a manned mission to the sun at night?

We don't have the luxury of waiting a few decades for tidal power to develop (assuming it ever does; there are fundamental problems with the maintainance of any device with moving parts that lives under the sea.

and people should listen to your point here and at the same time ignore those who stated "we dont have the luxury of assuming fossil fuels will last forever" because...???

What are you talking about? Power for space; solar for low-power applications, radiothermic for low-power distant applications, ROTSAT-style nuclear reactor for high-power applications. And I think we should renew research into nuclear rockets, as well, by the way; NASA's NERVA rocket and Pluto ramjet were both tested successfully before being killed by political pressure.

i am talking about you assuming that humanity must use national grids and similar distribution systems which use on fossil fuels to generate electricity and change the power generation to nuclear but maintain the same distribution.

that is not advisable in space. Note you own words "LOW POWER" . Now how do you suppose a city in space should use a nuclear reactor? Should they live around it? How will the power be generated by the reaction? After all the reaction is only producing heat and waste radioactives. How do you propose they generate electricity?

I'm not saying that we should stay with fossil fuels; I'm saying that we should move to nuclear. Using fast breeder reactors, we have anywhere from 10,000 to 4 million years worth of Uranium-238 left, and far more than that of Thorium.

Please justify that claim. By the way you do know thorium is gaseous at standard temperature and pressure?
[Later edit] this is wrong! Thorium is not gaseous at STP! Maybe I was confusing it with the original use of Thorium in gas light mantels
Melting point, 2023.2 K, Boiling point, 5123 K
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031205.html [end later edit]

The first energy-positive fusion reactor was JET in Cambridge. The first fusion reactor to produce a sensible amount of power will probably be ITER in France, due to be completed in 2018. The first fusion reactor designed for power production is currently aimed to be in operation by 2030.

You are CERTAIN that fusion will be available? Based on what? And you are are certain it will be cheap? And what will we do for the 35 or so years in between?

Realistically, we have at least 10,000 years on fission. That's time enough to get something else going.

Care to support that comment please?

Like it or not, we are now an industrial energy-dependant society. This has its downsides, it also has tremendous good sides.

just like having a gun culture has very beneficial gains for those with the guns eh:)?

No, I'm not aware of that. As I have noted, with nuclear energy, it is not the case. (In any case, you exaggerate a bit; well over a billion people live in fully industrialised energy-rich nations).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter1.html

If the entire world consumed fossil fuels at OECD per capita rates, global fossil energy consumption would be over 1,100 quads in 2001, more than three times the actual level of around 350 quads. If the rest of the world consumed fossil fuels at G-7 rates, global fossil fuel consumption would reach 1,300 quads.

http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/articles2.cfm?TID=294
Imagine that through conservation and increased energy efficiency, every citizen in the United States were to consume half the BTUs they currently consume. This is certainly possible, though very unlikely in the near term. In 1995 the U.S. citizenry consumed, on average, 327 million BTUs per year, (BTUs by Nation) which is more than twice what many developed countries use per capita, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Japan. In 1995 there were 28 countries in the world (North, BTU's per $1 GNP) with per capita incomes over $15,000 per year. Let's call these the developed nations. They numbered 787 million people and they consumed on average 216 million BTUs per person. They represented about 15% of the world's population and they consumed 68% of the world's energy. No surprise there.

The problem with thinking that energy production worldwide does not have to dramatically increase in the next ten years is to forget about the rest of the world. Countries with huge populations such as China and India, along with most of Latin America and the rest of Asia, are industrializing with astonishing speed, yet their total energy consumption right now is only at the beginning of a rapid increase. In 1995 the per-capita energy consumption of the 85% of humanity with average incomes under $15,000 was only 23 million BTUs per person, barely 10% of the average for the developed world.

If the per capita energy consumption in the developing world were to reach only 50% of that consumed by the citizens of industrialized nations, and if everyone in the prosperous industrialized nations were to conserve themselves down to that same level, energy production worldwide would have to double. That is to say, if everyone on earth got by on 100 million BTUs of energy per year, that would require 600+ quadrillion BTUs of energy, compared to only 316 QBTUs produced worldwide in 1995. To try to prevent this process is to impinge on the sovereignty of nations, slowing their progress towards prosperity. It's not a good choice.

Fission power plants are already being built in quite poor countries. India and China are increasing their nuclear capacity hugely. Like ANY other technology, this has to start in the developed world and filter downwards as energy demand in the developing world increases. Do you think the average person in the developing world can afford one of your magical decentralised electricity generation systems?

Indeed they can. In spite of, actually because of not having gas guzzling tractors, fertilisers and other energy hogging technologies, in using the sweat of his brow at 200 calories a day, the third world farmer is far more energy efficient than the first world counterpart.

And he is quite happy with a LO-tech hand driven water pump than having the electric version connected to the national grid.

rsynnott

ISAW wrote:

I suppose you will now advise sending a manned mission to the sun at night?

What are you talking about?

ISAW wrote:

i am talking about you assuming that humanity must use national grids and similar distribution systems which use on fossil fuels to generate electricity and change the power generation to nuclear but maintain the same distribution.

Ah, you'd prefer something grotesquely inefficient instead? Fine?

ISAW wrote:

that is not advisable in space. Note you own words "LOW POWER" . Now how do you suppose a city in space should use a nuclear reactor? Should they live around it? How will the power be generated by the reaction? After all the reaction is only producing heat and waste radioactives. How do you propose they generate electricity?

There have been fully successful nuclear reactors in space already. The Soviets did an (unshielded) version in 1967.

Please justify that claim. By the way you do know thorium is gaseous at standard temperature and pressure?

Here's one: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

There are plenty more.

Obviously you use a different standard to the rest of us: thorium boils at 4788 degrees celsius.

You are CERTAIN that fusion will be available? Based on what? And you are are certain it will be cheap? And what will we do for the 35 or so years in between?

I'm certain of neither. And in the meantime we can use nuclear fission.

Care to support that comment please?

As above.

just like having a gun culture has very beneficial gains for those with the guns eh:)?

Ultimately, without the development of an energy-rich society, we'd be stuck at around 1700, but with advanced-stage colonial empires (or said empires collapsed). The world's life expectancy would still be in the 30s, with no real hope of any improvement. At least this way we are making progress.

Indeed they can. In spite of, actually because of not having gas guzzling tractors, fertilisers and other energy hogging technologies, in using the sweat of his brow at 200 calories a day, the third world farmer is far more energy efficient than the first world counterpart.

And he is quite happy with a LO-tech hand driven water pump than having the electric version connected to the national grid.

Explain if you will why he's happy with the low-tech solution when the high-tech solution might prevent him from starving.

Do you REALLY want to go back to a non-industrialised agrarian society, worldwide?

In any case this whole argument is based on a false premise that the world's fossil fuel reserves are in imminent danger of running out. This is true for oil, but not for coal; peak coal is estimated towards the end of the century. Of course, coal is FAR nastier from a health perspective, and unusable for cars and aircraft. A society fueled by coal would be extremely undesirable.

amp2000

rsynnott wrote:

In any case this whole argument is based on a false premise that the world's fossil fuel reserves are in imminent danger of running out. This is true for oil,

Your quite right, this is why you don't see people going on about peak coal, simply because our economy doesn't depend on it, it does depend on cheap oil unforunately The whole house of cards collapses, not without oil, but without CHEAP oil.

The whole peak oil argument is not running out of oil, it's running out of cheap oil & going into a decline while demand keeps going up while our population also goes up.

ISAW

rsynnott wrote:

What are you talking about?

I think it is obvious. Why don't you ask a question referring to the bit you do not understand?

Ah, you'd prefer something grotesquely inefficient instead? Fine?

Where did I say that? Look shifting the burden is not fair. first you show how fossil fuel is economically efficient. then show the costs involved in nuclear power generation. Then show how renewable resources cost more and are less efficient.

you seem to be assuming not having a grid is somehow "less efficient". You have not justified this assumption.

There have been fully successful nuclear reactors in space already. The Soviets did an (unshielded) version in 1967.

I didn't ask whether the laws of physics work in space. I asked based on you model of a distribution grid - remember it all came from your comment about lo tech renewables supplying power for operating theatres- how do you suppose we generate and distribute power for a city in space?

Here's one: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

There are plenty more.
Please show where the above or any more of your claimed "pleanty" references relates to producing and distributing power in space?

Obviously you use a different standard to the rest of us: thorium boils at 4788 degrees celsius.

I was wrong about this . I posted incorrect information. I have since pointed to that and corrected the claim.

I'm certain of neither. And in the meantime we can use nuclear fission.

Let me get this straight. You are not certain of an impending fossil fuel crisis?
you are not certain that fusion power stations will be available? But you are certain that if we build fission reactors all over the world then that will provide a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and solve our energy problems?

Now other than a possibility of building them, I havent seen any evidence to justify the social economic engineering environmental or scientific arguments
in favour of nuclear power being able to solve our impending energy problems.

Ultimately, without the development of an energy-rich society, we'd be stuck at around 1700, but with advanced-stage colonial empires (or said empires collapsed). The world's life expectancy would still be in the 30s, with no real hope of any improvement. At least this way we are making progress.

First you seem to base this on the idea that society is progressive. You have not shown that assumption to be true. You have not shown that in the 1700s life expectancy was in the 30s. WE still have colonial Empires and had them millennia before 1700. You are claiming - without any evidence that the change in the energy base changes society by destroying Empires and that said change "progresses" and "improves" society. But you fail to support that contention also.

Explain if you will why he's happy with the low-tech solution when the high-tech solution might prevent him from starving.

He isnt starving. Go and ask a subsistance farmer from Conamara if people had electricity, water, flushing toilets etc. in his past. then ask him if they are happier. I dug the water mains into our house in my late teens. We had a dry toilet. We had electricity but no phone or TV.

Noppw I admit that disease etc. is assisted by hygene and sanitation but that is not my argument. Is Ireland healthier and happies today? I do not live with Celtic mist in my eyes. I accept sopme mod cons. But over convienience can result in obesity etc.

Now that is a social argument. I bagan with an efficiency one for the man in Africa. The farmer with a shovel is more efficient! He does not need high energy use intensive farming with big machines. Nor will it make him healthier or happier!

Do you REALLY want to go back to a non-industrialised agrarian society, worldwide?

That is wat we face. As I stated. I am not one of these nostalgic Greens. But we will have to adopt a low tech alternative. Just as I perfer the idea that we should conserve rather than consume. I do not think littering is creating a job for someone. I also dont think big wasteful innefficient energy uses are preferable to just using a butterknife rather than a chainsaw.

In any case this whole argument is based on a false premise that the world's fossil fuel reserves are in imminent danger of running out. This is true for oil, but not for coal; peak coal is estimated towards the end of the century. Of course, coal is FAR nastier from a health perspective, and unusable for cars and aircraft. A society fueled by coal would be extremely undesirable.

A society dependent on any un renewable energy resource is not alone undesirable it is unfeasible!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

amp2000

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

[sarcasm]Of course we'll find an alternative, bill & bob should have it by xmas.[/sarcasm]

daveirl wrote:

When that runs out we'll have something new.

See above, bill & bob have it sorted.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Oh, so it's just the gulf coast, phew, I thought I was imagining things today when the BBC said "Soaring energy prices are posing a serious threat to UK businesses of all sizes, a consumer watchdog has warned."
Or wait, no, they actually did say that http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4284756.stm

On Monday, he said companies were "incredibly worried" about the threat to supplies in coming months.

Do you see that now daveirl, it said in the COMING MONTHS.

Are you starting to connect the dots yet? Whatever marvellous idea someone comes out with it is ALREADY TOO LATE. We rely on the UK for most of our NG, they are facing an energy crisis themselves because the north sea is declining at 17% per year. We are already ****ed.