Peak Oil and The Irish Government's Response

ISAW

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Living like the last days of Rome didnt prevent the Roman Empire collapsing.

... we'll find a way. Sure we'll run out of Uranium, so what it gives us energy now. When that runs out we'll have something new.

Scientism at best. Ironic fatalism at worst.

Incorrect the market has priced in what it percieves to be a future shortage. Sure in some areas such as the Gulf Coast in the US there has been refinement issues slowing the local supply of oil.
...
So why do you even buy into that theory. Your theory of economic collapse is based on the idea that oil will become too expensive.

The economics are quite well publicises and understood. Indeed the founder of the peak oil movement lives in Ireland.
http://www.peakoil.ie/peakoil

rsynnott

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The problem is not lack of alternatives; there are many of them. The problem is that we have to start transitioning now. Any alternative power system will take quite a long time to bring online. Since most governments seem to care little beyond the next election or two, though (and this is an area where in most countries, France excepted due to their existing excellent nuclear power system and abnormal regulation, the government will have to take the lead), we may not see anything done until it's too late to prevent major problems.

RedPlanet

It is my observation that those acedemics and scientists that engage the topic of engergy needs and energy supplies, fire warning shots across our bows and advise us to prepare for a low tech future.

Then there are folks like Daveirl who come along and assure us that science will pull a rabbit out of the hat. Yet the scientists are scratching their heads and saying: all the rabbits are already out of the hat...

Hobbes

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.

I'm no expert but I am pretty sure the technology doesn't pipe the electricity straight to your home. It goes to a holding station (for want of better term) that is basically loads of rechargable batteries. The electricty is then taken from there. For a single household as he describes if he factors in the quiet times and builds enough windmills to offset demand he can pretty much hold out all the year around. Same applies for solar, although Ireland was never the best for sunshine.

And, no, batteries ARE NOT a solution.

Why? Generating electricity is only part of the equation.

rsynnott

Hobbes wrote:

I'm no expert but I am pretty sure the technology doesn't pipe the electricity straight to your home. It goes to a holding station (for want of better term) that is basically loads of rechargable batteries. The electricty is then taken from there. For a single household as he describes if he factors in the quiet times and builds enough windmills to offset demand he can pretty much hold out all the year around. Same applies for solar, although Ireland was never the best for sunshine.

Why? Generating electricity is only part of the equation.

Nope. Windmills and so on generally go directly into the National Grid. Batteries, people tend to forget, are expensive and inefficient. And need maintainance.

A lead-acid battery might be the best solution; it does need maintainance but it is maintainable, unlike most others (lithium ion batteries, for example, die after 2 or 3 years). However, it has an energy density of about 35Wh per kilo. That means to support a conventional light-bulb for an hour, you'd need three kilos worth of battery. By comparison, petrol has an energy density of 13,000Wh per kilo.

There is one viable method of energy storage; however it's miserably inefficient and expensive, and requires geography. It involves pumping water up a hill and releasing it when needed. There's one in Wicklow.

MeatProduct

I'm aiming to get land for building a house on towards the start of next year. I have never wanted to be dependant on the grid for electricity so it has always been my intention to make use of water turbines, solar and wind. I feel this will cover my needs quite well as I don't plan to have an energy intensive house. Costs can be cut down some what by using electrical devices that run directly on 12 volts, this would reduce the requirement for a large invertor. Good passive solar design cuts down on heating requirements. Insulation is vital. Rain water collection from the roof for using as gray water. There are many ways to sensibly reduce our energy consumption. What would be very helpful would be government incentives for my house.

Perhaps a penalty for houses that use over a certain limit of electricity. This would make people more aware of the energy issues and perhaps people would economise more on energy if it hit them in the pocket.

Planning departments should be given a directive to maximise passive solar gain on submitted plans (within reason). Construction materials should be local in order to cut down on fuel used in transportation. Perhaps some of the suggestions outlined by the governments "Sustainable Energy Ireland" website should be made mandatory.

One thing that the government might actually manage is having an area in every city where people can put their bicycles under the observation of a security guard. I'm not at all comfortable cycling into town where I will have to leave my bike (locked) unattended.

Perhaps a list could be started here on what moves the government could make to address the situation in a way that is not alarmest and that brings peoples attention to the matter?

Nick

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

rsynnott

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Nonsense. The third and obvious answer is to plan ahead. Sadly, this is not something that governments are at all good at, and there will no doubt be a difficult transitional period

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

YOu mean like the Dublin traffic problems?

Your two options would seem to equate to two options the government had over (say) the past 30-40 years...

- Continue as before until cars block all roads
- Continue as normal under the assumption that changes in traffic behaviour and traffic-technology will allow the problem to solve itself

Me...I'd rather have seen traffic growth management in place over the period in question, so that we didn't wait until gridlock ruined everyone's commute before deciding it needed serious investment to fix...not that its better.

Just like with oil, I'd rather see people plan ahead rather than assume the problem will be more-or-less able to resolve itself because of an assumption that, well, technology will supply the answers. Historically, thats a much more reliable approach.

jc

black_jack

bonkey wrote:

YOu mean like the Dublin traffic problems?

Your two options would seem to equate to two options the government had over (say) the past 30-40 years...

- Continue as before until cars block all roads
- Continue as normal under the assumption that changes in traffic behaviour and traffic-technology will allow the problem to solve itself

Me...I'd rather have seen traffic growth management in place over the period in question, so that we didn't wait until gridlock ruined everyone's commute before deciding it needed serious investment to fix...not that its better.

Just like with oil, I'd rather see people plan ahead rather than assume the problem will be more-or-less able to resolve itself because of an assumption that, well, technology will supply the answers. Historically, thats a much more reliable approach.

jc

Not to mention the lack of resources being putting into developing alternatives, and money available for R&D.

It'd be like turning around to a decrypt, run down, rusting, chemical lab into fifty years time and looking at the scientists in their treadbare coats and saying "you mean you've not got some sh*t up your sleeves! "What the hell are we paying you guys for".

I see Bush is suggesting that Americans only drive when they need and avoid unnecessary transport in the wake of the gulf fiasco. I'd like to think this has made America and this administration think twice about their fuel consumption and economic direction. But I suspect it'll be used more likely as justification to plunder the Alaskian reserves.

Apparently to set a good example, Dubya has scaled down his motorcade, the cynic in me is seeing Nero saying "Okay guys, how about just one more tune"

RedPlanet

Here's another interview with Matthew Simmons:
http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/Simmons.html
It's really crazy that we've built our economies around a non-renewable resource of which we cannot be certain how much we have.

amp2000

RedPlanet wrote:

Here's another interview with Matthew Simmons:
http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/Simmons.html
It's really crazy that we've built our economies around a non-renewable resource of which we cannot be certain how much we have.

There is an MP3 of that here http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/462
There's a few more interviews with Simmons here http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/search/simmons

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Plenty. You have been given the references. And nuclear fission generators for any grid do not exist. Nor will unmetered electricity by some magic source solve the auto and plane problem.

MeatProduct

I wonder if nuclear weapons will ever be dismantled to be used as a power source..... Highly unlikely on account of the resource wars that will be fought. Any thoughts?

What will get priority when supply only covers 50% of demand? What will be the first thing to go? Some manufacturing process? I expect it will be mostly small manufacturers that can't afford the oil prices to keep things running. How will Ireland be affected by this? What will be the impact on farming in this country?

Nick

rsynnott

MeatProduct wrote:

I wonder if nuclear weapons will ever be dismantled to be used as a power source..... Highly unlikely on account of the resource wars that will be fought. Any thoughts?

In an all-slow fission reactor economy, possibly the uranium ones. In the real world, however, where we fave fast-breeder reactors, the current supply of uranium should last a ridiculously long time.

ISAW

Mistake - for FISSION read FUSION in message http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3421322&postcount=75