Peak Oil Theory

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

Refering back to the numbers i posted above its clear nuclear is the only long term solution. There are a lot of myths about how terrible nuclear is but most of it is fabricated. People arguing against fusion (usually non-scientists, ever noticed?) will say things like what about Chernobyl? But the way fission reactors are built now, its literally impossible to have another chernobyl. Not a worry.

The RBMK plant at chernobyl was undoubtedly an unsafe and unstable design, but it is not impossible for other plants to experience casualties on a similar scale, as witnessed by the Fukushima Daiichi casualty earlier in the year. Granted, even this could have been avoided with some additional precautions, but despite every precaution that can be made, eventually even a brand new state of the art plant design will reach breaking point.

That said, despite the extremely serious nature of the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents, they aren't that bad. Direct deaths from them number in the thousands, and indirect deaths possibly, but unlikely, in the hundreds of thousands. Still beats out coal in number of deaths caused per year by a HUGE margin... If the yearly butchers bill for coal occurred all at once every 15 or 20 years like occurs for nukes, coal would be banned in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

yea lets spend billions of dollars for one nuc plant that will generate power for maybe 40 years and yet generates waste that is poisonous for 10's of thousands of years,if you figure the actual cost of nuc energy, it is the most costly by a far margin and when considering the power generation versus the waste reclamation problems,the cost becomes astronomical.

I love these "save the planet" types, they are all for saving the environment today but don't give a shit about a future where we are forced to deal with decades of nuclear waste piling up.

if the real cost of nuclear energy is added up,the price of the power generated becomes the highest in the history of mankind

Waste reclamation is a solved issue. Spent fissile fuel cells have a large portion of fuel remaining in them that can be profitably refined for extra fuel. Other waste can be interred in geologically stable areas, of which there are many. The costs and issues facing these, the billions in overruns in prices are due almost entirely to nimbyism and obstruction. Nothing else.

Nuclear is pretty costly, yes. But it is the only power technology that can scale up to replace coal and meet the energy demands of the planet. Thats it. Hydro is largely tapped out, and new construction meets almost as much obstruction from environmental types as nukes. Solar and wind are both intermittent and regionally variable.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

there is currently 77000 tons of high level nuclear waste in the US right now, thats one hell of a lot of "coke cans"

and how in the hell is it "green" producing the most toxic poisons known to man?

I know the "real" cost of nuclear power,i live in Nevada and we have been fighting this crap for 30 years now,I have seen family members and friends die as a direct result of the above ground testing done back in the 50's and 60's,the govt told them all it was safe too.

"Costs too much"
"Been fighting this crap for 30 years now"

Gee, wonder where the costs you complain about come from.

Also, you realize there is a difference between above ground nuclear testing and a nuclear power plant, right? Also, you have seen people die due to cancers whose risk may have resulted from the nuclear testing, which increased the rate of certain cancers by a minor, but not negligable, percentage in certain areas. 'As a direct result of' is pushing things a lot.

if you do the math and calculate what the cost of the storage of any nuc waste generated it drives the costs through the roof,you have to secure this crap for 10,000 years

High level waste, the extremely nasty stuff, is a very minor quantity. It also contains a large amount of unused fuel. Thanks to proliferation concerns, and obstruction, we do not recycle any nuclear fuel.

After that storage for many thousands of years is a simple and straightforward process, rendered almost inert by NIMBY and more obstruction. Glass vitrification in stainless tubes in a geologically stable area.

77,000 tons seems like a lot. Thats 60 years worth of waste from all the power plants and weapon production facilities. It would also fit into an area the size of a couple large warehouses.

The lower level waste does not need this sort of handling. Simply interring it in a suitable facility for a couple dozen years will be enough. Much of it is radioactive in name only. Something can have less radiation than background and still be considered radioactive.



I'm not saying ignore the alternative technologies. By all means pursue them. They can reduce our eventual reliance on nuclear technology, which is a good thing. The thing you don't realize is there are people who fear nukes more than any environmentalist... The people that build and run them. The core of a reactor is the most concentrated evil ever produced by man(except, perhaps, for Dimethyl Mercury). It really is nasty. You people honestly have no comprehension of how bad it can be.

The reason they do it is because thats it. Thats the future. There is nothing else to replace it. Maybe fusion, one day. But that is not guaranteed.

[SgtMAD]

in ten years more ppl will have died due to nuclear power than any other source,the problems in Japan haven't even begun to manifest themselves yet,wait until all these small children grow up with all the exposure that comes from everything thing they come in contact with or consume.

the idea that you don't have a clue about any of the exposures and still maintain that nuc power is safe and for your information it was scientists from the govt that told everyone that it was safe,just like the assholes down at ground zero that told all those first responders that it was perfectly safe to breathe in all that crap.

nuc power is not cost effective and if you refuse to do an accurate cost/benefit comparision then you can keep saying its 'cheap' or cost-effective" when if you take away all the govt subsidies that support nuc plant construction,you wouldn't see another plant built anywhere

shit just add up the security costs of having to hire a protection force and then having it in place for 10k years,a ten man shift 24/7,figure the average wage at 45k a year,its approx 22 billion for a very small force,knowing the us govt it would actually be a much more robust program so the cost would be higher and none of this includes site protection for plants themselves or any transportation costs,which are astronomical.

[MadPenguin]

as witnessed by the Fukushima Daiichi casualty earlier in the year.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53036/...ma-death-toll/

5 deaths from Fukushima as of april 24 2011, compare this to the 20000 that died as a result of the tsunami/earthquake, seems like the plant was the safest place to be.

HtSgtMAD, still waiting for your alternative, to quote the French:
"We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." What do you think they should do for energy?

in ten years more ppl will have died due to nuclear power than any other source

This is just purely speculative, saying it doesnt make it true.

As for security, i havent heard of nuclear things being the target of terrorism as of yet, and there are several hundred plants to target.

As for cost:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4095658.stm

To save you reading it :

"More importantly for politicians, nuclear-derived electricity is estimated to be less than half the cost of coal and wind power."

And bear in mind, the cost of nuclear power (per kilo-watt hour) is only going one way, down.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

in ten years more ppl will have died due to nuclear power than any other source

That's really the kind of statement that should come with a source if you don't want to look like some kind of crazy person.

The fact is, people complain about the lack of safety in nuclear power plants that were built in 1974 or earlier and say that's a reason not to build new ones. That's like saying that, because cars in 1974 had no anti-lock brakes, no airbags, and no 3-point seatbelts in the back, we shouldn't build any new cars.

Instead of abandoning a phenomenally useful technology and praying for better alternatives, we need to replace old reactors with newer, safer designs.

[Traak]

Wind could be far more efficient, if it was done better. But, "low startup cost" usually trumps "long term efficiency" it seems.

[MadPenguin]

Wind is nice idea and something we should try and keep, unfortunately as i mentioned earlier you have to have gas to effectively use wind, so wind power only has a finite effective lifetime.

Just returning to safety, i today learnt in lectures than nuclear reactors are able to withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner.

[Mutant]

Originally Posted by Accuser

That's really the kind of statement that should come with a source if you don't want to look like some kind of crazy person.

The fact is, people complain about the lack of safety in nuclear power plants that were built in 1974 or earlier and say that's a reason not to build new ones. That's like saying that, because cars in 1974 had no anti-lock brakes, no airbags, and no 3-point seatbelts in the back, we shouldn't build any new cars.

Instead of abandoning a phenomenally useful technology and praying for better alternatives, we need to replace old reactors with newer, safer designs.

The important metric is Deaths/kWh generated and on that measure Nuclear Fission looks good.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ear-power.html - links to research papers in that article

[Geist]

Originally Posted by Mutant

The important metric is Deaths/kWh generated and on that measure Nuclear Fission looks good.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ear-power.html - links to research papers in that article

Forget nuclear power, we must wage war against hydroelectric, for it is certainly the bane of humanity's existence.

I pity every person who's ever worked or is currently working in a Nuclear Power Plant. They are doing an excellent job making sure that their power plants are safe and working, and yet their efforts go unnoticed by the majority due to the spin by idiots who think their incompetent and it's only a matter of time before a nuclear reactor in the U.S. goes critical. Not to mention their doing it in woefully outdated power plants due to the one of the single stupidest restrictions I have ever heard of, to restrict the construction of safer up-to-date Powe plants, but keep the more dangerous older power plants active.

Please, choose one, outlaw it all or let it progress, anything less and it's their own fault if a disaster does happen.

[SgtMAD]

you should really take the time and read some of the news being blocked coming out of Japan,you can find it if you look every day, the japanese govt is actively killing news stories on the web about anything negative about the reactor accident and the aftermath.

the japanese are burning highly contaminated waste and letting the radioactive elements in the smoke rise into the atmosphere to be deposited on the ground whenever those particles interact with rain.

there are now reports and studies coming out reporting extremely high concentrations of radiation in sea algae off the coast and south of Japan and it is spreading farther south every day.

I gave you all the links but you are so sure of your industry provided facts that you refuse to read anything that might prove the industry is wrong

from http://enenews.com/



"Blackout: Japan media yet to mention radioactive baseball field in Tokyo — 4 times Chernobyl ‘contaminated’ levels — Parents, kids clueless

TOKYO, Oct. 16 — Tokyo residents are making some “unexpected discoveries” while searching for radiation, reports the Voice of America’s Steve Herman.

For example, “Just meters from where a hot spot of radioactive cesium was
confirmed days before by a private laboratory, a Little League baseball
game was underway Sunday.”

News of the ‘hot spot’ made the New York Times front page, but according to Herman, “it had yet to be mentioned in Japan’s mainstream media.”

In fact, players, their parents, and spectators were unaware that dirt here has “tested equivalent to four times the minimum level of the contaminated zones from the 1986 Chernobyl accident.”

Another hot spot was found at a children’s theme park in Chiba Prefecture, near Tokyo. The radiation there is “higher than in an evacuated village in Fukushima, 45 kilometers from the crippled plant.”

this is the kind of shit that is going to result in a huge spike in deaths in Japan,its the one thing that was learned during the exposures that happened in the 50' & 60's that small children are in much more danger from exposures that adults,I can find hundreds of articles from the japanese press that pretty much say the same thing is happening all over the country right now.

hell they have kindergarten age children playing on radioactive playgrounds.

so now pull up some more industry propaganda that says radioactivity is good for you, its out there, i have read that crap myself,I have also seen cemeteries full of victims that were told by the govt and scientists that fall out wasn't a problem and radiation isn't a big problem.

and if you dont believe me, go take a trip up the I-15 into southern Utah and take a look at the cemeteries and compare the dates on the tomb stones.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2011...279041000.html

"TEPCO after examining the robot inside the Unit 1 reactor building at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the radiation dose was measured extremely high 4700 millisievert per hour.
In Unit 1 of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the "melt down" and the other was believed to damage the reactor containment vessel and, in the basement of the reactor building has accumulated a large amount of high concentration of polluted water. TEPCO reactor building of Unit 1, in order to re-examine the first floor near the southeast side of the steam had come out from underground in the June survey, 13, put a radio-operated robot, radiation looked at the amount. As a result, in June 4000 was millisievert per hour at most, a survey by the 13th, still has a very high-value measures the amount of radiation 4700 mSv. Meanwhile, the steam was out in the June survey is that it was not confirmed. 4700 mSv, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in the building will be second only to the high value of 5000 mSv was measured at the second floor of Unit 1 in August. TEPCO, this high dose, to watch that is water vapor erupted because contaminated water trapped in the basement, future research also are considering the polluted water in the basement."

what makes this story funny is that Tepco and the govt still maintain that the reactor cores are still in the containment vessel,which is not located in the damn basement so what is making the water boil off if the cores are still contained?could it be that they are lying again?

I can link this crap all day,you cannot trust the operators of these nuc plants,they are more worried about their investments than your safety and they have the govt regulators in their pockets,so those same regulators can then leave that govt job and take one with the very industry that they were supposed to be regulating.

after reading that there is something in the basement of reactor 1 that is making water boil,the Japanese govt and Tepco still think they are getting accurate reading of core temps from the containment vessel which is containing absolutley zero at this point
---------------------------------------------
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_04.html


"The Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company say that a cold shutdown of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will be achieved by the end of this year.

It will be included in a revised timetable for containing the nuclear crisis that will be issued on Monday.

They say the temperatures around the No.1, No.2, and No.3 reactors are less than 100 degrees Celsius and the amount of radioactive material being emitted has dropped to about half the level of a month ago.

The latest survey showed estimated radiation levels of about 100 million becquerels per hour.

Also a giant polyester covering for the No.1 reactor building will be completed by the end of October.

The government and TEPCO say measures to achieve the state of a stable cold shutdown are progressing steadily.

On Monday TEPCO will submit to the government nuclear safety measures that will apply to its work to maintain a state of cold shutdown over the coming 3 years.

Goshi Hosono, the minister in charge of the nuclear disaster said in September that they would try to achieve cold shutdown by the end of this year. It had originally been planned for January next year.
Monday, October 17, 2011 05:54 +0900 (JST)"
-----------------------------------------------
the cores are now believed to be sinking into the ground and are spewing 4.7 sieverts out of cracks in the ground around building #1,thats 4700 millisieverts and the old "safe" level for plant workers was 20 millisieverts a year for 5 years,the japanese have since raised that level to 250 millisieverts lifetime exposure due to the fact that using the old levels would make it impossible to keep the disaster workers under that level.

the Japanese govt has gone out of its way to spread lies and cover up what is exactly going on since day one of this disaster,they are trying to cover up the real danger present in nuc power so they can eventually fire up the other 50+ reactors in the country.

[CutterJohn]

Allowing people to build in places with inadequate sea walls killed many, many thousands. Yet a nuclear reactor that has, so far, killed 5 people(none to radiation), despite taking on a tsunami and earthquake far beyond anything seen, recorded, or planned for for the past thousand years, is evil? No, that shows how goddamned safe we make them. That facility took far, far more than it was ever designed to, and largely survived. Some release of radioactive materials, yes, but it wasn't that horrible of an amount. Cancer rates for certain types of cancers will go up a few % for the next 50 years or so.

Gain some perspective. Of all the deaths attributable to the earthquake and tsunami, only a small fraction will EVER be due to radiation.

Originally Posted by Spectre

and it's only a matter of time before a nuclear reactor in the U.S. goes critical.

Minor nitpick: Its only a matter of time before EVERY nuclear reactor in the world goes critical. Almost all have done so, repeatedly and continuously. Many for decades.

Critical = The reactor is maintaining a self sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

Supercritical = the chain reaction is increasing with each generation

Subcritical = the chain reaction is not self sustaining and will die out.

[MadPenguin]

Since CutterJohn already said some words on your last response, I will for the 3rd time ask you what you think the alternative is. Its getting to the point where i think you dont have one. Which isnt suprising, since there isnt one.

I would also again re-iterate, this was a nuclear station build in 1971, and new ones are so much safer you wouldnt believe it, like i said above, terrorists could fly a commercial airliner into a new one and nothing would happen.

[CutterJohn]

You can fly a jet into an old one too. The advancements are in core geometry, not containment.

Had Fukushima Daiishi upgraded its batteries(most reactors of its design now have significantly longer battery backups) it would have been a much less severe casualty. Or if the tsunami had only been an extremely unheard of bad 20 meters, which is what was planned for, rather than the absolutely record shattering tsunami that actually occurred.

[Geist]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Minor nitpick: Its only a matter of time before EVERY nuclear reactor in the world goes critical. Almost all have done so, repeatedly and continuously. Many for decades.

Critical = The reactor is maintaining a self sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

Supercritical = the chain reaction is increasing with each generation

Subcritical = the chain reaction is not self sustaining and will die out.

Thanks for the correction. I vaguely remember that, but it's been a while since I actually looked into the science regarding nuclear reactors.

[MasterChief096]

I think its safe to say that we all agree that our species has done all this ass-raping to ourselves. For all of our brilliance, our technological triumphs, and our moments of greatness, energy was the one thing that we ignored.

Its not just about oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, hydrogen energy, wind energy, or water energy, its about the severe overpopulation we've allowed our world to come to.

During the Roman Empire, world population estimates range from 200-300 million people, an easily Earth-sustainable number. Humans have managed to "cheat" their way out of our various biological niches in the environment through the use of technology, which around the time of the industrial revolution allowed our population to exponentially increase until reaching where it is right now, approaching seven billion.

Overcoming this problem is going to take either an act of God, or a complete technological breakthrough the likes of which have never been seen. Most products in developed nations are entirely petro-based. Fertilizers for farms, plastics that protect food in the grocery store, the plastic components of my monitor that I stare at as I type this. If not directly a result of oil, everything is indirectly related to oil in terms of production. It was probably produced in a factory that was powered from electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.

If no technological breakthrough is achieved, I predict that the population of the planet would fall back down to where it was at around the year 1800, one billion. This number is sustainable in terms of our planet's ecosystems via using the remaining fuel reserves and old methods of agriculture and production.

There are alternatives now that can prolong our dependence on fossil fuels, but its not as easy as "build the alternatives." Its amazing how much economics is going to factor in to the future of our species.

Solar and wind is good. Wind less than solar. Wind doesn't generate nearly enough electricity to produce large quantities of energy that can be consumed. Locally, wind can be good for small towns and cities to alleviate some of the energy demand from larger urban areas.

Solar is excellent because it produces more energy than wind, and the sun is going to last millions of more years. The main drawback to solar is its price, and the fact that our planet rotates and it is not daytime all the time. This severely affects certain regions around the globe and their ability to utilize solar energy. Alaska for instance, might have trouble sustaining its state on solar power alone.

Nuclear provides a lot of energy, but obviously has the hazards associated with a meltdown, health, and/or terrorist attacks, as well as the price of upkeep, maintenance and security. Despite these drawbacks and objectively looking at the energy demands of the planet, it seems that more nuclear power plants need to be built to alleviate some of our demand for fossil fuels and provide us with the energy and money to eventually replace nuclear with more renewable sources.

The primary problem with all of these alternatives are shortages in the resources needed to build them. Lithium and other rare earth metals and elements are key components in any technological device (from my computer, to your cellphone, to the solar panel sitting on the roof of some of the buildings in my city).

In regards to nuclear, it is estimated that we only have enough Earth-bound uranium and other radioactive materials to last humanity another 28 years or so. Once again we see the effects of overpopulation and its implications on resource consumption becoming more and more apparent.

The proposed solution to avoid complete and total societal collapse as a result of exploiting this planet for its every last resource is not one that is easy to come by. We could just let it all happen. Allow 80% of the Earth's population to die when shit hits the fan, so that the rest of us can continue to grow humanity technologically. However, I'm sure this would sit well with the 80%.

The only viable solution I can think of is to have some harsher action being taken on the issue. Government's worldwide need to take a stricter stance on regulating fossil fuel and other natural resource consumption. Energy alternatives should be in a nation's top three priorities right now, if not the top priority. Lack of education is a huge issue in developed nations regarding this energy problem. Too many people get information from one source or not enough sources, and this creates a convoluted, biased interpretation of the problem at hand. Massive information programs should be instituted to let people become aware of the simple fact that the entire existence of our global society is dependent on energy, and keeping the amounts of energy we currently have available in the future.

In a way it is kind of sickening how an issue that threatens to destroy our entire civilization is so largely ignored by everyday people. I guess that's one of the negative effects of a good standard of living and technology. The youth in the developed nations are so busy having fun that they don't care to learn about the world's problems.

What viable future can I see happening that doesn't involve a negative collapse of society?

I can see a lot of the world's useless areas being utilized for renewable energy. Deserts in the Arizona and Nevada states, California, Texas, etc can all be utilized for solar energy. The Sahara can be utilized for solar energy. Once oil starts becoming depleted, middle eastern oil tycoons can shift production to producing solar plants all over the Middle East's deserts, essentially making them just as powerful in the new world of renewable energy as they were in the old one. China's Gobi desert can be utilized for solar. Numerous suburban houses can have solar panels attached to them. Windy regions and small towns and cities can take advantage of wind energy.

Is this future possible? Will there be enough rare earth resources to produce this vast amount of technological goodies that produce renewable energy? Will renewable energy allow for alternatives to plastics that are the backbone of certain markets? How will we package and safely store food without enough oil to produce these plastics? That question can't be answered. We have yet to find out if we have discovered every rare earth mineral deposit on the surface of the Earth.

There are two options: Technologically allow for renewable energy, or shrink world populations down to a level in which the amount of renewable energy that we can have is enough to provide a decent standard of living for this population. Either way, I think the human race will survive and retain mastership of Earth.

I'm actually writing a novel about the potential transitional phase of oil running out, and what the US might do and where world populations might end up. It's all very interesting stuff to just ponder about.

[Traak]

It's simple. Barring interference from other, external forces, the cheapest and safest power will be produced.

When we run outta fissile materials (Yeah, not anticipating that anytime soon) then we can use coal. Then wind. Then tides. When we run out of wind and tides, we can use solar.

After we have exhaust all possible sources, which will never, ever happen, then the price will just go up and we will get less power-hungry.

It's self-balancing.