Peak Oil Theory - Page 4

MadPenguin · 2011-10-21, 05:56 PM

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.

Im not sure who told you this, but i can tell you its wrong

. For fission, we have enough fuel to last 1000's of years, if we can crack fusion, we have enough lithium / tritium in the ocean to last 1,000,000's of years (at current consumption). If we only had enough fuel for nuclear to last 28 more years, there wouldnt be any point building any more plants, the ones we currently have would use it all up.

TRex · 2011-10-21, 06:22 PM

Interesting discussion.

I once read an article back in 1990's stating that it wasn't a case of being able to produce fuel from existing resources, but that demand would grow exponentially . The report stated that 2003 was the point where the equilibrium between supply output and demand could be sustained. Obviuosly we are way past the point where governments could have done anything to avert this .

If you ever did biology at school you may recall the exponential growth curve of bacteria in a petri dish. With finite resources and optimum growth medium , the population gradually multiplies , and the rate of increase per unit of time almost doubles to the point where the population achieves its peak , flat lines at this peak for a time then falls vertically back to below its initial population. Basically, the population used up all its resources, but more critically , the pollution and waste this high population produced acts with such toxicity only the mutated forms capable of living off the waste are left.

As someone stated , we use oil for everything , fertilizers to grow more and more food , oil to carry the food to populations. It's not the fuel , from whichever source now or the future that is used whether it be nuclear , solar, wind or whatever that is the concern . It's the growth in population that isn't sustainable. You can't eat an i-Pod .

Ironically , the huge mega corporations and fuel companies act like the Pied Piper and feed the desire to populate at an even faster rate . They've overtaken religions 'stick' and become the 'carrot' : why force people to do something when it's much simpler to let them think they need something else.

It may seem doomsday fortelling , but it is going to happen. Expect prices of fuel to be 2-3 times its current price by 2020. Expect more 'uprisings' and 'civil unrests' and so on in countries where it's deemed necessary to have more influence especially if there's any notable resource that needs to be made 'more available' for the corporations and their lobby-laden political arm. The daft thing is , people will vote for it , and spend their money likewise .

Turkeys never vote for Christmas , but Christmas happens regardless.

Quovatis · 2011-10-21, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

Im not sure who told you this, but i can tell you its wrong

. For fission, we have enough fuel to last 1000's of years, if we can crack fusion, we have enough lithium / tritium in the ocean to last 1,000,000's of years (at current consumption). If we only had enough fuel for nuclear to last 28 more years, there wouldnt be any point building any more plants, the ones we currently have would use it all up.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. 28 years is total BS. Maybe he meant that there is only 28 years worth of energy if 100% of the world used nuclear, but even then I think that's false. And yeah, I think we'll create fusion reactors in the next 100 years, and that will be a practically limitless supply of energy.

Sirisian · 2011-10-21, 08:59 PM

I don't think anything bad will happen. The price will rise and humans will switch to something else. Fairly simple. Hoping we build some modern nuclear reactors as mentioned. If we switch to fast charging electric cars nuclear and solar will be a nice direction.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-22, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. 28 years is total BS. Maybe he meant that there is only 28 years worth of energy if 100% of the world used nuclear, but even then I think that's false. And yeah, I think we'll create fusion reactors in the next 100 years, and that will be a practically limitless supply of energy.

It is complete BS. There are issues, of course, but the issue is one of production and the type of reactors we've researched, not supply.

-Uranium has not been prospected for even remotely as much as coal, oil, and natural gas for the past 50 years. Expected reserves are in the hundreds of years if we change nothing.

-Fuel is a tiny sum of the costs of operating a reactor. A tenfold increase in the price of uranium results in only doubling of the cost of electricity. This opens up a monstrous amount of new deposits. Thousands of years.

-Different reactor designs can take that several hundred thousands of tons of depleted uranium and turn it into fuel. Tens of thousands of years.

-For less than a tenfold increase in the cost of uranium, mining uranium directly from seawater becomes profitable, and the amount of dissolved uranium salt in seawater is absolutely ridiculous. Millions of years.

-Thorium can be used as a nuclear fuel as well, and is approximately 3x as abundant as uranium. Tens of millions of years.

The transition from fossil fuels will be somewhat painful, no doubt about it, but the planet has enough fissile materials for literally millions of years of 100% global energy production at current rates.

Baneblade · 2011-10-22, 11:10 AM

I think the real problem is not necessarily in energy production or vehicle fuels, but rather in all the secondary uses for fossil fuels.

Quovatis · 2011-10-22, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I think the real problem is not necessarily in energy production or vehicle fuels, but rather in all the secondary uses for fossil fuels.

You do know that only the waste products from crude oil refining to gasoline goes into making plastics, tar, etc, right (for the most part)? It's not like we're wasting oil to make these extra things.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-22, 06:28 PM

In part. The bigger concern is that burning it as a fuel wastes its use in the future for one of these other things.

Of course there are certainly methods of creating plastics and whatnot from other materials, they are just more expensive and can't compete with oil too much.

Lonehunter · 2011-10-22, 07:44 PM

No idea how long it will take, but it's obvious we'll run out of oil at some point. Could be hundreds of years, or 50. I honestly don't think we are capable of knowing which is true. But really the problem is oil in general. Using it that long effects the planet too much.

Baneblade · 2011-10-22, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

You do know that only the waste products from crude oil refining to gasoline goes into making plastics, tar, etc, right (for the most part)? It's not like we're wasting oil to make these extra things.

What made you think I didn't know that? Read what I said again.

Traak · 2011-10-22, 09:58 PM

Part of the reason the USA uses up everybody else's oil is so they will have plenty in the future.

MasterChief096 · 2011-10-23, 02:20 PM

Interesting. I did some research regarding the amount of Uranium left on the planet and found out that I was indeed wrong, but not by much. I guess old information that I researched a few years ago was superseded by new. Taken from wikipedia (I validated their reference however, for legitimacy):

The ultimate available uranium is believed to be sufficient for at least the next 85 years although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.

Now that's a bit more optimistic than what I had previously posted and within that 85 years we might figure out something else that's more renewable-based.

Geist · 2011-10-23, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

Now that's a bit more optimistic than what I had previously posted and within that 85 years we might figure out something else that's more renewable-based.

Like fusion. Everybody loves fusion.

MadPenguin · 2011-10-24, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

Interesting. I did some research regarding the amount of Uranium left on the planet and found out that I was indeed wrong, but not by much. I guess old information that I researched a few years ago was superseded by new. Taken from wikipedia (I validated their reference however, for legitimacy):

The ultimate available uranium is believed to be sufficient for at least the next 85 years although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.

Now that's a bit more optimistic than what I had previously posted and within that 85 years we might figure out something else that's more renewable-based.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-deposits-last

"According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total"

"Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time."

"And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent."

"First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies."

On a side note, some new reactors can even use thorium as fuel, so its not even just limited to uranium anymore. A couple of nice things about this is you cant make any kind of bomb in a thorium fueled nuclear station, and the waste is only radiotoxic for tens of years, instead of thousands of years.

I also read about thorium that the fuel cycle is inherently incapable of causing a meltdown according to the laws of physics; in nuclear reactor parlance, the fuel is said to contain passive safety features.

Edit: I've been doing some more reading on thorium and it sounds really good

CutterJohn · 2011-10-24, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

Edit: I've been doing some more reading on thorium and it sounds really good

Aside from needing several billions of dollars and several decades worth of R&D before commercial reactors could start being built.

The technology has promise, but its nowhere near ready or proven.