Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
pstarr wrote:
The reverse is nonsense. You do not use high-quality electricity to convert tar sand or shale to oil given the probability that you will use more of the newly-formed oil to actually mine the uranium.
You do when you get paid more for the oil than you would for the electricity.
pstarr wrote:
You know there are respectable, and reasonable studies that suggest uranium has a negative energy return when including the cost to find and process the fuel.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
To repost an older discussion about nuclear plant construction.
11/24/07 Why oil prices are at a record high
Quote:
Quote:
mkwin said:
The UK could replace its entire grids capacity with around 40 nuclear plants at a cost of $75 billion dollars. Over a 7 year build program thats just under $11 billion a year. i.e. Nothing for government that has a revenue of $900 billion. The issue with nuclear is not if it is affordable for the government, it clearly is, the issue is number 1 governments don't supply power to citizens and 2 is nuclear the most optimum choice.
Those estimates are how old? Of the 163 nuclear plants that have been built in the US and Britain, there has never been one completed on schedule or within budget. To image that all of a sudden that we have developed the capacity to build 40 nuks for $75 billion is hyperbola at best. In an era of soaring construction cost, resource depletion and qualified personal shortages in all fields, to say nothing of the political obstacles that would have to be overcome, such a feat would approach the capabilities of a magician.
Furthermore, within the 7 to 20 year period it would require for those plants to be completed, we will have fallen so far down Hubbert's curve, that it is likely that no large scale projects of any kind will be possible.
Quote:
Nuclear critic Alan Nogee of the Union of Concerned Scientists said, "The nuclear industry has never delivered a project on time and on budget."
The only thing worse than a delusion cornucopian, is an uninformed delusion cornunicopian!
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3908 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
shortonoil wrote:
To repost an older discussion about nuclear plant construction.
11/24/07 Why oil prices are at a record high
Quote:
Quote:
mkwin said:
The UK could replace its entire grids capacity with around 40 nuclear plants at a cost of $75 billion dollars. Over a 7 year build program thats just under $11 billion a year. i.e. Nothing for government that has a revenue of $900 billion. The issue with nuclear is not if it is affordable for the government, it clearly is, the issue is number 1 governments don't supply power to citizens and 2 is nuclear the most optimum choice.
Those estimates are how old? Of the 163 nuclear plants that have been built in the US and Britain, there has never been one completed on schedule or within budget. To image that all of a sudden that we have developed the capacity to build 40 nuks for $75 billion is hyperbola at best. In an era of soaring construction cost, resource depletion and qualified personal shortages in all fields, to say nothing of the political obstacles that would have to be overcome, such a feat would approach the capabilities of a magician.
Furthermore, within the 7 to 20 year period it would require for those plants to be completed, we will have fallen so far down Hubbert's curve, that it is likely that no large scale projects of any kind will be possible.
Quote:
Nuclear critic Alan Nogee of the Union of Concerned Scientists said, "The nuclear industry has never delivered a project on time and on budget."
The only thing worse than a delusion cornucopian, is an uninformed delusion cornunicopian!
Interesting how they conveniently ignored France which went from 3% to 80 % nuclear in 15 years. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
seldom_seen wrote:
As to the question of nuke plants. Please propose to us how the US pays for say 10-20 nuke plants?
The same way we would pay for coal plants complete with all of the latest emmisions technology (becasue that is about the only way they would be built anytime soon); investors and taxpayers alike.
I suppose you assume that we will not build many more coal plants either?
Just go quietly into the night?
Yup, that sounds like America _________________ Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
pstarr wrote:
You know there are respectable, and reasonable studies that suggest uranium has a negative energy return when including the cost to find and process the fuel.
Let me resubmit the question that resulted in your quick retreat form the last time I broke down what ERoEI actually means:
How can a coal power plant operate on a negative ERoEI and still make money?
I wonder if you will attempt to answer this time?
pstarr wrote:
My point was that tar sands and shale oil will not help prevent peak oil, regardless of the unlikely future of fission electricity.
Please direct me to where I made this claim one way or the other. _________________ Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
Tanada wrote:
Interesting how they conveniently ignored France which went from 3% to 80 % nuclear in 15 years.
Never let the facts ruin a good doomer discussion. _________________ Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
You are a one-trick pony jbecton. No one here wants to derail your professional ambitions. You will have your chance at the Springfield Nuclear Power plant.
In the meantime, no one here is debating uranium power. We are discussing uranium as a substitute (via tar sands and shale oil) for petroleum. KNOCK KNOCK IS ANYONE HOME HERE?
let me quote myself
myself wrote:
you jbecton still do no have a clue as to what eroie measures, nor of it's significance (especially as it declines) as a model of current social productivity and future wealth.
The less net energy that leaks out of a production system, the less work is available for the goods and services that drive our economy.
How can we produce anything if our energy goes into making energy. It is then not available for making toys and neat stuff? Kapeesh?
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
jbeckton wrote:
pstarr wrote:
You know there are respectable, and reasonable studies that suggest uranium has a negative energy return when including the cost to find and process the fuel.
Let me resubmit the question that resulted in your quick retreat form the last time I broke down what ERoEI actually means:
How can a coal power plant operate on a negative ERoEI and still make money?
I wonder if you will attempt to answer this time?
Still no answer?
All I hear is crickets!
Stop using terms that you do not understand such as ERoEI, you clearly have no grasp of the purpose this metric serves.
I should start charging you tuition for all of the things I have taught you. _________________ Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
Stop bickering, both of you are idiots
EROEI
Energy returned on energy invested.
How about including some statistics ? _________________ We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. Your culture will adapt to service ours. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
sciencegirl wrote:
Stop bickering, both of you are idiots
EROEI
Energy returned on energy invested.
How about including some statistics ?
The thing is, talking about EROEI w/o including the amount of energy put to good use is silly IMO. By that I mean how much energy goes into doing what a contraption's built for, and how much goes in superfluous directions.
An example is comparing something like the Aptera at about .1kWh/mile to the US passenger vehicle fleet at around 2kWh/mile[2]. They both have climate control, an entertainment system, GPS, etc... It's just that one was designed to efficiently do what most cars do most of the time, carry 2 people and a small amount of luggage, while the other was designed to carry 2-8 and a bit more luggage relatively inefficiently.
Talking about EROEI is fine, but it's moot IMO if 90%+ of the energy we're talking about ends up being wasted. If we were to look at the energy slave example, we may very well have quite a few of them, but for every ten we're having one do something constructive for us and the other nine run laps.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
sciencegirl wrote:
Stop bickering, both of you are idiots
EROEI
Energy returned on energy invested.
How about including some statistics ?
Thanks for clearling that mystery up.
Since we are both idiots perhaps you can answer the question:
If ERoEI is the defining factor in a process being useful or profitable, why does every coal/nuclear/gas power plant in the world continue to operate on a ERoEI much less than one and still make money?
I will give you a chance to anwser since you seem to be so enlightened. _________________ Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
jbeckton wrote:
why does every coal/nuclear/gas power plant in the world continue to operate on a ERoEI much less than one and still make money?
I will give you a chance to anwser since you seem to be so enlightened.
jbecton you must be confused when you conflate coal, gas, and nuclear into the same discussion, and that is understandable given in toxic nature of your workplace. (You might consider a blood test for lead and mercury.)
We know coal at least once had a positive eroei because it's use as a primary fuel source predates petroleum. But then it was mined with human, animal, and later steam labor. Whether modern open pit coal mines in remote locations dependent on diesel trucks and railroads could exist without the petroleum infrastructure is not certain.
Regardless, coal does display particular advantages that prompt it's use, (regardless of energy return) as a base-load fuel. It is cheap to store and you can dump it on the ground anywhere because it doesn't need expensive leak-proof containers. Liquid fuel storage is expensive and highly regulated. You can coal dump in your basement, or right next to a pristine river. No one cares.
Of course other fuels also possess specific characteristics (natural gas is responsive for peak load, nuclear fuel is great in bombs, etc.) that prompt their use as secondary fuel sources. None of them can or will become the primary fuel source of this petroleum-based society however.
We would need to completely remap our entire physical, economic, and social infrastructure to depend on rare and expensive electricity or constructed liquid petroleums. This redesign will be impossible during the post-peak economic contraction chaos that is approaching. That is not daylight you see at the end of the tunnel, not even the headlight of an onrushing (electric ) train, but the fires of a burning collapsing civilization. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Last edited by pstarr on Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
Quote:
jbecton you must be confused when you conflate coal, gas, and nuclear into the same discussion, and that is understandable given in toxic nature of your workplace. (You might consider a blood test for lead and mercury.)
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
Cyrus wrote:
Quote:
jbecton you must be confused when you conflate coal, gas, and nuclear into the same discussion, and that is understandable given in toxic nature of your workplace. (You might consider a blood test for lead and mercury.)
Where does jbecton work?
at a coal plant. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Matt Simmons: "you can’t climb back out of the hole
pstarr wrote:
Of course other fuels also possess specific characteristics (natural gas is responsive for peak load, nuclear fuel is great in bombs, etc.) that prompt their use as secondary fuel sources. None of them can or will become the primary fuel source of this petroleum-based society however.
What do you mean, quantitatively, by primary fuel source? _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
) train, but the fires of a burning collapsing civilization. 
