Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
GoIllini wrote:
But I think all of this is irrelevant. There won't be a die-off. The planet has a carrying capacity of 8 Billion if we get off the atkins' diet and switch to nuclear energy. And if we wind up with the average family having 1.8 children, as in a lot of European countries, we'll probably head back on down to 2-5 Billion.
Unfortunately, nuclear energy is a net energy loser, not to mention a toxic nightmare. If you do a bit more reading, you'll learn that the supply of Uranium for nuclear power isn't that great...especially the way we Westerners slurp through resources.
Also, more reading would reveal that the carrying capacity we seem to be enjoying is due to the temporary boost we're getting from oil, coal and natural gas. Once they begin to wane in supply, I think you'll find the actual earth carrying capacity of humans to be quite a bit lower than 8 billion.
Quote:
I hate to say it, but the annoying Westerners on this planet aren't going to go away. And heck, all of the farmland and natural resources that us obnoxious Americans have might allow us to become even bigger jerks.
Sounds like a karmic lightning strike just waiting to happen!
I'd feel way better about "all of the farmland" if we hadn't paved it over with roads, strips malls and the 'burbs. Or if we hadn't dogged the aquifers to death. Or if our farming methods hadn't destroyed the topsoil.
It might be that the survivors won't be a geographic or economic group, but those who can fit in ecologically on a severely damaged biosphere, and can do so without all of the "wonderful" Western technologies that got us to this bad spot in the first place.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
probably, but instead I'll give you "author."
Heinberg, Richard
he cites energy required to build, maintain, fuel, and ultimately dismantle, clean up and decontaminate, which are rarely discussed as part of the true cost of nuclear power.
We tend not to like the "cleaning up" aspect of a lot of our technologies, and the world is bursting with examples of that..
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
zeke wrote:
We tend not to like the "cleaning up" aspect of a lot of our technologies, and the world is bursting with examples of that..
Yes, we like to call them "externalized costs." _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Illinois
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
If you have a link showing nuclear to be a net energy loser I would like to see it. Sounds like BS to me.
MonteQuest wrote:
Probably the most cited solution for solving our energy crisis is instilling a conservation ethic into society and the economic engine. Conservation, by its very nature, is a self-induced recession on the economy. Increasing conservation always results in reduced economic activity. Each of the previous three oil shocks in the United States was followed by recession. In every oil shock, the US economy was at or near its “stall speed” when the oil shock occurred. From the cringes of the financial analysts as of late, nothing has changed. Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.
Assuming we did power down and are on the long road to a sustainable population, what do you propose we do with the throng of recently unemployed? _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
kublikhan wrote:
If you have a link showing nuclear to be a net energy loser I would like to see it. Sounds like BS to me.
Perhaps you have links to information which proves that nuclear is not a net energy loser.
Remember, we're talking about the whole equation here: not just the megawatts you get after the thing is built and while it's running at top efficiency, and before it becomes no longer useful, but with all of the energy inputs factored into the construction, maintenence, dismantling and cleanup/detox afterward. Not to mention the mining, refining, storage and shipping of the fuel, as well as the shipping, containment and storage of spent fuel.
MonteQuest wrote:
Assuming we did power down and are on the long road to a sustainable population, what do you propose we do with the throng of recently unemployed?
that's precisely one of the issues causing so much excess stomach acid these days....and not merely to do about "unemployment" which is more an oil-age concept, but how to feed, clothe and house a bunch of people who have few or no skills or resources to contend in a post-oil world.
we have a grossly oversize population right now, made possible by cheap fossile fuel inputs...a "free push" if you will, thanks to nature.
Subtract that support and that's when the crying begins. And you can't really fall back on the ways we might handle it now, because the rule book for the future hasn't even been written yet.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Illinois
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
zeke wrote:
Perhaps you have links to information which proves that nuclear is not a net energy loser.
Remember, we're talking about the whole equation here: not just the megawatts you get after the thing is built and while it's running at top efficiency, and before it becomes no longer useful, but with all of the energy inputs factored into the construction, maintenence, dismantling and cleanup/detox afterward. Not to mention the mining, refining, storage and shipping of the fuel, as well as the shipping, containment and storage of spent fuel.
As a matter of fact I do. Most estimates put the EROEI for nuclear in the 4:1 or 5:1 range:
EROEI EROI
Some highly pessimistic estimates put it as low as 1.86:1. And some highly optimistic estimates put it as high as 93:1:
EROEI of Nuclear
A value of 1:1 is break even, anything lower than 1 is net energy loss. I don't believe that 93:1 estimate, it seems the authors of the report were intentionally deceitful by not including the energy needed for enrichment. But not even the most pessimistic analysis got a value of lower than 1 for nuclear's EROEI. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
kublikhan wrote:
…But not even the most pessimistic analysis got a value of lower than 1 for nuclear's EROEI.
Well, that is sweet then. I just skimmed one of the pages you linked and it seems the actual numbers require an awful lot of "correcting" and "massaging" and that the numbers may be sexed up or down depending upon what the calculating person or entity wants to portray.
Let's knock around some other concepts, then.
Oil has given a return of 100 to 1...I'm sure it's not that now, but you can see that the closer it gets to 1:1, the stupider it is to pursue it. Put into every day words, the closer it requires one barrel of oil to recover and refine one barrel, the less sense it makes to continue that activity.
So, let's go with 1.86:1. I'd say if when we're getting oil out of the ground and the rate of return gets that low, things aren't going to be pretty. We won't have the kind of energy (or financial return) which has allowed us to "suspend the laws of physics" as we've done in our minds for generations. Life will be tougher then.
And as for some of the estimates being either pessimistic or optimistic, something stinks in there. Either they're doing an honest, exhaustive calculation or they aren't. Sounds like they might not be. Sounds like they might not WANT to factor in all the factors. Since the estimates vary wildly from one another, it sounds like some are playing fast and loose with the numbers to make things LOOK better with a little mathematical hoobidie-hoo.
Nature doesn't play that game. If you need 1400 calories per day to survive and all you come up with is 800 calories per day, you are going to die. period.
Right now, oil is relatively plentiful and is used to build and maintain all kinds of OTHER things; one of those other things is nuclear power plants.
If we build one today, and it lasts until 50 years from now, when most people agree that oil will be far less plentiful than it is today, how are you going to maintain and dismantle it?
Bikes? Horses? Wind?
If oil is really scarce then, society or governments will have to make some unhappy choices. What to cut? Sewerage? Defense? Agriculture? Fire, Police and Ambulance?
What about political corruption? Suppose some regional Boss decides he wants his own fleet of Humvee's to patrol "his" empire, and he hijacks oil meant for civic purposes?
Will oil be earmarked for running the nuke plants? For handling unforeseen nuke plant accidents?
What happens if, in the oil-poor future, we get our own Chernobyl, owing to lack of equipment or energy, or skilled manpower, and we have a containment and evactuation scenario?
Relocating people and industry from that immediate area is going to require energy, too; more so than if they'd been able to live and work peacefully by the olde nuke plante throughout it's lifespan.
Also, while the nuke plant is operational, it still takes equipment powered by oil to contribute to its continued operation, and the more oil it takes to recover the oil used as fuel, the higher the cost to run them, and therefore, the nuke plant.
Maybe the 1.86:1 people have this all factored in, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a nuke plant during a time when it's safe maintenance and operation were compromised.
Now, rather than invest all of that "technology" and resources into a type of energy plant which delivers dubious rewards, why not let's all of us use our big, giant brains and learn how to live more and more on immediate sunlight?
...rather than going to silly, desperate lengths to keep things going as they are now?
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
kublikhan wrote:
Assuming we did power down and are on the long road to a sustainable population, what do you propose we do with the throng of recently unemployed?
Cut wages and reemploy them. In other words, 10 people making $10/hr is now 20 people making $5/hr.
Give up our energy slaves.
Idle the machines and give up the speed. Let manual labor return. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6
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
