YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[russ_watters]

I don't really know what a carpool lane is? I went searching into the dictionary what a carpool is but can't find a translation...

Some cities have special lanes for cars carrying 2 or more passengers. When a group of people get together and take turns driving each other to work, that's a carpool.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Some cities have special lanes for cars carrying 2 or more passengers. When a group of people get together and take turns driving each other to work, that's a carpool.

Thanks for the information. It's really intersting and an imaginative solution.

Now i can answer what Cliff said more properly regarding carpool lanes.
It does sounds good the idea of people who are not qualified paying to have access to this lane but in practise i don't see it working properly because a great amount of people either would join that system and pay to use the lane and therefore congestionating both the carpool lane and the other lanes or people wouldn't simply join and making this new method useless. I am taking into account that people would vote "yes" primarly, but of course they vote yes as an opinion that it would work but they aren't necessarly going to use it.

This could work however if it's set up a maximum of users that don't qualify but want to pay to use the carpool lane so that there isn't a saturation in the special lane, and as i see it this is the only solution that could work because it would prevent the system to become pointless. In the beginning the number of users should be an estimative and then if this works properly the number of users should be adapted to the time of the year and the results of the first test.

And i don't see this being discriminatory.


Rui M.

 

[tumor]

I don't think there is any real energy crisis,everything is made for profit.We could switch at any moment to the hydrogen or some other form of cleaner economy ,but
as long as oil makes more money for energy companies,humanity will live in misery.

 

[Cliff_J]

Rui - my bad on the word confusion - I thought carpool would be easier than High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane. Sometimes its too easy to assume..

The basis of congestion pricing is supply-demand and the author won a Nobel Prize for economics. Here's a page that has a link to the PDF of his paper (verbose) near the bottom and a link to his guidlines right after it and the guidlines is far easier to read.
http://www.vtpi.org/0_price.htm

In short, the price is set high enough to keep the usage low. Somewhere in California they have this system implemented and while more than half the motorists have the ability to pay to use the carpool lane it is still well below saturation. A survey revealed that most people purchased it as a backup in case they were late for work or congestion was bad and it would be worthwhile to pay the $3 or whatever fee on that day but otherwise they use the regular lanes. Computers monitor the carpool lane and the price is adjusted to keep the traffic level appropriate in that lane to keep all the cars moving at the speed limit or better.

I don't see discrimination either but there are deep historic wounds that have yet to be resolved by some. That's pretty common anywhere, especially when times are tough and blame is assigned to the usual suspects.

Maybe instead of saying "think globally, act locally" it should have just been "think globally, act globally" so people would think of things more as a system instead of discrete elements. Once everything is reduced to pieces its easy to be selfish and get local optimization but hurt the overall system. Where's my magic wand...

I think the idea of increased nuclear power production is a very good use of technology and resources with low costs (unlike solar with its hidden costs of manufacturing the panels). But the implementation challenge is massive, 3 mile Island and Chernobyl were very well covered by the media and the Chernobyl site is still a mess. All a politician would need to say is "...do you want that in your backyard..." and emotion overrules intelligent discussion about the real dangers.

Cliff

 

[4newton]

Solutions

There is no energy problem there is just a political problem. Any government that has not provided for the future needs of the country is a failure. Any government the uses restrictions, limits, conservation, or rationing to solve a problem that it has all the resources for is a failure.

We have and have had for over 50 years all the energy that we will ever need for the next 2000 years or more. Only by political pressure from shortsighted Dark Age intellectuals have we failed to develop this energy.

Nuclear power is the answer.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no energy problem there is just a political problem. Any government that has not provided for the future needs of the country is a failure. Any government the uses restrictions, limits, conservation, or rationing to solve a problem that it has all the resources for is a failure.

We have and have had for over 50 years all the energy that we will ever need for the next 2000 years or more. Only by political pressure from shortsighted Dark Age intellectuals have we failed to develop this energy.

Nuclear power is the answer.

That is true except for what to do about cars and ships. They would still need to be converted over to some form of electric power - battery, fuel cell, or other. That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

 

[Aquamarine]

That is true except for what to do about cars and ships. They would still need to be converted over to some form of electric power - battery, fuel cell, or other. That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

Nuclear energy is an excellent way to generate hydrogen as a fuel for transportation:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf70.htm

But hydrogen has lots of problems, this may be a better solution:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

About other energy sources:

Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.

In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Cliff,

Thanks for the information. That's a good system for the carpool lane then, very intersting and imaginative.
I took a look at the site you provided and also saw some information on what London did when was decided to keep cars out of the center of the city and for what i read it seems other cities are trying to implement this system which also seems a good idea.

I think the idea of increased nuclear power production is a very good use of technology and resources with low costs (unlike solar with its hidden costs of manufacturing the panels).

I don't know exactly what are the hiden costs of manufacturing the panels. I can tell you again about that solar central in Portugal and the investor is private and not a big company. And the production of solar panels is getting bigger, i think Greece leads the production.

That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

As i see it and many other people see it converting all of the gas, oil and coal power to nuclear (or other any energy source) is a big mistake. The reason for this is very simple, the uranium reserves are not ilimited and we would eventually fall into the same problems of finding alternative energy sources and the problem of oil dependacy that many countries suffer today would become a uranium dependacy. I'm not saying that nuclear power shouldn't be used at all, I'm saying, as i said before, energy sources should be diversified, its benefical for everyone.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Saying that the peak of oil production will be in 50-100 years is completely irrealistic. First the oil reserves are not estimated to last that long, second as time goes by the oil available decreases and because of the decrease in the reserves and the oil demand that increases every year the price will go up to a value making oil useless, a simple law of market.



Rui M.

 

[Cliff_J]

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

I'd say its pretty universal and the media did nothing for it with the 3MI and Chernobyl coverage (even though that could use more to help raise money to fix it before it gets worse). Its like what the movie Jaws did for public perception of sharks and so on. As a kid I remember both being mentioned a lot and no one mentioned the pollution and deaths from other power generation. Maybe because of the vested interest in the coal production in the state and economic benefit of keeping that industry around.

Ever watch the Penn & Teller show on Showtime? Its entertaining and thought-provoking as they examine both sides of an issue (and then poke fun at one side). The show they did on recycling was very interesting as it was based on a paper that showed recycling as a waste of resources. They brought up the barge in the 80s as a media event that worked well with an EPA report that said the number of landfills was decreasing (without mention of the size of the landfills). Their point was how we have been tricked by subsidies and inaccurate information that leads us to support a wasteful activity. The only thing they said they supported was aluminum recycling and made no mention of industrial recycling which both have clear numbers (and with aluminum the electricity needed to convert bauxite is staggering).

Aquamarine - that was an awesome link for biodiesel. If you've ever driven through farmland in the US its amazing how much productive land the government pays farmers to keep idle that could easily be turned into production for energy purposes. At least they've started testing something:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/biomass00.htm

But I think it would be an easy sell to the population that such a readily available source is already in their backyard and under-utilized. I especially like the EROI method of determining the viability of a fuel source. And since the sulfur content of biodiesel should be low (ignorance?) then pollution would easily be on par with current vehicles without many modifications.

My question would be why Europe with its far higher diesel car density hasn't made progress to adopt biodiesel when their fuel prices are so incredibly high in comparison to the US? I know that Britian has made efforts to switch cars over to LPG, but this seems so much easier (assuming people drive diesels).

Cliff

 

[hitssquad]

Price of fuel vs that of taxed fuel and price of biodiesel vs that of diesel

My question would be why Europe with its far higher diesel car density hasn't made progress to adopt biodiesel when their fuel prices are so incredibly high in comparison to the US?

Before-tax mineral fuel prices in Europe are about the same as they are in the US. Fuel taxes in Europe are higher, though, making the pump price higher:

• taxes comprise $2.82 of the $4.07 gallon in France, $2.56 of the $3.91 gallon in Germany, and $2.53 of the $3.97 gallon of fuel in Italy. In the U.S., fuel taxes comprise about 39 cents of the average $1.64 gallon of gas.

What is high everywhere is the before-tax price of biodiesel in comparison with that of mineral diesel. This would help explain why, in Europe, mineral diesel is preferred over biodiesel.

 

[Aquamarine]

More on Biodiesel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

But I think it would be an easy sell to the population that such a readily available source is already in their backyard and under-utilized.

There seems already to be a growing grassrot interest, this forum is quite active:
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/default.asp

A somewhat optimistic thread, "Can oil producing algae be grown at home ?"
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3414

 

[Cliff_J]

Umm, I just watched part of a program on the History channel about what happened at 3 Mile Island. I almost change my vote from nuclear to anything else after that, no wonder the population doesn't want more nuclear plants after the extremely poor planning by the designers and actions by the company running the plant. After the first nuclear power plant ran by the military had its problems I guess I assumed there would be better planning, but I guess maybe even partial ignorance is bliss.

Cliff

 

[russ_watters]

Could you be more specific as to what the program said, Cliff_J - I studied the TMI incident in school and the conclusion I drew is that the incident shows how safe nuclear power is.

 

[gech]

No real solution

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html .

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.

 

[Aquamarine]

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html .

The usual malthusian scenario that have always been wrong before. The link contains gross inaccuracies.

There is enough nuclear fuel to last at least thousands of year. Certainly enough time to get into space and to build an economy based on solar power:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46366

Read my prior links on biodiesel. The price of fuel for transportation can rise but not more than to the cost of producing biodiesel.

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.

This is of course what the extreme environmentalists want, energy crises or not. They hope for a breakdown of the capitalistic society which will create a socialistic/anarchistic utopia.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

There is enough nuclear fuel to last at least thousands of year. Certainly enough time to get into space and to build an economy based on solar power:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46366

I just took a look at the links you provided. The first report from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency is highly speculative. Sometime ago i found several reports stating that even taken into account the unknown and undiscovered uranium resources, at current rate of uranium consumption, it would last around 150 years. So current estimates (with current comsuption of uranium) project that uranium use should end around 2060 or so.

Another problem is the geographical distribution of the uranium reserves, which the same report makes believe that they are more well distributed then oil. The uranium reserves are well localized and that would take us back to the dependence problem, not counting with the processing of the uranium, which only a few countrys have the technology.

But let me say again that I'm not against or in favor of new nuclear plants, i do am against, like i already stated on this thread, substituting all the oil and coal plants for nuclear plants. For obvious reasons it would be better economically and socially that the energy resources of one country isn't based primarly on one type of energy but on several.

On a final note regarding oil and uranium dependance, just because one country is rich in a determined energy source it doesn't mean they will use it before using another country resources. Thats what's happening in the US, they don't have the need to import has much oil has they do, the US has one of the biggest oil reserves, they do this to prevent a faillure on import oil supply and to make sure the US will have enough oil to use when the world reserves are low.



Rui.

 

[Aquamarine]

More on the supply of uranium and thorium:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm

The only way to get the low supply figures quoted by the malthusians is to ignore thorium, breeder technology and that higher higher uranium prices will automatically increase economically usable resources.

On other other power sources:

Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.

In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power, however important they may become in particular areas with favourable conditions

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm

This may change if hydrogen or other ways to store massive amounts of energy ever becomes feasible. But even so there will energy lost converting to and from storage.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

The only way to get the low supply figures quoted by the malthusians is to ignore thorium, breeder technology and that higher higher uranium prices will automatically increase economically usable resources.

I certanly am not ignoring thorium or how technology will evolve through the years. What I'm saying is that those reports are very speculative (also including the last links provided), it's easy to see that.
And regarding proven and estimated uranium resources the main problem is not their physical limitation but their economical limitation, as the uranium price starts to get higher (and it will also suffer peaks of high cost due to many unpredictable factors) it won't automatically increase the investment on new technology to make use of other type of high cost uranium resources. This is what is happening with oil. With a current elevated oil price no one is investing on new technlogy to extract other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources, simply because there are many factors involved, it's not that linear. I'm not saying this on what i assume because I'm not an economist but I'm saying this based on reputed economists and not some malthusian theory from the 18th century.


Rui.

 

[Aquamarine]

I certanly am not ignoring thorium or how technology will evolve through the years. What I'm saying is that those reports are very speculative (also including the last links provided), it's easy to see that.
And regarding proven and estimated uranium resources the main problem is not their physical limitation but their economical limitation, as the uranium price starts to get higher (and it will also suffer peaks of high cost due to many unpredictable factors) it won't automatically increase the investment on new technology to make use of other type of high cost uranium resources. This is what is happening with oil. With a current elevated oil price no one is investing on new technlogy to extract other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources, simply because there are many factors involved, it's not that linear. I'm not saying this on what i assume because I'm not an economist but I'm saying this based on reputed economists and not some malthusian theory from the 18th century.

Those new technologies are less speculative than those required for a hydrogen economy or for other power sources. There have already been functioning breeder and thorium reactors.

And in contrast to oil, uranium is ubiquitous in nature. There will not be a sudden decrease as when large oil fields deplete. Just a slow conversion to minerals with lower concentration of uranium.

Regarding uranium price, if it increases, it will greatly increase available resources without have a large effect on final energy price.

The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

 

[Cliff_J]

Could you be more specific as to what the program said, Cliff_J - I studied the TMI incident in school and the conclusion I drew is that the incident shows how safe nuclear power is.

Sure, here's what I remember.

General maintenence ends up causing something to go wrong. Ok, no big problems.

Pressure builds up and a safety vent allows excess pressure to escape. Still no problem.

Safety vent sticks but light in control room goes out as computer merely tells them the signal was sent and not the position of the valve. The pressure drops allowing more coolant to evaporate and temperature rises.

Somewhere in the operator training to never let the reactor "go solid" by completely filling with water and the vibrating pumps from low water level the operators drop the control rods and completely shut off flow of water.

Designers are unreachable by phone, NRC is unable to get in as only one phone line exists and all they get are busy signals.

Power company lies to NRC and public (repeatedely) and downplays extent of problem (no idea on timing here, memory fuzzy). The lies told here seem to be only one step shy of the Soviet government's intial lies about Cherynobl but I digress.

Designers of reactor finally get through and tell operators to turn on water, forget the "go solid" or not just get some water in there to get temperature down. Temp gauges only go to 700F but reactor is at 4000F and reaches china syndrome at 5000F and has been sitting without coolant for 15 hours. Estimates are that 30-60 mins more without coolant would have been threshold for meltdown.

Carter sends out a direct person from NRC to run the show, finds that now the long running reaction has filled containment room with lots of H2 that could easily explode. Some NRC people thinks its nearly critical, others think its days away. Carter flies out and makes on-site visit since he trusts his man and has experience with nuclear subs in navy. Later NRC people find mistake in calculations and find H2 is days away from critical.

One person tries to go in and finds water inside reactor that is to be pure is actually green and bubbling, holding a beaker of it for a few minutes would have killed him and that he measured 10,000 REMs which they said was a lot. Nothing besides robots has gone into building since.

So here is my short list of issues I compiled from the show:

- Poor training where 'go solid' was placed above meltdown
- unclear control interface (light that goes out regardless of valve position)
- gauges that do not allow monitoring of temperature (although if its that hot shouldn't common sense overrule 'go solid'??)
- no CC cameras at all to see vent or inside the reactor or even the flooded basement as the vent leaked out the water
- one phone line
- no direct communication to designers

Obviously I've left stuff out and maybe got a couple things out of order but anyways it didn't paint a real safe picture of what happened. The message of the shows was that ignorance, complacence, and confidence in technology leaves us vulnerable to failures. They mentioned that the promise was that nuclear power was suppossed to produce electricity so cheap that it wouldn't make sense to meter it. The series of shows went on to feature the Kursk as the sign the russian military lacked the funds to maintain an advanced sub and the space shuttle as a sign that NASA implemented policies that placed frequent missions over the safety of the crew.

The NRC and all nuclear facilities are suppossed to have learned from the mistakes made and implemented changes to make things safer. But 3MI and Chernobyl are separated only be severity and luck in the historic TV shows I've seen and this show shocked me at how close we came to a meltdown.

Cliff

 

[Aquamarine]

Obviously, there is always the risk of a serious accident. But the new generations of plants will have greatly reduced risks:

The greatest departure from second-generation designs is that many incorporate passive or inherent safety features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.
* Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety depends only on physical phenomena such as convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm

But even today, the risk associated with realistic alternatives like coal are much greater than for nuclear. Both in the form of increased diseases like cancer and effects like global warming.

And to not find replacements for oil and gas means the starvation and death for most of humanity.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Those new technologies are less speculative than those required for a hydrogen economy or for other power sources. There have already been functioning breeder and thorium reactors.

And in contrast to oil, uranium is ubiquitous in nature. There will not be a sudden decrease as when large oil fields deplete. Just a slow conversion to minerals with lower concentration of uranium.

Regarding uranium price, if it increases, it will greatly increase available resources without have a large effect on final energy price.

Are less speculative? I would say the speculation is likely the same. I am aware of the new technology for new nuclear reactors but the technology to provide a constant supply of uranium for a very good amount of time is highly speculative. What would be the point to search for an alternative to oil if the resources for the alternative presented ends around the same time oil ends. But let me clarify, I'm not excluding nuclear energy here, what i said already is to make sure there are wider sources of energy available.

Now, economists predict the price will go up, nevertheless, and i'll repeat again what i said, it's not linear or automatic that the new technology will appear if the prices go up, this is a wrong assumption, i already mentionated a concrete example. You actually have a contradiction here, if before you assumed that the uranium price will go up, now you're saying IF it goes up.

And it's also wrong to assume that the final energy price won't suffer a large effect, I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying you are, again, assuming. Economy can be very complex but it follows simple rules and there are many impredictable factors that we cannot prevent, but don't confuse me with a negativist, this is just what many specialists say, not to mention this is merely common sense.

But back to the uranium availability. Sure that uranium is ubiquitous on nature, but that doesn't mean it is possible to make use of all of the mineral. Even the site you provided doesn't make a direct connection. Uranium reserves are well localized, not to mention that there isn't the necessity of many uranium processing facilities as there are for oil refining.


The question would be, in my opinion, with the available uranium we have and the capacity to recycle spent fuel (for a maximum of an estimated number of cycles with spent fuel), with other energy sources and other measures already discussed in this thread, how can we reach a more well equally balanced energetic system?


Rui.

 

[Aquamarine]

Regarding oil exploration, you are wrong. It is increasing due to higher prices:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041031/BUSINESS/410310305/1046

If you accept breeder technology as you say, using only today's totaly certain and economically usable resources gives 50x60 = 3000 year of uranium. Adding thorium and much more uranium with slightly higher prices and more exploration gives much higher numbers.

I agree that we should certainly look at all alternatives, all the way from hydrogen to tides to helium on the moon. But if peak oil is happening this decade, or have already happened, coal and nuclear are the only technology already realistically available. With biodiesel making a contribution as transportation fuel.

Actually, since I am a libertarian, I am not advocating any state intervention. Stop excessive regulatiions of the energy sector, stop subsidaries, stop unequal taxes. Let the best alternative(s) win and let the market decide.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Regarding oil exploration, you are wrong. It is increasing due to higher prices:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ap.../410310305/1046

If you accept breeder technology as you say, using only today's totaly certain and economically usable resources gives 50x60 = 3000 year of uranium. Adding thorium and much more uranium with slightly higher prices and more exploration gives much higher numbers.

You're either not well informed or you just took a quick look at what i have been writing. The site you provided shows that new oil wells are being drilled, but some posts ago i said "other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources" not the traditional and familiar oil wells, on these un-familiar oil resources it's included the bituminous sands (i don't know if that's the correct name in english) - which Canada has a high level of proven reserves or the freezen gas contained in the bottom of the sea at very long depths, and this types of resources require a new type of technology which is estimated to be of a very high cost.

And this not to mention that the article doesn't make a direct relation or any relation at all that the new technology appeared because of the high oil price. They say that a conjugation of factors, in which are included the high price, new technologies and tax incentives provide a boost in profits, they never say that the high price caused all that, they clearly say that the high price directly and obviously improves profits.
Of course that there is new technology, it evolves every year, but there isn't available any technology capable to extract other forms of reserves, this technology costs a lot of money, it's not profitable.
And this is what happens with the estimated uranium reserves for which most of them would become only available if a high cost technology is developded, and what I'm trying to say here is that uranium reserves to last thousands of years are for the moment irrealistic and that the technology necessary to make use of those reserves don't automatically appear if the price goes up.

Regarding the breeder reactors i said i was not ignoring them but i also said that the site in which you are basing what you're saying is very speculative (not to say biased). But let me repeat one thing, what i said is that the limitation for the use of nuclear plants is the physical available uranium (and this has to do with the technology which i already discussed) and the economical limitation of the mineral, and not, if the new types of reactors can have a more effecient energy production, but let's not be fooled, this higher efficience doesn't make wonders, even BNFL admits that.

Let me also add that if the country where i live presented a project to implent a nuclear central i would support it. We don't have any nuclear central, there was a plan to build one about 30 years ago but unfortunally the activits had a very big impact in the public.


Rui.

 

[russ_watters]

The NRC and all nuclear facilities are suppossed to have learned from the mistakes made and implemented changes to make things safer. But 3MI and Chernobyl are separated only be severity and luck in the historic TV shows I've seen and this show shocked me at how close we came to a meltdown.

What they don't tell you on those shows is that not only did all of those things need to go wrong in order for the situation to have gone as far as it did (an extrodinarily unlikely string of concurrent failures), but the design differences between Chernobyl and TMI (such as a concrete reactor building) made what happened at Chernobyl utterly impossible at TMI.

Essentially, they had about everything that could go wrong go wrong and still there was no significant release of radiation. That's why I think it validates the safety of American nuclear reactors.

 

[Chronos]

US reactor designs are extremely safe. Add up all the years of operation compared to 'disasters' [think TMI]. NASA would be more than proud to have such a safety record. The politics of nuclear power are a greater threat to public safety than the technology.

 

[Cliff_J]

Funny thing about watching some of these TV shows about historic failure is the "lesson" to be learned from the incident(s). Some things have the string of concurrent failures and some have single points of weakness. Hindsight may be 20/20 but the shows really don't stretch things too much to make parallels between failures.

The TMI show depicted a place designed and operated with the arrogance that no more than one failure mode would occur. I wouldn't expect redundancy on a safety valve or other items involved but lack of monitoring and training/communication on how to read the remaining indicators is frightening. The same shows on the space shuttle disasters need not search to find previously silenced people who were concenered about the particular failure modes before they occured.

I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant about the exact workings of a nuclear power reactor and the failure modes of each piece and how that translates to a catastrophic event. But my faith that all efforts are made to keep things safe is most definitely tempered by the actions of the people involved. For TMI, what if Carter had been overseas? In 15 hours at least one shift change would have been scheduled to occur, an operator couldn't have gone to a nearby phone in a non-stop attempt to reach the designers?

And I'm not saying that the top would have blown off the reactor like Chernobyl at TMI, but according to the show once the China Syndrome is reached at 5000 degrees that the core would melt its way through the containment structures and into the Earth below it. My understanding is that Chernobyl did this and its effects are still measureable in rivers miles away. That's much more sinister than reading Feynman's arguements about the amount of radioactive particles in the air, that nuclear pollution would enter the food supply and would need to be monitored very closely. We can't even agree if genetically enhanced grains or growth hormone feed livestock are totally safe. Or maybe I read too much chaos theory stuff.

Sure the nuclear power industry might pass a Six Sigma test, but man did they group plenty of failures into one incident. I agree that about everything that could go wrong at TMI did and with about as long a time between action/inaction as would ever be imaginable. And how that the control rods did their job (learned from that early army reactor failure?) which was a huge design asset, the containment building minimized leaks and risks so its another asset, and so on. But the human factor scared me the most with the outright lies given by the power company and the lack of urgent action. There are plenty of examples where an designer/engineer would "...go down with the ship..." but TMI is an example to me of an incident where if the engineers had been on-site from the beginning reactor #2 would still be operational.

The best design can be messed up by poor decisions by the wrong people and NASA has unfortunately become its own case-study in this phenomenon. And in short that is my concern, not that 8 inches of high-carbon steel was used here or other design considerations, but that the people running the show need to be as good as the design.

 

[tumor]

Big changes demand small steps from each of us:

 

[russ_watters]

Big changes demand small steps from each of us:

I'm a big fan of compact-fluorescents - 10x the life and a quarter of the energy use.

 

[CharlesP]

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today. My take on the two articles is two sentences: There is no possible solution to the energy crisis. The only way to avoid large scale loss of life is to immediately implement a strong population reversal program world wide (especially in the USA). (That means possibly the Chinese, one child per family, method.)

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

 

[hitssquad]

Albert Bartlett's campaign

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today.

Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

Nuclear fission was ruled out in terms of maintaining a worldwide hedonic pact at present population growth rates; or nuclear was ruled out in terms of being able to power individual diverse http://www.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm groups? The former sounds plausible.

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

 

[Aquamarine]

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today. My take on the two articles is two sentences: There is no possible solution to the energy crisis. The only way to avoid large scale loss of life is to immediately implement a strong population reversal program world wide (especially in the USA). (That means possibly the Chinese, one child per family, method.)

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

Many responses here:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p12.html

For example,

Paul Weisz's article on long−term energy supplies (Physics Today, July 2004, page 47) states that uranium resources with breeder reactors could provide the world's energy needs for "hundreds of years." That is a gross underestimate. The world's energy needs could be provided by uranium−fueled breeder reactors for the full billion years that life on Earth will be sustainable, without the price of electricity increasing by more than a small fraction of 1% due to raw fuel costs.1

The error in Weisz's calculation is that he is referring to uranium available at its present price, $10−20 per pound. But in breeder reactors, 100 times as much energy is derived from a pound of uranium as in present−day light water reactors, so we could afford to use uranium that is 100 times as expensive.

The cost of extracting uranium from its most plentiful source, seawater, is about $250 per pound—the energy equivalent of gasoline at 0.13 cent per gallon! The uranium now in the oceans could provide the world's current electricity usage for 7 million years. But seawater uranium levels are constantly being replenished, by rivers that carry uranium dissolved out of rock, at a rate sufficient to provide 20 times the world's current total electricity usage. In view of the geological cycles of erosion, subduction, and land uplift, this process could continue for a billion years with no appreciable reduction of the uranium concentration in seawater and hence no increase in extraction costs.


Reference
1. B. L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983).

Not that we need that many years. We need only enough time to get into space and really start using the greatest fusion reactor, the Sun.

 

[urbsurfer]

There are a few fundamentals to energy usage and how to effectively supply more energy demand while the source of energy is reducing as in oil and becoming increasingly toxic and costly such as nuclear production and waste.

So breaking down the utiliation of energy into transportation, manufacturing, and lifestyle; what are the alternatives?

The alternatives for electrical requirements are soon coming to market. See production ready devices such as www.blacklightpower.com[/url], perendev magnetic motor/generator, and Beardens MEG motionless electromagnetic generator. Look at all of J Naudins work and tests and working devices from people all over the globe. [url]http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm[/URL]. Join the free energy yahoo group.

The alternatives for transportation are near as well. The disclosure project, the searle effect generator and offshoot technologies, impulse drive technology, propellentless propulsion devices, flash hydrogen generators.

The lifestyle of using energy in our daily lives is something that will only grow over time. So we must enact these pioneering technologies now to perfect them and reduce the costs for the masses to adopt.
Imagine the possibility that within the next ten years you will be able to use a magnet only motor to propel a vehicle 300mph at altitude and have the same magnetic motor provide the electricity needed onboard without having to stop running for 25 years.
The state of CA spends billions and billions on fixing and adding asphalt to our state. If they routed just 20% of those funds to technologies mentioned above, we could be in an energy surplus in 10 years.
Take a look at the flash hydrogen generator from [url]www.emergingtec.com[/url]. Runs your car on water or seawater and the only byproduct is purified water. I have mine on order when they start production.
I am crafting a inertial drive mechanism for propellantless propulsion which runs on electricity. Combine that with a free energy magnetic motor = unlimited range, unlimited direction, unlimited exterior conditions (undersea, air, space). Any body want one?

 

[CharlesP]

Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Biomass/alcohol is insufficient land area. Photovoltaic is too expensive. Coal is forbidden because of greenhouse. Wind energy is only local because of infrastructure. It has been a forgone conclusion since the 70's that humanity will be greatly diminished when this is all over.

 

[hitssquad]

Paul B Weisz in the July Physics Today on long-term energy

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today.

Page 53, Albert Bartlett. Were there two articles?

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

It got lost? The July 2004 Physics Today is right http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html , and it says there are two articles on long-term energy. One is by Albert Bartlett, and the other is by Paul B. Weisz. The only issue with regard to nuclear fission mentioned by Weisz is finite uranium resources. He ignores the uranium resources present in the oceans and incorrectly states that breeder technology would be required in order to extend uranium supplies beyond a few decades' worth.

What were the details of Bartlett's ruling out of nuclear fission (in terms of whatever purpose)?

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time.

This is solvable via mass production and possibly by routing around, via free enterprise, government red tape.

Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

One way to deal with radionuclide fear might be to desensitize the public with regular radionuclide releases at randomly-selected spots around the country. Since easily-obtainable chemicals exist that protect against radiation-induced biological damage, this would not necessarily harm anyone.

 

[CharlesP]

The July 2004 Physics Today is right http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html , and it says there are two articles on long-term energy. One is by Albert Bartlett, and the other is by Paul B. Weisz. The only issue with regard to nuclear fission mentioned by Weisz is finite uranium resources. He ignores the uranium resources present in the oceans and incorrectly states that breeder technology would be required in order to extend uranium supplies beyond a few decades' worth.

That comeback is not helpful because Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Thanks for the URL. I notice they hid Bartlett. I am getting tired of all this APS members stuff.

This is solvable via mass production and possibly by routing around, via free enterprise, government red tape.

Don't start with that "free enterprise, government red tape". I just got finished bashing a bunch of Republican/Libertarians and I will tell you the best thing for them is for folks like me to take a hike and watch 10 years down the road as the lynch mob gets them. It is the corruption of folks like them that causes all the "red tape." There are basic physical reasons why enough reactors cannot be built in time.

Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

One way to deal with radionuclide fear might be to desensitize the public with regular radionuclide releases at randomly-selected spots around the country. Since easily-obtainable chemicals exist that protect against radiation-induced biological damage, this would not necessarily harm anyone.

You better speak softly, I feel a lynch mob coming near. If the problems of the National Radioactive Depository in Yucka Mountain are not solved soon, there is going to be a horrible radioactive mess scattered all over the country.
And there is no way the mob will let you build another nuke.

 

[Aquamarine]

This is not Bartlett. It was the Physics Today that got lost.

Nuclear fission has the problem of long construction lead time. Americans are scared to death of Nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Biomass/alcohol is insufficient land area. Photovoltaic is too expensive. Coal is forbidden because of greenhouse. Wind energy is only local because of infrastructure. It has been a forgone conclusion since the 70's that humanity will be greatly diminished when this is all over.

You actually think that most people prefer to die rather than to build out nuclear power? Or die rather than use coal, even if this means global warming?

If energy prices increase to very high levels and significantly starts threatening people, then there will be no more opposition to nuclear. And time for approval and construction will be very short if it is a matter of life or death.

But oil will not suddenly end. There will be a gradual decline with gradual increasing prices. Long enough to notice when the peaks takes place, for higher prices to change attitudes and to build new plants. If necessary using more coal for a while.

You are wrong regarding biomass. Biodiesel produced from algae require much smaller land area than previously. See earlier in this thread. Fuel prices will not rise higher than the cost of producing biodiesel.

And there is no way the mob will let you build another nuke.

The only mobs will be those chasing "environmentalists".

 

[CharlesP]

You actually think that most people prefer to die rather than to build out nuclear power? Or die rather than use coal, even if this means global warming? If energy prices increase to very high levels and significantly starts threatening people, then there will be no more opposition to nuclear. And time for approval and construction will be very short if it is a matter of life or death.

You are wrong about lead time. It takes five to ten years to build a plant and we have ten years at the most. Meanwhile we are nearly guaranteed to waste the first five.

But oil will not suddenly end. There will be a gradual decline with gradual increasing prices. Long enough to notice when the peaks takes place, for higher prices to change attitudes and to build new plants. If necessary using more coal for a while.

In five years oil prices will be much higher, essentially making gasoline unavailable for many folks. The Europeans are already mad at us for failing to adhere to the Koyoto limits. You say more coal? Coal is soon to be forbidden.

You are wrong regarding biomass. Biodiesel produced from algae require much smaller land area than previously. See earlier in this thread. Fuel prices will not rise higher than the cost of producing biodiesel.

Let me state categorically that no useful amount of fuel can be produced by biological means without decreasing available food. All such processes are extremely inefficient and expensive. You can't pay $10 for $1 worth of bio anything.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists jacked the price of freon up a hundred times and starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. We just stopped the National Nuclear Repository dead in its tracks.

 

[Aquamarine]

You are wrong about lead time. It takes five to ten years to build a plant and we have ten years at the most. Meanwhile we are nearly guaranteed to waste the first five.

In five years oil prices will be much higher, essentially making gasoline unavailable for many folks. The Europeans are already mad at us for failing to adhere to the Koyoto limits. You say more coal? Coal is soon to be forbidden.

Let me state categorically that no useful amount of fuel can be produced by biological means without decreasing available food. All such processes are extremely inefficient and expensive. You can't pay $10 for $1 worth of bio anything.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists jacked the price of freon up a hundred times and starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl. We just stopped the National Nuclear Repository dead in its tracks.

At least honesty.

 

[CharlesP]

It seems the internet is permeated by the same right wing cult which has overtaken American society. This cult is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh. Most of what he believes and says is lies. Since his nonsense on such subjects as environmentalism, global warming and the energy (actually population) crisis is widely believed, we now have a populace which is in poor condition to think rationally based on historical and physical fact. I was hoping that I would not find such ilk on this message board but apparently they are dominant. I think discussion should be confined to folk who are educated in physics and share the same recognition of facts as the mainline physics community. The articles in Physics today indicate what is accepted truth in the physics community. If you are so dishonest that you choose to ignore facts and push an ideology no matter what the cost then you should identify yourself as such a person. If you want to see reliable scientific reports on these and more issues read Scientific American and visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website ucsusa.org.
I am interested in talking engineering numbers about specific technologies. There have been hundreds of reports about breakthroughs in recent years that have not panned out. Therefore a healthy skepticism is warrented.

 

[russ_watters]

Two things before I am forced to throw a leash (choke chain) around my own thread:

urbsurfer, the things you cited are a combination of hoaxes and conspiracy theories. If you just weren't aware of this, that's fine (and I'd be more than happy to explain any of them), but if you're advocating them, we'll have a problem.

CharlesP, your opinions are just not scientifically sound and your hostile rhetoric/attitude is most unwelcome in the engineering section.

"Peak oil," for example, is not widely accepted by the scientific community. I remember being told in elementary school that we had 20 years of oil left and it wasn't true then either (about 20 years ago). Saying a 10-year lead time (actually, its probably more like 20) is a deal-breaker for nuclear plants is invalid for two reasons: first, the vast majority of that lead-time is political-based red-tape. If we entered a real energy crisis, we'd be much better motivated to build nuclear plants faster. There is no technical reason a plant can't go from drawing board to power-up in 5 years.

Regarding the rhetoric - consider who you are talking to: most of us here are scientists and engineers. Don't you think we should know what we are talking about? I'm not saying this to be insulting, but it seems your opinions and what you consider facts are clouded by your preconceptions.

For example, you say we have "10 years at the most" (before a cataclysmic energy crisis) after citing an article that says we have at least 20. Also, "Peak Oil" isn't even being characterized by its proponents as a cataclysm: its not a sudden running-out of oil, but the peak (as the name implies) of our production.

If you're smart enough to understand what those articles (only the first was free...) are saying, you're smart enough to see that they do not support your position. So which of us is lying? Ignorance doesn't bother me: lying and personal attacks do. Consider carefully, your next post here.

Let me remind you that we few environmentalists... starved a thousand famlies over a spotted owl.

You do realize you're talking about ecoterrorism, right? Its only a small step from there to ELF.

 

[Locrian]

You better speak softly, I feel a lynch mob coming near.

No, it isn't.

I think you'll find cheap scare tactics do not elicit results in these forums.

 

[hitssquad]

The final oil shock and the futures-market soft landing

For example, you say we have "10 years at the most" (before a cataclysmic energy crisis) after citing an article that says we have at least 20. Also, "Peak Oil" isn't even being characterized by its proponents as a cataclysm: its not a sudden running-out of oil, but the peak (as the name implies) of our production.

Peak oil may very well be real and the consequences may be great. Individual automobile owners are not the only users of oil. America's shipping sector has been relying on cheap oil. Moving past the peak of oil production, as it appears that the world is doing right now (and even as China is getting set to dominate world oil consumption) may precipitate dramatic economic shocks.

One way to soften these shocks is for futures markets to raise the current price of oil by speculating on future scarcity/high-demand and high production prices. The benefit of artificially raising current oil prices would be a relatively gentle-but-firm economic pressure encouraging the development of technologies useful for surviving oil scarcity. Futures markets may not be adequately doing that job (i.e., taking future oil scarcity and demand into account, the per-barrel price today should perhaps be several hundred dollars).

 

[CharlesP]

I was just in a "frying pan" group that met all my sorry expectations so you can see where I am coming from. You folks look a bit more professional which is a relief. Still there are many bad signals on the horizon, many are on the ucsusa website.
For oil the turning point criteria is the world wide available oil per capita figure which has peaked long ago, I believe around 1980. In recent years demand and price have risen rapidly. This is already having an adverse impact on the US economy. Similarly heating costs have risen rapidly. If this continues, and there is every reason to believe the pace is quickening, then many folk will see a serious degradation of their living standard. For oil, "runout day" is defined as the time when demand rises faster than supply, and prices rise rapidly. This will be years before the consumption peak.
Although some developments like conservation, hybrid cars, white light LEDs, have had a miniscule effect, I see no development that will interrupt the ominous trend. Further, I can find no cost effective devices available today which I can buy to prepare for the inevitable energy shortage.
Compounding this is the waste problem just one part of which is carbon dioxide. There is a worldwide call for reduction of CO2 emissions because of global warming. The scientific community prevailed on the issue of freon and ozone, and there is no reason to think that they will not prevail in restricting CO2 emissions. That will impact coal. There is an enormous amount of money for anyone who can really impact these problems. I don't see anything happening.

 

[Aquamarine]

It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will prefer to die rather than use coal or nuclear power. Assume that very worst scenarios are proven right, like that coal produces an immediate increase in global temperature or there is a nuclear power plant accident or that nuclear waste must contaminate the environment. Even so, if the alternative is the extinction of most of humanity and dramatically reduced living standards, people will choose nuclear or coal.

And increasing prices of energy will automatically reduces use. People will drive less, stay at home during holidays and buy smaller cars. Not to mention possibilities like reducing air conditioning. The industry will avoid transporting by air and trucks and instead use railroads and ships. Flying will become a luxury for those most rich. Better insulation, more efficient lamps and household machinery will reduce home use. Substitutes will be found for the most energy demanding processes and materials in industry. Luxury goods from far away lands like coffee, tee, tropical fruits, chocolate and teak may become rare.
Things like this can greatly reduce energy use without greatly affecting the health of people. And this will happen automatically with higher prices.

It is true that energy demand from the third world is growing. But these countries, like China and India, are also those countries that are right now building out nuclear power. And countries can function perfectly well using mostly nuclear power. France is one example. These countries will gain greatly in the future if those opposed to nuclear manage to slow development in the US or Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm

It is also true that that oil is today necessary for transportation and in agriculture. But it is in transportation that some of the easiest conservations can be made. And biodiesel is rapidly growing and has the potential to handle all the US transportation fuel needs on a very small area. Another possibility is converting coal to transportation fuel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf

 

[CharlesP]

It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will prefer to die rather than use coal or nuclear power. Assume that very worst scenarios are proven right, like that coal produces an immediate increase in global temperature or there is a nuclear power plant accident or that nuclear waste must contaminate the environment. Even so, if the alternative is the extinction of most of humanity and dramatically reduced living standards, people will choose nuclear or coal.

Global warming has already happened. Living standards have already fallen. It is going to get a lot worse. There are lists of civilian nuclear accidents and near misses too long to read. By the time the energy suffering overcomes the hatred of nukes it will be too late.

And increasing prices of energy will automatically reduces use. People will drive less, stay at home during holidays and buy smaller cars. Not to mention possibilities like reducing air conditioning. The industry will avoid transporting by air and trucks and instead use railroads and ships. Flying will become a luxury for those most rich. Better insulation, more efficient lamps and household machinery will reduce home use. Substitutes will be found for the most energy demanding processes and materials in industry. Luxury goods from far away lands like coffee, tee, tropical fruits, chocolate and teak may become rare.
Things like this can greatly reduce energy use without greatly affecting the health of people. And this will happen automatically with higher prices.

This is the most productive field. There is a long way to go.

It is true that energy demand from the third world is growing. But these countries, like China and India, are also those countries that are right now building out nuclear power. And countries can function perfectly well using mostly nuclear power. France is one example. These countries will gain greatly in the future if those opposed to nuclear manage to slow development in the US or Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.htm

China is building cars rapidly.

It is also true that that oil is today necessary for transportation and in agriculture. But it is in transportation that some of the easiest conservations can be made. And biodiesel is rapidly growing and has the potential to handle all the US transportation fuel needs on a very small area. Another possibility is converting coal to transportation fuel:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/fischer.pdf

Biodiesel suffers from enormous startup costs and very low productivity. I won't believe it until it becomes a large profitable business. Government research is the start of such effort not the finish line. Many biologists have said that no such method will work with today's technology.

 

[Aquamarine]

Living standards are increasing worldwide. The percentage of people in poverty living under 1$ per day (PPI adjusted) have halved since 1980.
http://www.worldbank.org/research/povmonitor/

Regarding China and cars, they are at present mostly a luxury. If oil prices raises rapidly as you predict, they will simply remain a luxury for the rich. Similar in other third world countries. Their society is not organized with the assumption that everybody has a car, like the US, and thus that people can live a long distance from work and stores without mass transportation.

Regarding startup costs for biodesel:

In "The Controlled Eutrophication process: Using Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agircultural Fertilizer Recycling"3, the authors estimated a cost per hectare of $40,000 for algal ponds. In their model, the algal ponds would be built around the Salton Sea (in the Sonora desert) feeding off of the agircultural waste streams that normally pollute the Salton Sea with over 10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers each year. The estimate is based on fairly large ponds, 8 hectares in size each. To be conservative (since their estimate is fairly optimistic), we'll arbitrarily increase the cost per hectare by 100% as a margin of safety. That brings the cost per hectare to $80,000. Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL's yield rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308 billion to build the farms.

The operating costs (including power consumption, labor, chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and return on investment) worked out to $12,000 per hectare. That would equate to $46.2 billion per year for all the algae farms, to yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country. Compare that to the $100-150 billion the US spends each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign countries, with all of that money leaving the US economy.

I am unsure what you mean with productivity, but read this:

What is the energy efficiency for producing biodiesel? Based on a report by the US DOE and USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus"5, biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1. That means that for each unit of energy put into growing the soybeans and turning the soy oil into biodiesel, we get back 3.2 units of energy in the form of biodiesel. That works out to an energy efficiency of 320% (when only looking at fossil energy input - input from the sun, for example, is not included). The reason for the energy efficiency being greater than 100% is that the growing soybeans turn energy from the sun into chemical energy (oil). Current generation diesel engines are 43% efficient (HCCI diesel engines under development, and heavy duty diesel engines have higher efficiencies approaching 55% (better than fuel cells), but for the moment we'll just use current car-sized diesel engine technology). That 3.2 energy balance is for biodiesel made from soybean oil - a rather inefficient crop for the purpose. Other feedstocks such as algaes can yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using thermochemical processes for processing wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

And you are ignoring that fact that coal can be converted to transportation fuel at only slightly higher cost than oil in the ground. The technology for this is already available and in use, see the link in my previous post. Germany used this successfully during WWII to produce most of its transportation fuel at the end of the war. The western world has large coal reserves. If all else should fail and time is of essence, this will be used until other technologies become available or built out.

 

[CharlesP]

I moved out to Denver at the time of the big coal to gasoline scene. Housing was booming. Shortly after I left the whole thing went bust and housing busted too. They are not going to try anything like that again for a long time.

Those figures didn't look all that inviting to me so I am waiting for someone to go into the business and make it work before I believe.

 

[Astronuc]

Clearly conservation must be part of the strategy.

For example, more efficient use of lighting and heating can contribute to less electrical demand.

More efficient vehicles, especially personal transportation, should be encouraged. It seems that automobile companies would rather build profitable SUV's than cars with more fuel efficiency, because that's what the market demands. On the other hand, the IRS has been offering a $35,000 rebate on Hummers (which cost $106,000) for "business" use - but then one can use them for personal use before and after working hours. The rebates for hybrid cars have been on the order of $1000-$2000. (source: Graydon Carter, "What We've Lost", p. 155-156, 2004).

An increase of 3 miles/gal (mpg) in fuel efficiency could save the US on the order of $25 billion and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 155 million tons. (source: Graydon Carter, "What We've Lost", p. 156, 2004).

To deal with CO2 - plant trees - lots of trees. For every tree I remove from my property (I have to cull diseased trees that were planted too close), I plant one or more. I see a lot of open space that could use some trees. The shade of trees can actually reduce energy costs in the summer time, and provide wind breaks which cut heating costs in winter.

Reforestation in parts of the world, particularly Africa, could significantly reduce CO2 burden, reduce global temperatures, and even increase rainfall in Sahel, Sahara and Arabian Peninsula.

As for nuclear power - new reactor and plants designs are ready to go.

BNFL/Westinghouse
AP-600: http://www.ap600.westinghousenuclear.com/
AP-1000: http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

The AP600 received its final design approval from the U.S. NRC in September 1998, and the design certification in December 1999. The AP-1000 just received its final design approval (FDA) from NRC on Set. 13, 2004

AREVA (Framatome/Siemens) - EPR (European Pressurized water reactor). EdF has announced plans to build the first EPR (a 1600 MWe unit) at Flamanville, in the Basse Normandie region of northern France. Construction would begin in 2007 and would last 5 years with the unit on-line in 2012. TVO has selected the EPR for the third unit at Olkiluoto (http://www.tvo.fi/362.htm)

GE has the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) - The ABWR is the proud recipient of U.S. Standard Design Certification #1, issued on May 2, 1997.
http://npj.goinfo.com/NPJMain.nsf/0/5e5a077946dd6292862569f40079c3cd?OpenDocument
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/abwr/abwr.html
Two units, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 and 7, are operating in Japan since 1996 and 1997 respectively, and two units are under construction in Lungmen, Taiwan. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lungmen/

 

[hitssquad]

Ocean seeding and CO2 sequestration

To deal with CO2 - plant trees

CO2 is reduced mainly by ocean life, not trees. This is why ocean seeding has been explored:
http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+ocean+iron


For dealing with CO2 production from coal plants, Richard Garwin suggests that sequestration might be profitable:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...f=pd_sim_dp_3/+garwin+sequestration+co2&hl=en

• The authors first consider the bridging contribution of coal, arguing (p. 232) that CO2 sequestration is certainly feasible at the cost of reducing power-plant net energy output by 30-50%. Coupled with oil+gas decline, sequestration would reduce anthropogenic CO2 generation to levels well below the lowest 2100 projection of the IPCC

The shade of trees can actually reduce energy costs in the summer time, and provide wind breaks which cut heating costs in winter.

Three-foot-thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls might provide similar shading and wind-breaking capacity.

Reforestation in parts of the world, particularly Africa, could

...Provide perhaps a couple of years' worth of firewood for the local inhabitants.