Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years

[SMAC67]

And yet Kenya ranks 144th for population density and has some of the most productive agricultural land in Africa.

It is ranked as one of the worlds most corrupt countries. Since independence approx 50 years ago until the 1990s it had a single party constitution with unopposed elections and the particularly democratic inovation of queuing behind your candidate.

I quoted Mortimore upthread who believes that Africa is UNDERPOPULATED and his research in the Sahel demonstrated the importance of human capital to dryland agriculture.

It would appear that this idea extends to the drylands of Kenya.

Indeed Africans could fee themselves if they didn't have to export everything they produced to the even more corrupt west in order to feed their citizens. The World Bank and the IMF have a lot to answer for.

Someone asked "what would Jesus do?". Well he would get nailed up again for questioning the current economic model. And if his dad turned up to complain we would do the same to him. We have a new God now.............

p.s. Hoorah, I finally agree with Cells, I didn't think it was possible, nuclear fusion is extremely unlikely, and fission is just not economically viable. If it was we would have developed our nuclear capabilities instead of letting our early advances go to waste. It's just not feasible on any large scale.

Edited June 3, 2009 by SMAC67

[SMAC67]

The sensible thing to do would be to create an economy that didn't rely on oil surely?

If they are now looking at investing in energy intensive industries it seems that they are thinking that external demand for their oil is going to fall dramatically so they had better find ways of using it themselves to make stuff they can sell, otherwise their income will also fall dramatically.

Yes, that would be the sensible thing. First of all they would have to recognise the function oil has within society, and plan accordingly. Building a country reliant on oil because your main export, oil, is in decline absolutely makes no sense. They would also have to prioritise those things that absolutely need oil, and save some for that purpose. I do not see anyone anywhere making any sensible plans for a world with less oil. Even the Saudi's assume that Allah will provide.

But at least you can now undertstand that if the Saudis are using their oil to convert their society, that leaves none for export. The land export model as an earlier poster mentioned. We still have some oil in the North Sea, but it looks like we are going to squander it all. Shame really.

p.s. Tax is an irrelevance, production is everything.

[cells]

So you picked the least likely form of fusion because it produces little radiation? So you were just being an *rse?

D-T fusion has been sustained for 0.5 seconds in the JET project but following the D-T experiments future experiments had to be done remotely because the reactor vessel was radioactive. 80% of the energy is released as neutrons which make the surrounding reactor vessel radioactive, produce tritium which is hard to contain, and damage the structural integrity of the reactor.

If sustained fusion is achieved there will still be the problem of how to build a reactor that will last long enough to be economical and no-one knows what the effects of release of tritium by large numbers of power stations will have on the environment. When inhaled, ingested or absorbed through skin it can cause health problems.

Fusion will create less radioactive waste than fission if it ever works, but fusion power stations are decades away from reality.

Fusion is highly highly unlikely to succeed.

The fuel might be cheap but that is not the total cost.

Nuclear power is mostly the cost of building, running and closing down the plant. The actual fuel is something like 10% of the cost of selling power to the grid.

Thus for all intents even if fusion fuel of heavy water or what ever was absolutely free it would only generate electric at 10% less than fission nuclear. The only way for fusion to pass fission would be if the reactor is cheaper and simpler than fission which is impossible.

From that you can quite simply conclude that fusion will not produce commercial power for the foreseeable future. I am near certain it will not provide power in the next 200 years commercially and 90% sure it will not in the next 500 years.

[cells]

So it seems like the Saudis, rather than planning for when the oil runs out

are actually planning for when external demand for their oil dries up

Perhaps the US have tipped them off that they are only 10-15 years away from commercial fusion

Or perhaps the US have informed them that they intend to achieve energy independence in the next 10-15 years

Either way it doesn't look like the Saudis are expecting the oil to run out any time soon

Fusion will not work commercially for energy production.

Nuclear fission fuel is very cheap. It only makes up some 10% of the cost of nuclear electric. The other 90% is non fuel costs.

The only real commercial advantage to fusion over fission is that supposedly the fuel is cheaper and we have a lot more. But even if the fuel was free it would only be able to produce electric 10% cheaper than current nuclear.

That is assuming the fusion reactor is as cheap and simple as the fission reactor. In reality the reactor is a lot more complicated so the cost will be higher.

99% chance fusion will NOT provide commercial power within our lifetime and likely not over the next 500 years.

As for the Saudis using their oil, it doesn't matter because they are in effect exporting energy in another form.

Edited June 3, 2009 by cells

[cells]

Home Mr Fusion Reactors by 2030 perhaps

We had this debate in the other thread. Game Over does not acknowledge a capacity constrained world. He seems to think that we can just start knocking up nukes like BTL newbuilds. I have pointed out that Worldwide capacity to forge single piece reactors is currently at 4 per year however Gameover feels that if the order goes in next week by July we should have our own 15000 tonne forge in operation.

Yes - we need more of Game Overs blue sky thinking. All the problems of the World would be solved with Game Overs enlightenment. He should write books / run courses

why exactly do we need to use that particular design?

if energy because a problem we will knock them up fast and cheap

the best decade added 150GW of nuclear and this was the 70s??

we now have 2B more people in at least semi capitalistic countries, thus we should be able to double that.

add in improvements in tech and manufacturing and double that again

there is no reason why we cannot add 600GW of nuclear per decade if we wanted.

there is no need at the moment but if the peak energy advocates are correct what exactly do you think will happen?

everyone sit around and cry or just build what we need?

[SMAC67]

Oh wait, Cells is suggesting that building nuclear facilities is easy. You're not an engineer are you Cells, you can't be, we don't have any left in this country, and we certainly don't have enough in the nuclear industry. Knock up a few reactors, oh yeh, and where are they going to be located, remember house prices are already in the doldrums?

[Kurt Barlow]

So why do you keep brining up that non valid argument then, that we can only press 4 of your vessels a year!!1one!!

If we need energy we will build it how and when we need it. The same applies for the ridiculous 10 year time frames now used. We used to be able to knock up nuclear plants in 3 years. We should be able to do it faster now. The only reason is regulatory and NIMBYs and government.

In a crisis that all goes out the window and we knock them out with 2-3 year time frames using what ever technology is the quickest and we will not care about a 3% improvement in safety.

Sure - lets go back to building Magnox and AGR reactors

Whats the clean up bill - $70bn?

[cells]

Here you go GO - a list from the Oildrum of technologies available now to go post peak oil (The UK is certainly post peak) rather than crossing your fingers and relying on the Just in Time Fairy!

Electrified railroads

Urban Rail

Bicycles

Shoes (walking)

Hydroelectric

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind Turbines

PWR nukes

HV DC transmission (lite & regular)

Pumped storage

PV solar (limited, perhaps better costs ...)

Insulation

Weatherstripping

Efficient windows

CFLs and LEDs

High efficiency appliances (including HVAC)

Walkable neighborhoods/TOD

Solar water heaters

Solar clothes dryers

1950s levels of housing sq ft/capita & retail/capita

If oil/gas/coal are largely interchangeable directly or indirectly then why is peak oil important?

Surely it is peak energy which is considerably more important?

I suppose you cannot create a scare story of peak energy because the production and usage keeps going up, and up, and up and up.

[cells]

Here you go GO - a list from the Oildrum of technologies available now to go post peak oil (The UK is certainly post peak) rather than crossing your fingers and relying on the Just in Time Fairy!

Electrified railroads

Urban Rail

Bicycles

Shoes (walking)

Hydroelectric

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind Turbines

PWR nukes

HV DC transmission (lite & regular)

Pumped storage

PV solar (limited, perhaps better costs ...)

Insulation

Weatherstripping

Efficient windows

CFLs and LEDs

High efficiency appliances (including HVAC)

Walkable neighborhoods/TOD

Solar water heaters

Solar clothes dryers

1950s levels of housing sq ft/capita & retail/capita

the oil drum is full of idiots who think they are smarter than they actually are. just those 3 bold bits show how stupid those lot are.

[SMAC67]

According to Cells there would be no clean up costs, and yes we could all build a nuclear reactor tomorrow if would just get off our lazy backsides. "Simples".

[cells]

p.s. Hoorah, I finally agree with Cells, I didn't think it was possible, nuclear fusion is extremely unlikely, and fission is just not economically viable. If it was we would have developed our nuclear capabilities instead of letting our early advances go to waste. It's just not feasible on any large scale.

nuclear fusion is not extremely unlikely, it is already a reality.

fission is economically viable or no one would be building new nuclear plants, which they are. it is also feasible on a large scale. look at France.

nuclear fusion is highly unlikely to be COMMERICALLY successful.

NOTE: unless the energy of fusion is a by-product and they use it for something else?

[cells]

Oh wait, Cells is suggesting that building nuclear facilities is easy. You're not an engineer are you Cells, you can't be, we don't have any left in this country, and we certainly don't have enough in the nuclear industry. Knock up a few reactors, oh yeh, and where are they going to be located, remember house prices are already in the doldrums?

Stop being an ignorant fool

what makes you think we can no longer do what we did 30 or 40 years ago?

There is no political will in the west to build nuclear. In fact there are lots of things stopping it (not economic or scientific but due wholly to government decisions)

then many countries are practically banned from building nuclear.

China and India although investing in nuclear somewhat see that fossil fuels are dirt cheap and don't believe in the global warming ******** (plus they both have massive MASSIVE coal reserves and capacities and wish to support those)

we could and will build nuclear if there is an energy crisis no matter what the idiots say.

[Long Way Down]

the oil drum is full of idiots who think they are smarter than they actually are. just those 3 bold bits show how stupid those lot are.

You seem to think that everyone apart from yourself is an idiot.

The true sign of an idiot.

[cells]

Sure - lets go back to building Magnox and AGR reactors

Whats the clean up bill - $70bn?

well according to you lot oil production will drop to 6 barrels a day and the price will be $10100233888223232211 a barrel, thus the $70B clean-up bill will be pocket change.

i don't see nuclear as uneconomical or people would not be building them in many many countries. even in the UK companies wish to build nuclear but the rules and regulations get in the way.

[SMAC67]

Stop being an ignorant fool

what makes you think we can no longer do what we did 30 or 40 years ago?

There is no political will in the west to build nuclear. In fact there are lots of things stopping it (not economic or scientific but due wholly to government decisions)

then many countries are practically banned from building nuclear.

China and India although investing in nuclear somewhat see that fossil fuels are dirt cheap and don't believe in the global warming ******** (plus they both have massive MASSIVE coal reserves and capacities and wish to support those)

we could and will build nuclear if there is an energy crisis no matter what the idiots say.

Because our knowledge base is depleting faster than our oil and gas reserves. The people who developed our nuclear industry are now dead or retired. Our academic institutes produce accountants and solicitors, not scientists and engineers.

Those self same accountants closed our nuclear industry because it is not economically viable, politically unacceptable to the people who have to live within it's dangerous shadow, and we haven't yet figured out what to do with the waste. I mean we could put it in your back yard, but even you might not like that solution.

If you want nuclear energy, see the French, they have invested heavily, and have the expertise. It is still a niche market so lead times are long.

Good for the Chinese, we once had massive coal reserves too. They will industrialise using whatever fossil fuels they can get hold of. They will also invest in nuclear if they want to get some weapons of their own to use against competing super powers.

The UK is now a sideshow, and we should park up our nuclear subs and plug them into the grid so that they provide something useful for our society.

p.s. The United States and NASA no longer have the capability to go to the moon, talk about progress.

[cells]

You seem to think that everyone apart from yourself is an idiot.

The true sign of an idiot.

Anyone who doesn't listen or doesn't understand simple logic and reason is an idiot.

All my arguments are based on logic and reason so I cannot see what part of my posts are stupid. Feel free to highlight any faults using logic and reason instead of dumb comments like most do.

are you one of those that think we have forgotten how to build nuclear plants and we will sit by and cry for energy? nno need to answer

[Kurt Barlow]

well according to you lot oil production will drop to 6 barrels a day and the price will be $10100233888223232211 a barrel, thus the $70B clean-up bill will be pocket change.

i don't see nuclear as uneconomical or people would not be building them in many many countries. even in the UK companies wish to build nuclear but the rules and regulations get in the way.

Im not anti nuclear - I am just in favour of learning from past mistakes and using better designs.

I am also a bit more realistic about scaleability, ramp up, and costs than you are.

[cells]

Because our knowledge base is depleting faster than our oil and gas reserves. The people who developed our nuclear industry are now dead or retired. Our academic institutes produce accountants and solicitors, not scientists and engineers.

Those self same accountants closed our nuclear industry because it is not economically viable, politically unacceptable to the people who have to live within it's dangerous shadow, and we haven't yet figured out what to do with the waste. I mean we could put it in your back yard, but even you might not like that solution.

If you want nuclear energy, see the French, they have invested heavily, and have the expertise. It is still a niche market so lead times are long.

Good for the Chinese, we once had massive coal reserves too. They will industrialise using whatever fossil fuels they can get hold of. They will also invest in nuclear if they want to get some weapons of their own to use against competing super powers.

The UK is now a sideshow, and we should park up our nuclear subs and plug them into the grid so that they provide something useful for our society.

p.s. The United States and NASA no longer have the capability to go to the moon, talk about progress.

the notion that we have forgotten how to build nuclear plants is really stupid.

how is it that they are being built around the world if we have forgotten how to build them?

what bull$hit, even you know it is bull$hit which is why you post it in such a long winded way. Why not just come out and say it straight "we have forgotten how to build nuclear plants". I know why you don't say it straight, because even to you that would sound stupid.

Even if we had bloody forgotten how to build nuclear, which we have not, lets repeat that we have not forgotten, then what is to stop us re-learning it.

FFS man, what is wrong with you.

Edited June 3, 2009 by cells

[Kurt Barlow]

why exactly do we need to use that particular design?

if energy because a problem we will knock them up fast and cheap

the best decade added 150GW of nuclear and this was the 70s??

we now have 2B more people in at least semi capitalistic countries, thus we should be able to double that.

add in improvements in tech and manufacturing and double that again

there is no reason why we cannot add 600GW of nuclear per decade if we wanted.

there is no need at the moment but if the peak energy advocates are correct what exactly do you think will happen?

everyone sit around and cry or just build what we need?

No absolute requirement but single piece reactors are inherently safer and simple to operate and last much longer.

Multipiece reactors are fine if we want to repeat all the previous mistakes of previous generations of nukes.

It would be nice to see Sheffield FM getting the green light to invest in a press to turn out 1600MW EPR reactor vessels.

I wont hold my breath though.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Kurt Barlow

[SMAC67]

I guess when the brown outs and black outs start then you will be able to whip up a nuclear reactor in your potting shed, so you'll be alright. The rest of us might not do so well, and will have to rely on batteries, candles, and wind-up radios. We shall see (or maybe not, it might get a bit dark).

[cells]

Im not anti nuclear - I am just in favour of learning from past mistakes and using better designs.

I am also a bit more realistic about scaleability, ramp up, and costs than you are.

How can you speak of an energy crisis and think that we will sit by waiting 15 years for planning permission or sit by and wait for your 4 a year press. In a crisis we do what we have to do and that might involve building older design nuclear plants over 3 years rather than the top spec 4 a year press one you seem to like that take 15 years.

The world will not see a natural energy shortage.

[Kurt Barlow]

I guess when the brown outs and black outs start then you will be able to whip up a nuclear reactor in your potting shed, so you'll be alright. The rest of us might not do so well, and will have to rely on batteries, candles, and wind-up radios. We shall see (or maybe not, it might get a bit dark).

My next investment is 1KW of PV and a battery bank

[cells]

No absolute requirement but single piece reactors are inherently safer and simple to operate and last much longer.

Multipiece reactors are fine if we want to repeat all the previous mistakes of previous generations of nukes.

It would be nice to see Sheffield FM getting the green light to invest in a press to turn out 1600MW EPR reactor vessels.

I wont hold my breath though.

So why do you keep brining up that non valid argument then, that we can only press 4 of your vessels a year!!1one!!

If we need energy we will build it how and when we need it. The same applies for the ridiculous 10 year time frames now used. We used to be able to knock up nuclear plants in 3 years. We should be able to do it faster now. The only reason is regulatory and NIMBYs and government.

In a crisis that all goes out the window and we knock them out with 2-3 year time frames using what ever technology is the quickest and we will not care about a 3% improvement in safety.

[cells]

I guess when the brown outs and black outs start then you will be able to whip up a nuclear reactor in your potting shed, so you'll be alright. The rest of us might not do so well, and will have to rely on batteries, candles, and wind-up radios. We shall see (or maybe not, it might get a bit dark).

If the UK has brownouts or blackouts it will be 99% the fault of government and not any fundamental energy shortage. In fact we would require worldwide brownouts/blackouts if it was a energy shortage.

Know of any time we have had near worldwide blackouts?

[Guest Skinty]

From reading this thread it seems like we have too much demand on too little fuel. Yet souls and the holy spirit not only exist but divide and grow into new souls. So if souls and the holy spirit can interact with the world (and therefore are in any way relevant to us) then they must contain energy. So can't we harness it to power our civilisations?

I'm going to buy one of those indian dream catcher thingies from a new age shop and hook it up to my mains tonight to see if my electricity bill goes down.