Bbc Coast Documentary - Peak Gas Is Here

[Pindar]

Thanks to Mr. Corevalue and Hi Kurt,

Yes, one could but wonder at such statements by the NuLab. I read somewhere that the UK could no longer build it's own Nucs, the last one being completed in '95 was it - all the engineers now retired or permanently retired (if you know what I mean).

Because of this Arriva (French as you well know) offerred to build a whole load of BIG ONES in return fo the CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE UK NATIONAL GRID.

I can see NuLab MP's running round B&Q buying up all those silly windmill toy things.

And who says the French are not still after annexing dear old blighty. We may as well kiss goodbye to any remaining autonomy if we hand control of our power distribution to a foreign power. Where was "Arriva" planning to get its funding for building billions of pounds worth of nuclear stations?

[Guest Mr Parry]

Yes. And in that company we have one manager who makes 300K GBP, 3 consultants who make 150K GBP (they lobby and advise the government on shoe polish issues). Polish workers who sell the polish (12K GBP). And the actual manufacturing is outsourced to china for 30p per day per worker.

So, we don't make shoe polish?

[Guest Mr Parry]

And who says the French are not still after annexing dear old blighty. We may as well kiss goodbye to any remaining autonomy if we hand control of our power distribution to a foreign power. Where was "Arriva" planning to get its funding for building billions of pounds worth of nuclear stations?

I have absolutely no idea.

[redgenieuk]

Anyone see it this afternoon?

They had a bit about peak gas supply in the UK, though they actually did say "peak".

What they were seeing is that the the gas rigs were being replaced by gas storage tanks, because there is no more gas in the ground.

In future we will be importing gas many thousands of miles away from Quatar by expensive-specially designed container ships which freeze the gas, that will probably use a fair bit of enrergy...

One thing that the BBC didnt say if this means higher gas prices - All the energy required to ship the gas half way around the world in special ships, and then stored in high tech containers in sub zero conditions on the mainland. I would take that as a small yes then...

And to top it off - I can't see Quatar and the middle east benifiting from this trade from our "service" economy.

One to think about.

That will be why they have built a couple of huge LPG terminals to take it in from abroad.

Gas is declining, demand is rising.

[Spikey1]

Ok I got tired of reading all these posts so I apologise if someone has already said what im about to say!

Cells.... You said that transporting oil is easy compared to gas and that gas is transported in pipes... Can you explain what the hell is going on in milford haven then please because a huge gas port and pipe going across Wales to Gloucester has appeared.. The reason was because frozen gas (which means it has an increased density and therefore can be transported in huge quantities) is being transported from Quatar. Now as you have a physics degree you obviously know more than me so please explain this as I think something odd is happening if it isnt for gas... Perhaps its a giant slide...

Your dodgem car idea is great... Wondering how the roads are going to be modified to carry the current.. where are the resources going to come from to set up this great new idea?.. oh and where is the electricity going to come from? considering we have ageing nuclear reactors and mothballed coal plants that require huge sums to reopen im intrigued who what and when this will all happen... That doesnt even touch on what fuel is going to be used to create the electricity.. perhaps we could use some frozen gas... oh no.. erm... oil... ermm noooo erm... Coal!.. ermmmmm Nuclear power.... Well I guess thats the only viable option.. best get building and quick!

Saying that peak oil is a myth because oil will just get more expensive and then be replaced by something else is pretty daft. I agree that alternatives will come round but this wont be a simple switch. The world relies heavily on oil and when it begins to run out (supply can not meet demand.. PEAK OIL) industries, hospitals, retailers etc etc will suffer and cost of living will increase hugely until we have transitioned to an alternative.

The transition will not be a simple job of going down the shop and picking up a solar panel!

Physics degree you may have.. ounce of common sense to the realities of the situation.... not a sausage!

[redgenieuk]

Nuclear power.... Well I guess thats the only viable option.. best get building and quick!

yes please and lots of it.

And before someone says you don't want on in your backyard, no i don't because if it was that small it would be a waste of time.

Down the road 1 mile and a little to the left would be fine.

Wouldn't do a lot of good for the landlords property values though.

Shame.

[Guest Steve Cook]

gas is almost always delivered by pipes, its very very easy to deliver gas from long distance via pipes and the chepest method of tranporting anything per kg is pipes!

will energy get more expensive? Probably, but it will be more to do with china/india getting richer and hence competing with us for energy

peak oil, gas ect is pretty much ******** though.

it is scare mongering, should be renamed "energy gets more expensive" whereas "peak oil" conjurs images of fuel shortgages and people not being able to light their homes ect ect

To talk about peak energy is not scare mongering. What is not realised by many that the problem we now imminently face is not the prospect of energy running out. "Peak energy", by its very nature, implies that there is half of the reserves of a given energy still left in the ground. The problems is that peak energy means that we now must face the prospect of the end of CHEAP ENERGY...... FOR EVER.

Huberts peak calcualtions show that onnce peak is reached then production must decline as a function of geological fact by between 3 and 7 percent per year. (at least for oil). There are ways to extend the peak. However, this just makes the downslope on the other side that much steeper and so economically catastophic. For the other main hydrocarbons, the picture is slightly different. For Gas the post-peak downslope is quite rapid due to the way that it is extracted. For coal, there is effectively no peak. It temds to be extracted at a given rate until the last amount is taken out. In other owrds, there are no pressure isssues related to the extraction of coal as there is for gas and oil.

Please see the two graphs attached. One is for poulation growth and the other for world oil production of recent decades.

I don't believe it to be sufficiently understood by many at present that over 8 calories in every 10 that we eat is indirectly the reconstitution of hydrocarbons (mainly oil). The end of cheap oil means the end of cheap food. This nay not seem like a big deal yet. However, reductions in supply of oil of merey 5% per year means that supply is effectively halved in a decade and a half.

To extrapoloate, 8/10ths of ME and YOU is made from reconstituted hydrocarbons. Our poulations have exploded over the last few decades because we have found a new form of energy that we can converet into us. This is what all life forms do. Its all about energy tranfer. When the supply of energy depletes....so must we, at roughly the same rate....

If you think 100 dollars per barrel is scary......then you really won't like what's headed our way in terms of price over the coming year or so. Indeed, the first of an increasing number of brownouts are at some point ceretain over the next year or two.

This is only the beginning....

Steve

Edited January 3, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

It is also not widely known that uranium has known world reserves. Assuming that the enetire western world (not to mention developing economies) was to make the switch to nulear, we would hit peak uranium in little more than a decade and a half. Never mind the fact that nuclear is great for putting the lights on but rather innefficient for providing mobile portable transport.

We could always use the electicitiy form nuclear to crack hydrogen from water and use the hydrogen to power our vehicles. however, the energy ratio from cracked hydrogen is about 2:1. That is to say, it takes twice as much energy to crack hydrogen out of water as is contained theirin. This might seem a price worth paying for the convenience of hydrogen. But it would only make sense, if the source of energy supplying the electicity to crack the hydrogen were limitless itself and so effectively costless. The above scenareo would make peak uranium occur even sooner. Not to mention the massive infrastructural change that would need to be made to our energy supply chain. There isn't sufficient time.....

One possible means by which we could crack hydrogen would be via the use of space mounted solar panels. Infinite amounts of (for all practical purposes) free energy. The electricity could be laser beamed back down to the planet's surface. Huge energy losses in such a process to be sure. However, if the source is limitless, it wouldn,t matter.

The problem with the above, though, is that it is going to take a great deal of time and ENERGY to set up such a massive energy supply infrasstructure. Quite possibly representing the worlds most ambitios engineering challenge. Again, there isn't the time....we should have embarked on such a venture decades ago.....

Steve

Edited January 3, 2008 by Steve Cook

[fluffy666]

The national grid get at least 3-5 days notice before a high pressure system forms over the uk. This time of year most power plants are up and running unless shut down for unforseen maintenance so are in some level of operation - they are certainly not cold. As I said before Spinning reserve is needed to deal with a large plant going offline suddenly. This doesnt happen with wind because several hundred turbines make up the supply equivalent of one large power plant. At any one time a few may be offline - but not all 700!

The problem isn't so much unpredictability, it's the fact that since building storage to cover an effective outage of several days for turbines supplying say, 20% of our electricity is impractical. So you must keep an operationbal reserve to cover this - even if that reserve is only used 10 days a year. This causes a big hike in the costs, which is something that tends to get buried in the fine print.. and is the reason why wind tends to get limited grid penetration at best.

[corevalue]

To talk about peak energy is not scare mongering. What is not realised by many that the problem we now imminently face is not the prospect of energy running out. "Peak energy", by its very nature, implies that there is half of the reserves of a given energy still left in the ground. The problems is that peak energy means that we now must face the prospect of the end of CHEAP ENERGY...... FOR EVER.

Huberts peak calcualtions show that onnce peak is reached then production must decline as a function of geological fact by between 3 and 7 percent per year. (at least for oil). There are ways to extend the peak. However, this just makes the downslope on the other side that much steeper and so economically catastophic. For the other main hydrocarbons, the picture is slightly different. For Gas the post-peak downslope is quite rapid due to the way that it is extracted. For coal, there is effectively no peak. It temds to be extracted at a given rate until the last amount is taken out. In other owrds, there are no pressure isssues related to the extraction of coal as there is for gas and oil.

Please see the two graphs attached. One is for poulation growth and the other for world oil production of recent decades.

I don't believe it to be sufficiently understood by many at present that over 8 calories in every 10 that we eat is indirectly the reconstitution of hydrocarbons (mainly oil). The end of cheap oil means the end of cheap food. This nay not seem like a big deal yet. However, reductions in supply of oil of merey 5% per year means that supply is effectively halved in a decade and a half.

To extrapoloate, 8/10ths of ME and YOU is made from reconstituted hydrocarbons. Our poulations have exploded over the last few decades because we have found a new form of energy that we can converet into us. This is what all life forms do. Its all about energy tranfer. When the supply of energy depletes....so must we, at roughly the same rate....

If you think 100 dollars per barrel is scary......then you really won't like what's headed our way in terms of price over the coming year or so. Indeed, the first of an increasing number of brownouts are at some point ceretain over the next year or two.

This is only the beginning....

Steve

There is a peak for coal, it just doesn't follow the same easily derived curve like the one Hubbert developed for oil. Just like oil, the rich, easy to get coal is extracted first, leaving the lower grades and thinner seams to later. The peak year of extraction for UK coal was way back in 1913, which is an awful long time ago

It isn't just CO2 that's a problem with coal. I remember the great London smogs of my childhood, before the clean air acts, and that the government hid just exactly how many excess deaths there were in those times due to pollution, mostly acid sulphur compounds. Remember acid rain?

[Guest Steve Cook]

The problem isn't so much unpredictability, it's the fact that since building storage to cover an effective outage of several days for turbines supplying say, 20% of our electricity is impractical. So you must keep an operationbal reserve to cover this - even if that reserve is only used 10 days a year. This causes a big hike in the costs, which is something that tends to get buried in the fine print.. and is the reason why wind tends to get limited grid penetration at best.

I completely agree with this point. Also, not often included in the fine print is the amount of energy required to build, install and maintain wind turbines. When this is factored in, they become even more econonomically/energetically unviable (at least at the level of powering a energy intensive civilasation.

The main thing to remember is that oil is a uniqely dense and portable form of energy. I don't know the numbers involved in the following, but can imagine:

A given barrel of oil is the condensed representation of millenia of plant growth, death and decomposition over a given square area of land mass. This process depended on the avaialability of sunlight to happen. So....oil is the condensed energy from sunlight hitting a given area over MILLENIA....

Hardly surprising then, that the use of solar is merely the process of trying to capture such energy over a given area in REAL TIME. While limitless in principle, solar energy and/or wind/wave energy is pitiful in its output at any one time compared to hydrocarbons.

If we had about a 1/10 of the population that we currently have, then maybe such energy sources would stack up. Not when we have over 6 billion though

Steve

[fluffy666]

It is also not widely known that uranium has known world reserves.

Really? Would you like to provide sources for this?

Even if we made no more uranium discoveries ever, which is extremely unlikely, resources at under $1000/pound (which is still perfectly economic) equate to thousands of years of electricity supply for the whole world at western levels.

Oil is an intensively explored resource which also has an inverted resource base (i.e. high concentration resources - big fields - contain the majoritry of the eergetically recoverable resource). These factors also hit natural gas and to some extent coal. Uranium behaves far more like a conventional mineral resource.

We could always use the electicitiy form nuclear to crack hydrogen from water and use the hydrogen to power our vehicles.

Or we could move towards battery electric cars, at least for commuting and other short journeys. The technology is much simpler and easier. Hydrogen as a direct fuel has problems I would regard as fundamentally intractable (although I'm happy to be proven wrong); synthetics such as Methanol would be a better bet. In this case most of our existing infrastructure would be reused.

The problem with the above, though, is that it is going to take a great deal of time and ENERGY to set up such a massive energy supply infrasstructure. Quite possibly representing the worlds most ambitios engineering challenge. Again, there isn't the time....we should have embarked on such a venture decades ago.....

The move to an all-nuclear grid would have been completed a while ago were it not for a toxic combination of raving free marketeers and environmentalists - free marketeers being unable to concieve of situations where engineers know better than markets and environmentalists being ideologically anti-nuclear regardless of the consequences for the planet.

But even not it should not be the end of the world.. (Apologies to those who desire such an outcome)

[Guest Steve Cook]

There is a peak for coal, it just doesn't follow the same easily derived curve like the one Hubbert developed for oil. Just like oil, the rich, easy to get coal is extracted first, leaving the lower grades and thinner seams to later. The peak year of extraction for UK coal was way back in 1913, which is an awful long time ago

It isn't just CO2 that's a problem with coal. I remember the great London smogs of my childhood, before the clean air acts, and that the government hid just exactly how many excess deaths there were in those times due to pollution, mostly acid sulphur compounds. Remember acid rain?

Quite so and I stand corrected. I made the point earlier for the sake of brevity. That is to say, while in a given seam, there is effectively no peak, I certainly do accept that when we take all of the seams of the world into account, the larger seams are exploited first, As they are exhasted smaller and smaller seams come online from less and less easily extractable deposits. Thus, at the macro level of all of the worlds coal deposits, a peaking process does occur.

Steve

[Guest Steve Cook]

Really? Would you like to provide sources for this?

Even if we made no more uranium discoveries ever, which is extremely unlikely, resources at under $1000/pound (which is still perfectly economic) equate to thousands of years of electricity supply for the whole world at western levels.

Oil is an intensively explored resource which also has an inverted resource base (i.e. high concentration resources - big fields - contain the majoritry of the eergetically recoverable resource). These factors also hit natural gas and to some extent coal. Uranium behaves far more like a conventional mineral resource.

Or we could move towards battery electric cars, at least for commuting and other short journeys. The technology is much simpler and easier. Hydrogen as a direct fuel has problems I would regard as fundamentally intractable (although I'm happy to be proven wrong); synthetics such as Methanol would be a better bet. In this case most of our existing infrastructure would be reused.

The move to an all-nuclear grid would have been completed a while ago were it not for a toxic combination of raving free marketeers and environmentalists - free marketeers being unable to concieve of situations where engineers know better than markets and environmentalists being ideologically anti-nuclear regardless of the consequences for the planet.

But even not it should not be the end of the world.. (Apologies to those who desire such an outcome)

Please find the following secondary source of information relating to peak uranium. apologies for the source not being a primary one. However, the article does itself list its primary sources.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379

I will endeavour to locat eproimary sources for my assertion ove the next few hours

I should also say that I completely agree with your assertion that hydrogen is an impractical fuel to use even assuming we find a way to crack it efficiently. This is mainly due to storage issues. Again, I didn't make that point earlier for the sake of brevity.

Steve

Edited January 3, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

Regarding the argument that uranium behave more like a conventional mineral:

Like coal, uranium does have a "peak" at least at a global level. That is to say, any given deposit does not peak in the conventional sense. However, since the most easily available deposits are exploited first, as time passes we must move on to more difficult to extract deposits, so inexorably pushing the price up.

Steve

[corevalue]

Regarding the argument that uranium behave more like a conventional mineral:

Like coal, uranium does have a "peak" at least at a global level. That is to say, any given deposit does not peak in the conventional sense. However, since the most easily available deposits are exploited first, as time passes we must move on to more difficult to extract deposits, so inexorably pushing the price up.

Steve

If you look at the energy cost of cement, you might wonder too if there is a "peak cement". I wonder what the revised cost of nuke plants would be in an age of high energy cost. And come to that, how will house-building fare, given that both bricks and cement need kilning?

[Guest Steve Cook]

If you look at the energy cost of cement, you might wonder too if there is a "peak cement". I wonder what the revised cost of nuke plants would be in an age of high energy cost. And come to that, how will house-building fare, given that both bricks and cement need kilning?

Many of the world's minerals are at "peak" production in the sense that uranium or coal can peak (see earlier post). further, we should assume that the price of all mineral extraction, pre-peak, peak or post-peak will rise dramatically on the back of oil prices since their exctraction is an energy intensive process and becomes more so over time as the more easily extractable deposits are exhausted.

Basically, the world is becoming rapidly farmed out.....

Steve

Edited January 3, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Wlad]

Kurt, what proportion of the UK's electricity demand could wind power provide? NuLab were talking about all homes by 2020. Is this bu11sh1t?

The figure was 40% of total electricity demand, and I don't know where some elements of the press got the suggestion of all homes by 2020 as there doesn't seem much evidence of this given what Benn actually said.

[Wlad]

For coal, there is effectively no peak. It temds to be extracted at a given rate until the last amount is taken out. In other owrds, there are no pressure isssues related to the extraction of coal as there is for gas and oil.

Some suggest there will be a peak in coal in terms of BTUs. The best coal gets dug out first. The USA has large coal reserves but the peak in BTUs was about 30 years ago as the extraction now is of mostly lignite.

[F0ul Thought]

I found this interesting little Gem - http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?optio...7&Itemid=27

Its basically the first mention of peak coal - written in 1865.

Unsurprisingly, he was intimately wrong in his assertion. Not only because coal didn't run out as he predicted, but because he was unwilling to see how technology changes energy needs.

He was arguing that coal was a requirement of industry, so industry would stop as soon as the coal ran out - however, industry no longer uses coal, it uses oil. Coal is still with us, as is industry. Unfortunately, Oil and gas is being lined up for the same treatment. Oil and gas is running out, industry is going to crash.

In a hundred years, we will be using some form of safe nuclear or fuel cell technology and industry will be doing well without oil. We will however still have plenty of oil and gas!

[Kurt Barlow]

Some suggest there will be a peak in coal in terms of BTUs. The best coal gets dug out first. The USA has large coal reserves but the peak in BTUs was about 30 years ago as the extraction now is of mostly lignite.

Europe is pretty much in that position too. Lignite is poor fuel - its 30% moisture content sees to that.

[Kurt Barlow]

They've got a lot of confidence then?

A load of debt and a high mortgage is not good at the best of times, with ever increasing power expenses, the payment pot will get smaller. I saw this in the last recession when interest rates rose, those who previously bought food at M&S started shopping at Netto. The question is where do you fall to from Netto?

We have been systematically robbed, and the masses quieted with ever rising home equity, a lot of which has been spent. Staying warm and keeping the lights on may become an issue for more than is imagined.

ON the other side of the coin - how many of us used our new found wealth to invest in efficent homes / appliances?

Many individuals will blame the Govt but did have the opportunity to invest some wealth when they had it on efficiency / efficient appliances.

Cavity wall insulation v week in Ibiza!

[enrieb]

Even if we made no more uranium discoveries ever, which is extremely unlikely, resources at under $1000/pound (which is still perfectly economic) equate to thousands of years of electricity supply for the whole world at western levels.

But even not it should not be the end of the world.. (Apologies to those who desire such an outcome)

The only thing that makes mining uranium relatively cheap is the cheap oil that we use to dig the 5000 tonnes of granite needed to get 1 ton of uranium ore, that is then transported and refined using more energy.

When oil becomes significantly more expensive, nuclear energy will also become significantly more expensive.

Cheap oil based energy makes nuclear seem cost effective and we should mine as much as we can now while oil is still so cheap.

[Wlad]

Cheap oil based energy makes nuclear seem cost effective and we should mine as much as we can now while oil is still so cheap.

One of the ironies is that in Alberta is has been suggested that nuclear power be used to provide the power to process oil sands.

Canada is, though, relatively rich in uranium although the expansion of Cigar Lake has been hit by lots of problems.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Wlad

[Wlad]

Cavity wall insulation v week in Ibiza!

Cavity wall used to be (e.g. back in the 1970s when my parents had it done) an expensive option. But it's relatively cheap currently.