Bbc Coast Documentary - Peak Gas Is Here

[Kurt Barlow]

you will drive less or not drive at all, thats hardly the end of the world is it!

you might walk more, cycle more, take public transport more. Or you might decide its stupid to drive to work in a car all by yourself and decide to share a trip with 3-4 others

"peak oil" is scare mongering, it makes people think of nations fighting nuclear wars, it makes people think of cold winter without electricity

just change the name to "energy gets more expensive" and nearly all the problems are gone

after all energy prices have risen by 400% in the last 7 years, i havent really changed my energy useage habbits. its barely affected me. im sure thats true for the majority of people in this country. peak oil will mean we use energy more efficently, use less where possible, and in time invest in COMMERCIALLY VIABLE renewables. not wind farms that dont produce jack shite because there aint no wind where the goverment wants them.

One of the major societal problems with bottom up demand destruction is the level of inequality it creates. Whilst a curtailment of leisure activities or opting for a smaller car is acceptable in most peoples minds when a certain proportion of the population are priced out of basic essentials - heat, shelter, food then we have the recipe for social disruption (French revolution, Russian Revolution, many of todays problems we see in Africa and elsewhere).

Why are wind farms not potentially viable? Denmark cooperates quite happily with Norway and Sweden (utlising their Hydro capacity) to demand balance wind supply? Indeed it is quite feasible that all 3 countries could go FF free using a mix of hydro, wind, and Nuclear. Likewise New Zealand is looking looking at supplying 35% of its power from wind - which will be load balanced using its considerable hydro electric resources.

Having lived on and sailed for a number years off north norfolk - I can assure you it is windy, often very windy for most of the time.

[Kurt Barlow]

we use oil in power stations, we use oil in lots of places where it can be offset by nuclear or renewables.

Actually other than warming up coal fired power stations we use hardly any oil in power stations so nothing to save there.

[enrieb]

At the present rate of use, worldwide supplies of rich uranium ore will soon become exhausted, perhaps within the next decade. Nuclear power stations of the future will have to reply on second-grade ore, which requires huge amounts of conventional energy to refine it. For each tonne of poor-quality uranium, some 5,000 tonnes of granite that contains it will have to be mined, milled and then disposed of. This could rise to 10,000 tonnes if the quality deteriorates further.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062-1884441,00.htm

Some people fail to take into account that the energy we use to mine uranium, refine uranium, store waste, build power stations and that the entire enegery infrastructure is almost completely dependent the supply of cheap energy primarily oil and natural gas.

They probably think that all the processes will be done by electric created by the nuclear power station, which they believe to be some kind of perpetual free enegery generator.

There is one future source of seeming limitless energy that we could tap, it is The Internet Troll, they generate post after post of uniformed opinion, if only we could somehow convert this constant spew into electricity then we could be onto something. There are huge reserves of stupidity out there that have yet to be tapped.

The problem of course the rate at which we use energy is unsustainable. Even given the huge potential of the Internet troll we will eventually also hit 'Peak Troll' as at first the troll produces a stream of uninformed nonsense at an exponential rate, eventually this rate falls and we hit secondary production, where the troll repeats the same points that were disproved previously. This time the trolls points are more rapidly refuted as all one has to do is look back and read the thread to find the answers. If we could use some sort of new technology to manage secondary troll spew production then we could increase the amount of energy that we extract from trolls. In the UK Peak troll discovery probably happened in 2005, yet there are many areas of the world that remain unexplored.

Edited: for usual crap spelling

Edited January 2, 2008 by enrieb

[Kurt Barlow]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062-1884441,00.htm

Some people fail to take into account that the energy we use to mine uranium, refine uranium, store waste, build powerstations and that the entire engery infrastucture is almost competely dependant the supply of cheap energy primarialy oil and natural gas.

They probably think that all the processes will be done by electric created by the nuclear power station, which they believe to be some kind of perpetual free engery generator.

There is one future source of seeming limitless energy that we could tap, it is The Internet Troll, they generate post after post of uniformed opinion, if only we could somehow convert this constant spew into electriciy then we could be onto something. There are huge reserves of stupidity out there that have yet to be tapped.

The problem of course the rate at which we use energy is unsustainable. Even given the huge potential of the internet troll we will eventualy also hit 'Peak Troll' as at first the troll produces a stream of uninformed nonsense at an exponential rate, eventually this rate falls and we hit secondary production, where the troll repeats the same points that were disproved previously. This time the trolls points are more rapidly refuted as all one has to do is look back and read the thread to find the answers. If we could use some sort of new technology to manage secondary troll spew production then we could increase the amount of energy that we extract from trolls. In the UK Peak troll discovery probably happened in 2005, yet there are many areas of the world that remain unexplored.

[TTID]

oil is somewhat different, large ships can transport oil very cheaply

but gas is hard to transport in any other method than pipes

Which is why we will be bringing gas from the middle east in ships. Did you see the links that I posted?

If ships were not the cheapest long range option, under the circumstances, there would be no point in spending billions of pounds building LNG terminals in the UK to offload the ships when they arrive with the gas.

LNG terminals are more complex than conventional gas terminals, because of the bulk storage requirements. There would be no point in investing this much in building LNG terminals if the cost was not offset by the cheaper cost of transporting the gas by ship, compared to installing and maintaining a pipeline from the gulf to the UK.

[fluffy666]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062-1884441,00.htm

Some people fail to take into account that the energy we use to mine uranium, refine uranium, store waste, build power stations and that the entire enegery infrastructure is almost completely dependent the supply of cheap energy primarily oil and natural gas.

They probably think that all the processes will be done by electric created by the nuclear power station, which they believe to be some kind of perpetual free enegery generator.

Well, if the energy produced by the reactor exceeds the input energy costs - which it does by a factor of 10-100 according to initial assumptions - then it does indeed generate net energy. I'm not sure why listing a large number of processes is meant to prove a point one way or another.

[Wlad]

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...

More likely from Norway. A new pipeline has been layed to help with this.

[Wlad]

oil/gas/coal is FINITE, but energy is near enough infinite! the mass in a meter cube of water can be theoriticlly turned into 3000 giga watts for a year. or enough to power the world current consumption of all energy for more than 3 years. so energy is near enough infinite

Theories are all very well, but without a technology to put the theories into practice that is practical and scalable and available in the correct time scales the theory is not very useful...

[Wlad]

there are tones and tones and tones of eranium to be mined, even if we where to run out of uranium in 10 years we now have breeder reactors. those reactors produce their own fuel so no worries from nuclear.

We don't have any commercial breeder designs ready to be rolled out. Also it's not much help for those existing reactors that are not breeder designs (i.e. all current commercial ones). An optimistic timescale would be about 20 years to design a commercially-viable fast breeder design, get it tested, build one, and have it operating.

[Wlad]

Current uranium reserves are estimated to be about 75 years worth at current levels of consumption (7% of primary energy). Sure - more will be found but uranium exploration and development of mines have gestation periods of many years as does the construction of nuclear power stations. Start doing the maths and anyone can see that nuclear in its present form cannot replace fossil fuels at the current level of usage.

I'd read that it is 30 years with current known reserves, 75 with projected reserves at current levels of consumption, but it is anticipated that usage will double over the next 15 years, meaning that a lot of new resources need to be find. It could be, though, that reports have confused 75 (at current levels of usage) with 30 years (at projected levels). If it is 75 years at current with current reserves that does give nuclear power some hope of being viable as baseload.

[cells]

Actually other than warming up coal fired power stations we use hardly any oil in power stations so nothing to save there.

we have an oil fired power plant where i work

it could easily be done with nuclear/ electricity/ coal ect

oil is injected into some blast furnaces, subsitute coal for that and you free up a lot of oil.

cars only use some 15% of global oil, so 85% can be offset with something else.

not to mention, cars can EASILY be transformed from oil to electricity.

I dont mean batteries, but think of dogems in a fair ground. electricity directly from the road to the car!

there are also some very good battery technologies being developed. we now have Li-ion batterys that can be charged in minutes instead of hours!

lots of universities are also working on nano capacitors, they would store the same amount of energy but charge up in seconds. think of a car with batteries or capacitors running along a road. Every 50miles you run over a strip which charges your car as you drive over it in a second

cars can move away from oil relatively easily if a goverment wanted it to be that way, no one wants to spend the money for the infistructure at the moment though. but if oil gets expensive enough then the market will provide it

then we have natural gas, like the one that heats most homes, and is used EXTENSIVELY in industry. That can easily be replaced by hydrogen, the infistructure is there right now.

the only problem is, natural gas is DIRT CHEAP, if there is a time when it is expensive enough we could use nuclear planets to make hydrogen and pump that in place of natural gas. Or use solar concentrators to make hydrogen ect

in summary.

Gas is EXTEAMLY easy to replace with hydrogen after a certain price is hit

oil is harder to replace. but cars can be made to run on electricity directly (batteries/capacitors) or indirectly (directly get the electricty through the road, like dogems)

electricity can easily be replaced

[enrieb]

Well, if the energy produced by the reactor exceeds the input energy costs - which it does by a factor of 10-100 according to initial assumptions - then it does indeed generate net energy. I'm not sure why listing a large number of processes is meant to prove a point one way or another.

The important point is that you have to find,mine, refine, transport the stuff and process it before you can extract energy from it.

These processes require the use of energy.

You don't just magic up a ton of refined uranium and say hey look at all the energy that it produces, you have to take into account the entire energy cost. Nuclear is a viable option to help with the transition, but the costs of nuclear energy will rise significantly as the price of oil rises.

[cells]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062-1884441,00.htm

The problem of course the rate at which we use energy is unsustainable.

yeh anything exponentially growing will fail at some point, but what makes you think our energy use will exponentially grow?

for one our world can only support a finite no of people so dont say the population will grow exponentially for ever!

[Guest Mr Parry]

If you cannot afford to fill your tank, you will not be able to fill your tank!

Time to get serious about energy efficiency.

How many of you have to drive hundreds of miles each week just to attend some nonsense meeting about nothing?

How many of you live in houses which, considering the price could have been designed with efficiency in mind, let alone actually being efficient?

How many could work from home, rather than going miles each day to some drab, miserable office?

For all this credit bubble/boom over the last ten years, we have made absolutely no progress. Most of the cash has effectively been landfilled.

[enrieb]

in summary.

Gas is EXTEAMLY easy to replace with hydrogen after a certain price is hit

oil is harder to replace. but cars can be made to run on electricity directly (batteries/capacitors) or indirectly (directly get the electricty through the road, like dogems)

electricity can easily be replaced

In summary you have absolutely no understanding of these subjects.

[cells]

Theories are all very well, but without a technology to put the theories into practice that is practical and scalable and available in the correct time scales the theory is not very useful...

oh shite, i suppose you never looked up at the sun

its not a theory, the sun produces energy via fusion. There are fusion reactors on EARTH THAT WORK RIGHT NOW. they however only run for bursts of a few minutes at the moment. What we have to do to get net energy out of them is sustain them for longer periods of time.

[cells]

We don't have any commercial breeder designs ready to be rolled out. Also it's not much help for those existing reactors that are not breeder designs (i.e. all current commercial ones). An optimistic timescale would be about 20 years to design a commercially-viable fast breeder design, get it tested, build one, and have it operating.

we have had breeder reators since the 80s

http://www.jaea.go.jp/jnc/jncweb/02r-d/fast.html

[cells]

In summary you have absolutely no understanding of these subjects.

yeh your right, whats a physics degree worth these days?

whereas you get your information from where? scaremongering ill informed websites?

[cells]

the problem with global warming, with peak oil, with anti-globilism ect is that people follow herd mentallity

please watch this video to understand why you should ALWAYS use your own mind to decide things and not be herded by vested interests

[enrieb]

yeh your right, whats a physics degree worth these days?

whereas you get your information from where? scaremongering ill informed websites?

Are you claiming to have a degree in physics? or any sort of degree for that matter?

[fluffy666]

I'd read that it is 30 years with current known reserves, 75 with projected reserves at current levels of consumption, but it is anticipated that usage will double over the next 15 years, meaning that a lot of new resources need to be find. It could be, though, that reports have confused 75 (at current levels of usage) with 30 years (at projected levels). If it is 75 years at current with current reserves that does give nuclear power some hope of being viable as baseload.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

Actually, it's a bit more than that.. the repeated claim that uranium is seriously limited in abundance is one that does not hold under examination.

[huw]

More likely from Norway. A new pipeline has been layed to help with this.

The Qatar LNG pipeline runs near to where I live; it's been quite interesting watching the works proceed. Anyway, it's different from the recently-laid Norwegian one.

This bit from the linked BBC article is interesting:

For example, the pipeline's current LNG supplies, from nations including Qatar and Malaysia, are forecast to end in 25 years and there are no guarantees as to where the replacement gas will come from.

(edit: missing word)

Edited January 2, 2008 by huw

[cells]

Are you claiming to have a degree in physics? or any sort of degree for that matter?

Yes I have a degree in physics. I work in a steel plant, mainly to do with energy efficiency and design.

[enrieb]

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

Actually, it's a bit more than that.. the repeated claim that uranium is seriously limited in abundance is one that does not hold under examination.

Yes there is lots and lots of uranium in the world, but most of it is in concentrations that are too low to be economically viable and would require significantly higher energy prices to make these resources cost effective to mine. You do understand this very simple point don't you?

Edited January 2, 2008 by enrieb

[Pindar]

One of the major societal problems with bottom up demand destruction is the level of inequality it creates. Whilst a curtailment of leisure activities or opting for a smaller car is acceptable in most peoples minds when a certain proportion of the population are priced out of basic essentials - heat, shelter, food then we have the recipe for social disruption (French revolution, Russian Revolution, many of todays problems we see in Africa and elsewhere).

Why are wind farms not potentially viable? Denmark cooperates quite happily with Norway and Sweden (utlising their Hydro capacity) to demand balance wind supply? Indeed it is quite feasible that all 3 countries could go FF free using a mix of hydro, wind, and Nuclear. Likewise New Zealand is looking looking at supplying 35% of its power from wind - which will be load balanced using its considerable hydro electric resources.

Having lived on and sailed for a number years off north norfolk - I can assure you it is windy, often very windy for most of the time.

We did have a chance in the UK to generate 5% of our power from HEP. Unfortunately, the plans to damn the Severn were foiled by "environmentalists" who spouted some claptrap about marine biology (I mean, the Severn is a muddy old river that used to be part of the mainland thousands of years ago). This is what we are up against in the quest to go renewable - any scheme that is potentially beneficial will be blocked by so called experts on spurious grounds. I take my hat off to the Scandinavian countries for their economic cooperation (how it should be done) and their canny use of all their natural resources (lakes, mountains etc.) to better their future and provide for their people.