Peak Oil - myth or reality ?

[mikepepler]

Originally Posted by andysmee

To finally add salt to the wounds, we have an economic system that is based on cheap energy inputs and taking on debt. Debt is usually required to be repaid with interest which again means each year we have to make and earn more to repay what we borrowed the year before. We are faced with a breakdown of the entire economic system.

For an easy to watch and informative cartoon on this, see here:
Money As Debt

Mike

[ElephantsGerald]

Although there may be plenty of oil left in oil tar sands there are a couple of problems:

1. Its going to be really expensive (and energy intensive) to extract and process.
2. The levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere are already way too high; just because theres still plenty of oil around doesn't make burning it a good idea.

On the subject of Nuclear, there are also problems:

1. We have no idea how to deal with waste thats toxic for 1000's of years. Don't believe anyone who says it can be buried in geologically stable holes in the ground. Its a lie. Theres nowhere on the planet that can be guaranteed geologically stable over that sort of timescale.
2. Nuclear fuel is extracted from uranium ores which have to be mined and processed, a very energy intensive process which uses lots of oil fueled excavation equipment.
3. Theres not that much uranium ore around anyway, only enough to last a few decades if the whole world starts using nuclear as their main means of power generation.

Rant, rant, rant.

Regards,

Elephants

[flecc]

Originally Posted by ElephantsGerald

On the subject of Nuclear, there are also problems:

1. We have no idea how to deal with waste thats toxic for 1000's of years. Don't believe anyone who says it can be buried in geologically stable holes in the ground. Its a lie. Theres nowhere on the planet that can be guaranteed geologically stable over that sort of timescale.
2. Nuclear fuel is extracted from uranium ores which have to be mined and processed, a very energy intensive process which uses lots of oil fueled excavation equipment.
3. Theres not that much uranium ore around anyway, only enough to last a few decades if the whole world starts using nuclear as their main means of power generation.

Rant, rant, rant.

Regards,

Elephants

1) Australia for example has been, is, and will be stable for many thousands of years, and quite probably to when this planet ends. In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life. That's why we happily store our waste above ground in this small island at no danger to anyone. The quantities involved even with the whole world on nuclear are tiny relative to this planet's size, and easily dealt with. They could just stay above ground in the many useless remote deserts we have and will always have.

2) At present yes. But plenty of nuclear power will see such equipment, like all transport, running on hydrogen, it's waste product water.

3) But then the valuable huge stockpiles of waste, especially the cold war stuff and the vast spoil from uranium mining will carry on for many decades more by using fast breeder reactors. Not quite as economic now, but it will then. By then in a couple of hundred years we may well have cracked nuclear fusion which could take over, but what happens then is for the people of that time to deal with. Past generations have never planned far ahead for future ones, and neither should we, and I think we have become somewhat arrogant in this respect.

In summary the objections are not a problem.

However, in parallel I believe that the real most urgent problem the world faces must be dealt with as well, containing and then reducing the world population to more nearly match the resources.
.

[JohnInStockie]

Originally Posted by flecc

1) Australia for example has been, is, and will be stable for many thousands of years, and quite probably to when this planet ends. In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life. That's why we happily store our waste above ground in this small island at no danger to anyone. The quantities involved even with the whole world on nuclear are tiny relative to this planet's size, and easily dealt with. They could just stay above ground in the many useless remote deserts we have and will always have.

Flecc, I can certainly see your argument here, and it is very practical, but where this falls down is when you consider terrorism. All you would need is a group of terrorists to intercept a transport and ....

The waste is still a problem.

I am not happy at all that we store our waste as we do. All we need is a 9/11 attack on one of these stores and we could have a major disaster on our small island. I dont think that we should use technologies that we cannot use cleanly anymore, it simply doesnt do us any good at all and give us a headache 'down the road'. It has to be a part of any long term plan to move away from these.

John

[flecc]

Terrorist attacks on PWR nuclear stations have already been shown to be not a problem, and I don't consider attacks on stored waste could possibly be a problem. What remains of the higher level waste after five years under water is vitrified in a manner that would take vast quantities of explosive to split open a few cylinders, the waste being distributed throughout the solid glass means the parts are no more dangerous than the whole. The tiny amount of the aftermath would be cleared with ease and couldn't possibly present any danger to anyone not actually pressing up against it.

Again an imaginary problem I'm afraid, having no possible attraction to a terrorist group.

Sorry John, but all the anti nuclear arguments commonly heard are based on fallacies or the earliest nuclear technology which is no longer used as it was originally.

Academic anyway of course, we are at last going to get it I'm pleased to say, and with time the antis will be pleased to use the resulting electricity. I'm just annoyed that we didn't go ahead in the 1970s and '80s thanks to the anti movement.
.

[Footie]

Originally Posted by flecc

.... I'm just annoyed that we didn't go ahead in the 1970s and '80s thanks to the anti movement.

Totally agree with you flecc - never had anytime for the anti nuclear bunch then or now.
Probably find the one's that shouted the loudest are all millionaires now (big shares in BP, ESSO, etc)
We are all going to pay for those idiotic political decisions based on emotion instead of logic
.

[JohnInStockie]

Sorry guys I have to disagree. If we cant deal with the waste then we shouldnt use it. And that stands for everything in my book. This idea that, 'we can deal with the problem after I am dead' is just wrong.

I understand that nuclear power stations generally produce about 100Kgs of waste per day. Not a lot, and as Flecc says, IF encased in glass then it SHOULDNT be a problem. But how much glass does it take to render this 100KGs of radioactive waste RELATIVELY harmless, perhaps 1KG waste to 100Kg glass, so 10,000KG of glass, per day, per reactor?

I dont trust that all countries around the world will adopt such measures to deal with their waste either, and even if every single one did, thats going to be one hell of a stockpile after 25 years of growing energy demands!!

There is no easy answer, but we wont find it if we arent looking, and we should be putting all our eggs in this basket.

John

[ElephantsGerald]

Originally Posted by flecc

1) In any case, this objection contains the myth of danger and longevity. Long lived wastes are not highly toxic, highly toxic wastes are short lived, the higher the toxicity, the shorter the life.
.

I have to disagree that long-lived wastes are not highly toxic, they're just toxic in a different way.

Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,110 years. Radiation from Plutonium-239 comes primarily from the emission of Alpha particles, which only travel short distances (less than a metre), but will cause extreme damage to any living tissue they pass through. Contamination of water courses through leakage of this type of material would be extremely hazardous. Transporting this stuff around by road, rail or sea is very safe... unless an accident results in broaching of the containment vessels. Burying it is extremely safe... as long as the setting is geologically stable for several 10's of 1000's of years, and as long as the containers in which the waste is sealed remain intact for those 10's of 1000's of years.

Heres a quote from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Radioactive Waste Project:
Irradiated nuclear fuel rods discharged from commercial nuclear power plants are highly radioactive, a million times more so than when they were first loaded into a reactor core as “fresh” fuel. If unshielded, irradiated nuclear fuel just removed from a reactor core could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to a person standing three feet away in just seconds. Even after decades of radioactive decay, a few minutes unshielded exposure could deliver a lethal dose. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millenia.

Highly radioactive wastes are dangerous and deadly wherever they are, whether stored at reactor sites (indoors in pools or outdoors in dry casks); transported on the roads, rails, or waterways; or dumped on Native American lands out West.

Regards,

Elephants

[john]

We, and the planet are in a mess because we are using the planet unsustainably, due both to our number and way of life. And climate change is by no means the only problem caused by this. Is it sensible therefore to turn to nuclear fission, yet another unsustainable technology with it's own consequential problems? There may be a short term argument for nuclear in some countries, but Britain has much greater renewable resources than many. If we don't embrace renewables then who will? So lets show the rest of the world the way to go.

[mikepepler]

Flecc's right when he mentions population. Our environmental impact as nations and as a species in general is the product of the way we way and the number of us. If population keeps rising, our use of resources must fall. If use of resources (whether that's oil, gas, phosphorous, etc.) is forced to fall due to scarcity then war and famine become more serious risks.

Remember that all artificial nitrogen fertiliser is made from natural gas, and the price of that is rocketing...