If "Everyone knows" something it must be true. Right? 7

[zdas04]

Since the 1960's one of the most precious theories in the world has been Peak Oil. From the first time I heard it in 1980 I have seen it drive investment decisions in sometimes inexplicable directions. When oil prices (and production) tanked in 1986 a lot of talking heads claimed that it was because of "Peak Oil" and prices were sure to rebound quickly because of supply and demand--prices stayed low for 15 years. The hypothesis of peak oil was promulgated in 1956 by M King Hubbert. It came with a Hubbert Curve and dire predictions of the world freezing in the dark. The Curve through 2010 looked like a pretty good fit for the data (with a peak in about 1975 and a secondary peak in 1986 caused by a run-up in prices).

In 2005, U.S. imports of oil were 70% of energy consumption and the Peak Oil guys were getting kind of smug. In the third 2012 Presidential Debate the sitting President said that "We are currently importing 20% of our energy demand". I hadn't looked at the numbers in several years, but that sounded wrong so I looked and his numbers were good. Demand is down slightly, but U.S. production of hydrcarbons is currently higher than the 1975 peak (crude is still only 2/3 of 1975 but it is increasing fast, natural gas is a bigger portion of the energy mix than it was in 1975 so the energy mix is 80% domestic).

Current estimates are that the new Shale Oil sources will make the U.S. a net exporter again by 2017. The Shale Oil resources are expected to increase Proved Developed Reserves in the U.S. from a current 20 billion barrels to something approaching 100 billion barrels in the next 5 years. These resources are far from unique in the world and similar shale plays in 20 countries currently do not have any significant development activity. We are not running out of oil any time soon.

Peak oil is pretty much considered a failed hypotheses after 50 years of guiding a progression of seriously stupid decisions. "Everybody" bought into it and "everybody" knows that increasing demand in an declining supply simply has to result in increasing prices. It is a model that is incredibly easy to internalize and you can even explain it to your Grandmother. It just isn't an accurate representation of a global phenomenon no matter how much we want to reduce a complex concept to a sound byte.

Hopefully it will not take 50 more years to put that other hypotheses that "everybody believes" and is "easy to internalize and can even be explained to one's grandmother" to rest. "Peak Oil" let the industry to carry too much debt and led to thousands of companies going under. "Anthropocentric Global Warming" is leading regulators down similar silly paths, but with much higher stakes.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[JohnRBaker]

With that in mind, one could say that today's coal and oil deposits are nothing more than Mother Nature's 'landfills' from the Carboniferous era.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[rb1957]

Leafs ? ... Go Marlies !! Go (gulp) Argos ?

 

[zdas04]

John,
That is not only a good analogy, it is also correct. Virtually all oil and gas deposits started out as dead tiny organisms mostly at sea, land fill from our perspective, graveyard from the perspective of the crill.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[GregLocock]

TenPenny-some Japanese landfills have a higher %age gold content than gold ore. People do know this.

In some respects all that plastic in a landfill is a raw material, burning it for heat is a waste.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SNORGY]

drawoh,

Anyone who suggests that the Leafs will win the cup - under any circumstances - earns a star, if only for sympathy. I'd give three stars if I could...but the last time that happened involving the Leafs was the night Daryl Sittler got something like ten points...that was a while ago.

As for the rest...

So, as I understand it, the world will be saved if we don't throw anything out, don't burn anything, and wait for smart people to come up with limitless quantities of cheap, renewable energy that cost nothing to exploit and create no waste by-products.

Let me know how that works out for everyone.

 

[TenPenny]

SNORGY, at least this year the Leafs are still tied for 1st overall!!!

 

[SNORGY]

Along with the Flames...

My best option at this point is to be gracious and benevolent...it's the whole "pot versus kettle" thing...

 

[TomDOT]

David: With currently deployed techniques, uranium is somewhat limited. Current reactors only use U235, which is 0.72% of naturally occouring uranium. Eventually this would become an issue if we went toward 100% nuclear electricity production.

If we deployed breeder reactors, suddenly all the U238 is useful as fuel (via slow neutron capture and beta decay U238 -> Pu239.) Fuel available goes up by two orders of magnitude.

If that's not enough, breeder reactors can also be built to use Thorium (via a similar slow neutron capture and beta decay Th232 -> U233) - about 4x as abundant as Uranium.

While it is a proven technology, we don't have much in the way of breeder reactors for a few reasons which come to mind immediately:

1) U235 is cheap for now and likely to remain so for decades to come, unless we see a radical shift in energy production.

2) Lots of inertia in the industry. Much easier to build modified versions of what you've had in place for decades rather than a radically new design. At the root, blame Admiral Rickover, as he was the true driving force for the current predominant rod-style light water reactor. Good choice for Naval ships.

3) Politics of nuclear non-proliferation. Breeder reactors require onsite (or nearsite) reprocessing/concentration of potentially exciting isotopes for each reactor site.

4) Hardly any new reactors are being built anyway.

 

[zdas04]

I haven't worked in Nuclear Power for 35 years so the details are a touch fuzzy (Help me Patricia if you are reading this thread) to me, but as I recall it enrichment numbers were on the order of 12% U235 and 88% U238 in commercial reactors (I couldn't say what the number for Navy Reactors even if I remembered), but your point is valid--fission has zero chance of growing very far or very fast. In the '70's every time my (nuclear powered) ship pulled into a port other than our home port (and sometimes there) we had anti-nuclear picketers behaving very ugly towards us (I was spat upon more times that I want to remember and I was hit with signs several times). That outrageous mind set is what drove me out of that industry (minor point) and stifeled investment in fusion power generation facilities (major point). Three-mile island (which was actually a pretty successful demonstration of the layers of protection for the community, but was seen as a "disaster") drove the nail in the coffin of nuclear power for over 30 years. Now it is sexy again, but my look at the logistics, permitting, and resource availability makes me think that it is just about at the peak (on a percentage basis) proportion of total energy demand that it will ever see.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[KENAT]

"Now it is sexy again"

Well, up until last March anyway. I suspect fear from Fukishima trumps fear over AGW for the foreseeable future.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[cranky108]

If I recall correctly, it was TMI, that led to the discovery of radon in many homes in the area. That so called problem at TMI, has started the whole radon testing , and midigation industry.

My thoughts are, if they don't like coal, nucular, oil, and natural gas, then we should let them watch wood TV (no whale oil either).
I feel ticked off by all the "we can't use that because..." stuff. Give a workable solution or shut up. The problem is these people just want to complain (not all of them, but a noticable number of them).

Maybe we just don't know how to identify what zombies look like.

If I have a point, it is stop the negitivity, and give a positive workable solution. And by workable, I mean scaleable nation wide, not just one city, or county.

 

[patprimmer]

Cranky I basically agree to a point, but if we never felt discontent we would not look elsewhere until after a solution was found which never would be because we would never look because we where not discontent.

I know not strictly true as we find things from pure chance and natural curiosity, but seeing shortcomings first, motivates us to then look harder.

I guess the difference is how the complaint is expressed.

ie, there are bad side effects to this. Can we find a way to improve vs there are bad side effects, so ban it without thought of the even worse consequences.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[JohnRBaker]

Unfortunately commercial breeder reactors have a very poor history here in the US. In fact, the only one ever built almost melted-down (the term 'China syndrome' was coined as a result of this incident).

Fermi I was a sodium-cooled, fast-breeder reactor put in service in 1963 just south of Detroit, near Monroe, MI. Three years later it suffered an accident which caused the core to partially melt due to problems halting the reaction after a cooling system failure.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucacc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Interesting side note: back in 1960 when I was 13 years old, my cousin was working at the Fermi I plant while it was under construction and he managed to get us (me and my parents) a VIP tour of the facility. We were actually allowed to enter the containment vessel and see where the reactor fuel rods were eventually going to be installed. Remember, this was back when the public was being told that nuclear power was going to produce so much energy as such low cost that there might come a day where homes wouldn't even have meters, you'd just pay a simple flat-rate each month no matter how much power you used. And then add to that this idea that breeder reactors would produce MORE fuel than they consumed, a sort of modern-day perpetual-motion 'machine', which promised some sort of glorious future that the scientists and engineers, to say nothing of the utility owners, could only dream of.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[cranky108]

I think once we all look at the problem we want to solve, we will find there are several solutions than can contribuite. Not all of them perfect, but can make a contribution.
Like the power industry today, there is not one technology that provides all the nations energy, but several technology's and fuels that work to provide all the current energy mix. That is the solution.

What I have an issue with is goverment mandated disruptive technology. I am not opposed to solar power as it fills in nicely with human activity, and as long as it remains a low percentage (the term 30 MW cloud was developed to describe solar effects to weather). Wind energy is disruptive, as it does not follow human activity, and is not as perdictable (except it happens mostly at night when it is not needed).

Most of the energy on the grid needs to be controllable as far as how much and when, to keep the grid stable. and so far coal and gas are the only two sources that are able to do that. I would include hydro, but it is such a small percentage. Gas was on it's way to leading the grids generation years ago, but a shortage cut that short.