Peak Oil and Adelaide

[duke]

I have always been a follower of the Peak Oil theory and what it means to us. It seems that in recent months its finally been getting more mainstream attention.

There was just a episode of Eco Report on Sky News which had half the show talking about Peak Oil and its reality.
The episode will be repeated this week.
There will also be a audio podcast available for the sky news website ( http://skynews.com.au/podcast I am not sure if its been updated yet )

For anyone that doesn't know what Peak Oil is

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, an energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically. M. King Hubbert first used the theory in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, has since been used to predict the peak petroleum production of many other countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.

Peak Oil is NOT that we have run out of oil. Peak Oil is that supply can not meet demand.

Supply has not increased since about 2005.
We currently consume about 80 million barrels a day
By 2030 going by historical growth rates we will demand 120 million barrels a day
Based on current data we will only be able to produce 40 million barrels a day in 2030

I am not some dooms day person giving up and going to live in a bunker on a remote farm. I think Peak Oil has a lot of advantages in terms of no more money going over seas and better for the environment and better cities. But we need to act now.
Our public transport needs to be fixed. We need fast, reliable and frequent public transport to all our suburbs.

We need to get rid of the stupid height restrictions so we can get a much higher density in the CBD. We need high rise buildings in major suburban centres in places like Modbury around Tea Tree Plaza and the same around Marion. High Rise apartments with major public transport links.

We need to force Holden to produce more fuel efficient cars and hybrid cars. IF Peak Oil does hit, Holden in Adelaide will be gone. All those people will be out of jobs which will create huge problems for this state.


Thoughts?

[Wayno]

Uranium is of course one of the alternative energy sources. One day we'll all have zippy little cars powered by tiny reactors fill up once every 100,000km!

However there are already "Peak Uranium" concerns as well ==> http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm

[duke]

Uranium is of course one of the alternative energy sources. One day we'll all have zippy little cars powered by tiny reactors fill up once every 100,000km!

However there are already "Peak Uranium" concerns as well ==> http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm

Don't crash or you will level a small city


Yeah Peak Uranium, Peak Coal, Peak Phosphorous. If you listen to the doomers we should just kill ourselves now. Sure they may be a reality one day but we can't give up. If we can harness a renewable source of energy then we can potentially do anything. Chemists, scientists can produce so many raw things these days the only limiting factor is energy. I think we need a big push to get solar farms in. The type with the reflective mirrors on to towers. We need a massive government initiative like what we had years ago getting electricity and phones across Australia.

[Wayno]

Uranium is of course one of the alternative energy sources. One day we'll all have zippy little cars powered by tiny reactors fill up once every 100,000km!

However there are already "Peak Uranium" concerns as well ==> http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm

Don't crash or you will level a small city


Yeah Peak Uranium, Peak Coal, Peak Phosphorous. If you listen to the doomers we should just kill ourselves now. Sure they may be a reality one day but we can't give up. If we can harness a renewable source of energy then we can potentially do anything. Chemists, scientists can produce so many raw things these days the only limiting factor is energy. I think we need a big push to get solar farms in. The type with the reflective mirrors on to towers. We need a massive government initiative like what we had years ago getting electricity and phones across Australia.

hot rocks have huge potential.

[monotonehell]

Bottom line is anything that we have to dig up will run out eventually. We've passed peak oil if you pay attention to the facts of the matter. Even with new fields coming online and desperation extraction like oil shale and coal liquification, as the cost of production is exceeded by demand inflating the price; the cost of using oil products will add (already is) greatly to the cost of living. Factoring in India and China (which a few years ago peak oil calculations didn't factor) makes the point move back even further.

From now on, oil, coal and uranium will cost more as demand goes up.

We can turn to uranium and develop a way to convert it to mobile energy to run our transport and freight, but it still suffers from being a finite resource.

Why does the economy insist on finite energy resources instead of working toward real renewable energy solutions? Simple, making money relies on someone holding the means of production, our World economy is based on the mining resource model, the big end of town just isn't configured to understand an economic model based on virtual energy for free. It is possible, but our entire economic structure would need to be remodelled, and while there's still megabucks to be made with the old model, the powers that be aren't about to change it. Add to that the short term pain of the cost of change and things tend to entropy.

Things are slowly moving toward renewables, AGL for example is focusing on a hydro scheme and wind farms to try to greenwash their gas based power generation. But most of the efforts are token, or exploratory at best.

[Bulldozer]

The thing about Peak Oil is that it doesn't account for other sources of oil - tar sands, shale and coal. There are huge reserves of those things, but they aren't economical until oil hits a certain price. Even then, they won't be developed until all the cheaper to produce oil is consumed. One thing is for certain though, oil isn't going to be getting any cheaper!

As for Peak Uranium... I don't think that's going to be a problem anytime for the next few thousand years. That article doesn't cite any sources for its facts and figures and judging by its mention of ore grades of 0.01% not being viable I am guessing it's referencing the widely discredited Stormsmith paper.

Until the last few years there had been practically no exploration for Uranium reserves for something like 30 years. (Thanks to greenies for killing off nuclear energy, and the decommissioning of thousands of nuclear weapons flooding the market) Since the resurgence in exploration the known reserves have increased dramatically - Olympic Dam has doubled and there are other significant finds in SA and other places around the world. There are other known reserves that aren't economical at current prices, so as prices rise more will become economic and even more exploration will occur.

Reprocessing of spent fuel can drastically prolong the life of reserves - as the article correctly states only about 10% is discarded when reprocessing. What's interesting to note is that 10% of high-level waste extracted in reprocessing has a relatively short half-life - I'm not sure exactly but I have read in a few places that it's relatively safe after a few hundred years.

Plutonium extracted in the reprocessing can be blended with Uranium to make mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, but that stays hot for a lot longer after it goes through a reactor. The ultimate goal though is to put the Plutonium with the depleted Uranium left over from enrichment into a breeder reactor to burn it up and turn the depleted Uranium into fissile fuel for use in a normal reactor.

Then if we run out of Uranium before fusion is working we have Thorium... which is even more abundant than Uranium! The best thing about nuclear energy (Uranium) is not just that it's clean, but that the unmatched energy density means that a dramatic increase in the price of fuel corresponds to a small increase in the price of electricity.

[monotonehell]

What you say is correct, but you should think about the highlighted statements more...

The thing about Peak Oil is that it doesn't account for other sources of oil - tar sands, shale and coal. There are huge reserves of those things, but they aren't economical until oil hits a certain price. Even then, they won't be developed until all the cheaper to produce oil is consumed. One thing is for certain though, oil isn't going to be getting any cheaper!

As for Peak Uranium... I don't think that's going to be a problem anytime for the next few thousand years. That article doesn't cite any sources for its facts and figures and judging by its mention of ore grades of 0.01% not being viable I am guessing it's referencing the widely discredited Stormsmith paper.

Until the last few years there had been practically no exploration for Uranium reserves for something like 30 years. (Thanks to greenies for killing off nuclear energy, and the decommissioning of thousands of nuclear weapons flooding the market) Since the resurgence in exploration the known reserves have increased dramatically - Olympic Dam has doubled and there are other significant finds in SA and other places around the world. There are other known reserves that aren't economical at current prices, so as prices rise more will become economic and even more exploration will occur.

Reprocessing of spent fuel can drastically prolong the life of reserves - as the article correctly states only about 10% is discarded when reprocessing. What's interesting to note is that 10% of high-level waste extracted in reprocessing has a relatively short half-life - I'm not sure exactly but I have read in a few places that it's relatively safe after a few hundred years.

Plutonium extracted in the reprocessing can be blended with Uranium to make mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, but that stays hot for a lot longer after it goes through a reactor. The ultimate goal though is to put the Plutonium with the depleted Uranium left over from enrichment into a breeder reactor to burn it up and turn the depleted Uranium into fissile fuel for use in a normal reactor.

Then if we run out of Uranium before fusion is working we have Thorium... which is even more abundant than Uranium! The best thing about nuclear energy (Uranium) is not just that it's clean, but that the unmatched energy density means that a dramatic increase in the price of fuel corresponds to a small increase in the price of electricity.

If the cost of oil goes up, inflation will go through the roof.
Relatively safe after a few hundred years is not clean.

[Bulldozer]

Yeah, increasing oil prices will drive inflation, but Germany ran on coal-to-liquids during WW2 and South Africa did so during apartheid so it's proven tech and is economic - it's just that it costs more to produce than pumping oil from the ground. (I believe there's a company looking to establish a coal-to-liquids project near Coober Pedy.)

Nuclear is clean. The higher the radioactivity, the shorter the half-life. 300 years is nothing on a geological timescale and at the waste decays to harmlessness. The waste is solid, and is blended with glass or can be turned into rock, so if an accident happens it's not going anywhere, can be picked up and isn't going to contaminate groundwater. Compare that to some of the nasty shit used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines that doesn't decay at all, or the tonnes of heavy metals (including Uranium) spewed into the air each year through the burning of coal. With nuclear energy, all the waste a reactor produces is stored on site. After reprocessing, the waste a reactor produces each year can actually fit into a few 44-gallon drums. If all the electricity you used over your life came from nuclear then your cut of the waste would easily fit into your coffee mug. Nothing else can come close to matching that for energy density.

[monotonehell]

Yeah, increasing oil prices will drive inflation, but Germany ran on coal-to-liquids during WW2 and South Africa did so during apartheid so it's proven tech and is economic - it's just that it costs more to produce than pumping oil from the ground. (I believe there's a company looking to establish a coal-to-liquids project near Coober Pedy.)

But look what happened to them!
Running on coal to liquids is a very dirty business. Clean coal is just a pipe dream at the moment, while sequestration is a farce.

Nuclear is clean. The higher the radioactivity, the shorter the half-life. 300 years is nothing on a geological timescale and at the waste decays to harmlessness. The waste is solid, and is blended with glass or can be turned into rock, so if an accident happens it's not going anywhere, can be picked up and isn't going to contaminate groundwater. Compare that to some of the nasty shit used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines that doesn't decay at all, or the tonnes of heavy metals (including Uranium) spewed into the air each year through the burning of coal. With nuclear energy, all the waste a reactor produces is stored on site. After reprocessing, the waste a reactor produces each year can actually fit into a few 44-gallon drums. If all the electricity you used over your life came from nuclear then your cut of the waste would easily fit into your coffee mug. Nothing else can come close to matching that for energy density.

There's clean and there's clean. Clean is if you can sleep in the same room as the output. Blending waste with glass/ceramic/rock is a proven technology (developed here in Australia) but the energy required to do it was found to be prohibitive, maybe that cost benefit will change in the future? Also don't confuse trapped in a latice with inert, Synroc trapped waste is still radioactive and needs to be stored somewhere - for around 300 years. How many corporations or governments think along those time scales?

The thing with nuclear energy and the environment is you need to consider the complete life cycle of the fuel, from mining, to producing the fuel rods (or similar) to running the fuel, reprocessing, post processing and finally storage and disposal. Every stage produces some kind of radioactive gas, liquid or solid. Talking about the end product only as only a mug full per person doesn't take into account the rest of the process. If you start with a tonne of ore and only end up with a small amount of matter at the end of the process, that difference in mass had to go somewhere.

The biggest problem with nuclear is we still don't have an answer for the waste. France, the UK and the US are stockpiling it in above ground repositories as they don't know what to do with it.

You're quite right though, coal is a larger radioactive pollution source than uranium. But all manufacturing processes create some kind of toxicity, so talking about wind and solar device manufacture like that is a bit moot. You can't talk about any process without looking at the whole thing.

[Bulldozer]

The thing with nuclear energy and the environment is you need to consider the complete life cycle of the fuel,T from mining, to producing the fuel rods (or similar) to running the fuel, reprocessing, post processing and finally storage and disposal. Every stage produces some kind of radioactive gas, liquid or solid. Talking about the end product only as only a mug full per person doesn't take into account the rest of the process. If you start with a tonne of ore and only end up with a small amount of matter at the end of the process, that difference in mass had to go somewhere.

You must have failed or not studied Year 12 Physics, otherwise you would understand the meaning of E=mc^2 (unless they have dumbed it down since 1998)

The only question of importance is who will adopt nuclear energy first: SA or WA? I hope to hell that it is SA so that we can capture all the ancillary industry and expertise.

[monotonehell]

The thing with nuclear energy and the environment is you need to consider the complete life cycle of the fuel,T from mining, to producing the fuel rods (or similar) to running the fuel, reprocessing, post processing and finally storage and disposal. Every stage produces some kind of radioactive gas, liquid or solid. Talking about the end product only as only a mug full per person doesn't take into account the rest of the process. If you start with a tonne of ore and only end up with a small amount of matter at the end of the process, that difference in mass had to go somewhere.

You must have failed or not studied Year 12 Physics, otherwise you would understand the meaning of E=mc^2 (unless they have dumbed it down since 1998)

The only question of importance is who will adopt nuclear energy first: SA or WA? I hope to hell that it is SA so that we can capture all the ancillary industry and expertise.

I understand the relationship between matter and energy, and if you think that there is so little energy in the difference between those amounts of mass then it's you who doesn't grasp the theory. The point is that there's waste products at all stages of the process not just at the end. I could list them all for you, but it would be more efficient if you looked at Wikipedia. But a few examples are tailings from ore and the gasses from fuel rod production.

[omada]

There's another massive energy resource that SA has - Natural GAS. Unfortunately, we are much too busy selling this to the Chinese to make full use of it (also don't get this confused with LPG), it seems we rather prefer importing oil.

[Wayno]

There's another massive energy resource that SA has - Natural GAS. Unfortunately, we are much too busy selling this to the Chinese to make full use of it (also don't get this confused with LPG), it seems we rather prefer importing oil.

you are correct - and i've never really understood why we don't take more advantage of this. I think WA is much more advanced in this area...

[Aidan]

The only question of importance is who will adopt nuclear energy first: SA or WA? I hope to hell that it is SA so that we can capture all the ancillary industry and expertise.

Australia is so rich in renewable energy resources that we don't need nuclear energy - especially if our population continues to be anywhere near as low as it currently is! We're better off exporting the uranium to countries whose energy needs can't be economically met with renewables.

As for natural gas, a similar situation applies. Other countries are willing to pay the market price, which has followed the oil price upwards. That's why BG's trying to take over Origin.