mikelbonin -

Interesting post.  But what happens when your beliefs do not turn out to be the facts?

Crash Course cited historical decisions because they were factual and a reasonable starting point to frame future challenges to implementing widespread use of nuclear power.  And by the time we are all walking and biking to work or the markets, you could give the President a liquid helium cooled pen and it would be fruitless.  We need to be working on sustainable and renewable energy solutions yesterday.  Not when there is political capital to be had. 

I have 20 years experience in the operations and maintenance of nuclear power plants and the logistics support and level of training required to make such operations feasible and safe are beyond the abilitiy of untrained personnel.  This is not like pulling out the users manual for the new mocrowave.  It takes years of training to get an operator just to safely operate at a functional level of proficiency.  We don't even need to discuss the safeguarding of fissile material.

The short answer is no.

If you had been at the Lowesville seminar you would have a crystal clear understanding that the "life altering" changes Chris and Becca and many others of us have made in our lives have instead of making us poorer, have made us far richer.  Regardless of whether the collapses outlined in the 3E scenarios play out or not.

I'm 100% with Chris here.....  Poorer?  Are you KIDDING???  I've never been wealthier since I gave up my car......  bottomless black holes the lot of them.  I'm now so rich, I stopped working.  Well not for the economy anyhow.....  I work for MEEEE.

Even if you offered me oneof those "economically viable single home nuclear generators" for free...  I wouldn't have one!  It would probably encourage me to do something really stupid like buy a plasma screen TV.  Oh wait....  I'd have to go to work to get one!  Fuggedaboudit.

Re the Fischer – Tropsch process:  have you stopped to think WHY Hitler and the Japanese lost the war?

At the time of WWII, the USA was the world's largest oil producer by a long shot.  None of the super giant oil fields in the Middle East had been discovered even.....  And why do you think Hitler invaded Nth Africa and Russia?  It certainly wasn't for the deserts and freezing winters, now was it, and the same applies to why the Japanese invaded Malaysia and Indonesia, riddled with mosquito infested jungles.  No my friend, they needed OIL.

So why did we win WWII?  The West had America and its oil on our side.  Oil won the war.  You can keep your Fischer – Tropsch process, its ERoEI is way too poor to keep modern society going, a society far more reliant on energy that that of the 1940's.

Mike

One other thing....  IF freely/easily available energy was available as you believe, this would allow population to continue growing, and growing EXPONENTIALLY.  Freely/easily available energy also allows Freely/easily available consumption, which would also allow for exponential growth of the extraction of all other resources.  The end result MUST be we run out of 'stuff' even faster....

Then, we have EVEN MORE people to deal with who don't have 'stuff' to keep them going, not least FOOD....  because ultimately it's FOOD that is the most important source of energy to humans!

"Humanity's greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the exponential function"  Pr Albert Bartlett.

Mike

I stand corrected. I should have acknowledged that wealth has many definitions. My definition of wealth includes riding our quads to otherwise inaccessible areas so we can hike, camp, swim, and gather wood for the evening fire. Enjoying the wonderful riches of this great land and life can be enhanced by technology. It is a shame some use their riches to sit on their fat a$$es. I use mine to experience more. Yes, I believe aspects of my life would be richer were it not for my car but on balance, my life would be poorer.

I neither read nor wish to debate Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book, The Population Bomb. I don't plan to read the report you cite written in 1972. The book has been completely discredited mainly due to the absolute inability to predict human, environmental, and/or technological reaction to particular stimuli. Population growth has followed a strong linear pattern, not exponential. My guess is the report has probably enjoyed much the same fate. See computer generated global warming models for an example of our utter failure to properly account for the unimaginable variables of such dynamic systems as the earth or human behavior.

Not looking to discuss nuclear power and the reasons it won't work. I am merely stating a belief that technology will, within 40 years, give us safe, maintenance free power on a personal level as an assumptive basis from which to extrapolate the consequences of the changes advocated by Chris.

It appears the answer to my question "...how does the life-altering scenario play out if the predicted energy crisis doesn't pan out..." is "Altering your lifestyle in this manner will make you healthier, happier, and more self-sufficient." I have no problem with that as long as it doesn't get written into law.

Keep up the good advocacy work.

Not looking to discuss nuclear power and the reasons it won't work. I am merely stating a belief that technology will, within 40 years, give us safe, maintenance free power on a personal level as an assumptive basis from which to extrapolate the consequences of the changes advocated by Chris.

Yes, that is exactly correct, you are stating a belief and I am glad you framed it as such.  I place the belief in technology as among the toughest to dislodge with facts and reason because for many it is the strongest belief they hold in their lives.  For some it is based on a lifetime of observation ("Technology always advances to save the day!") and for others it is a form of denial ("I refuse to believe in a more difficult future, technology will save the day!").

However, to get others to share your belief in technology, you could use facts and logical arguments to bolster your case.  Many times I have gone at the problem of trying to find some combination of alternative or new technologies that could replace our current fossil fuel base load and many times I have been rebuffed by simple math.

Of course, this discussion has taken place many times on this site to I will merely lift some copy from an old thread to illustrate the gap that exists between a belief in technology and its practical application.

Breeder reactors?

I am still patiently awaiting word on how those will actually be deployed.  And I don't mean in a thought-piece in Scientific American. 

I mean the real world where concerns over fissile material are real and where lag times, resources, and capital concerns are factored into build-out scenarios.

To my knowledge there have been two actual breeder reactors built - SuperPhoenix in France and a test plant in Japan.  Both are now more or less decommissioned due to numerous accidents and a failure to demonstrate the sort of unlimited power that they were hoped to deliver.

My goal for this site is to have good, solid, fact-driven debates that conform to reality and make liberal use of numbers and knowns.

So in the case of breeder reactors I think we've heard quite enough about how great they are and are ready for the next level of that discussion.  

Please take the time to add up a few numbers (like Switters has done for nuclear). 

• How many will be needed? 
• How much do they cost? 
• How will the security issues be handled? 
• Where will the fissile material come from?   Who will control it?
• What's the build-out schedule (how many need to be built per year)?
• Who will do the building?  How many skilled workers do they have?
• Assuming we are now moving to an electric society, what sorts of changes to our transportation and electric infrastructure will be needed?  How much will this cost?  How long will it take to get there?

In my case when I run these questions through my rough understanding of how the world works I come up with answers like "$$$ trillions" and "decades".

Which means I see an energy dip in our future and then I wonder how an economy based on perpetual growth gets through that period with enough gas in the tank to build out all these super-duper, massively capital intensive projects.

Everything comes to TIME, SCALE and COST with a shortage of skills sets and sometimes rare materials lurking within the SCALE attribute for most game-changing technologies.

Hi Mike and welcome,

I have a curiosity question for you pertaining to your little quote at the bottom.

'Hi everyone. I'm new to the site and was just wondering. What if you're wrong? What then?''

Is this question ment to play 'devils advocate?' Not that there isn't specifics within that could be debated (Inflation/deflation, or this forum as examples), but to flat out ask "what if your wrong?" all the while having what, at least to me, seem to be pretty blatant facts that point to 'the next 20 years being completely different than the last.' Tie that into all the recent events and we seem to hitting the nitrous button in the race to disaster (what ever one believe's it to be).

Like I said, I am simply curious.

Welcome again,

Mike (there are a bunch of us 'mike's' here...)

Amen ready, I would rather look a tad foolish, than the latter. Besides, I'd be a 'fool' that would have to do very little shopping for many items for a long time lol. Talk about saving time, and money.....

I will say that all the changes I have made in my life due to this site and everything I have read and studied have been very positive. I am still working on these changes, and it is awesome...everything from a garden, to solar panels, to PM's. I wouldn't change it for the world...

Mike

Welcome again.

Before I "pile" on I need to ask a couple of questions:

1.  Where do you sit with regards to the material presented in Crash Course? 

2.  Based on what you were exposed to in Crash Course, what do you think is going to be the minimum that is going to happen?

Now to your signature question - I can afford to be wrong.  At the very least I am ready for the next hurricane or ice storm that knocks power out for a few weeks.

I have already been on both sides of the issues.  It would appear that you aren't there yet - keep at it - there are lots of people in here who are ready and willing to answer your questions.

So I think the real question that needs to be asked is "What if mikelbonin is wrong?"

"I don't plan to read the report you cite written in 1972. The book has been completely discredited mainly due to the absolute inability to predict human, environmental, and/or technological reaction to particular stimuli"

Oh really?  Did you look at those old graphs?  From where I sit, they look.....  BANG ON!  Yes the Report has been DENIGRATED many many times, but never has it been DISCREDITED, which is NOT the same thing.

"Population growth has followed a strong linear pattern, not exponential."  Mike, have you even LOOKED at the Crash Course?  Exponential growth is caused by something, in this case population, growing a certain percentage every year.  And every year, population grows by another 1% or so.  So by definition, population growth IS exponential, whether you believe otherwise or not.....

Humanity's greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the exponential function.  Pr Albert Bartlett.

So far, your result for the CC is an F!

Mike

Coal supply may be vastly overestimated

Wednesday, 13 May 2009 Michael Reilly http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/05/13/2569143.htm
Discovery News

Worldwide coal production could plateau as early as 2025, according to one new estimate (Source: Mick Tsikas/Reuters)

Related Stories

• The price of peak fuel, Science Online, 06 May 2009
• The end of oil - supply and viability, Science Online, 23 Mar 2009
• Crude: The Incredible Journey of Oil

The world's coal supply suggests reserves may be vastly overestimated and we could be facing an unprecedented global energy crisis, according to a US expert.

On the flip side, a dwindling supply of coal could also throw the brakes on global warming, some argue.

Common knowledge about coal is that major producing nations like China, the United States and Australia, have enough to last hundreds of years, far beyond the reach of oil, which may already be in its twilight years.

But worldwide coal production could plateau as early as 2025, according to one new estimate, and a growing group of scientists are concerned that fossil fuel supplies may begin dwindling by mid-century.

Last year, David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology analysed the coal production patterns of five regions around the world - eastern Pennsylvania, France, Germany's Ruhr Valley, the United Kingdom and Japan - each of which was producing at less than a tenth of its peak levels.

He found that each of the depleted regions followed a rough bell curve of production; initial production was followed by a steep ramp-up, a plateau near peak levels, and then a consistent decline.

When he applied the same formula to coal data from around the world, the results were startling.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's maximum estimate for extractable coal is about 3000 billion tonnes. Rutledge's calculations suggest just 600 billion tonnes.

The problem with the IPCC estimate is that it lumps coal reserves, which are easy to mine, with coal resources, which may be impossible to mine.

Time for rethink

Rutledge's study also shows that, historically, national governments in the five regions have overestimated their reserves by a factor of four on average.

"These appraisals are large-scale issues," he says. "But they're done by governments. What's the incentive for governments not to give a number that is too high?"

James Murray of the University of Washington agrees.

In a talk being presented later this month at the American Geophysical Union Joint Assembly, he plans to call for a re-evaluation of IPCC emissions scenarios, all 40 of which overstate humanity's ability to emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, according to Rutledge's numbers.

The committee's projections predict CO2 levels in the atmosphere to approach 500 parts per million by 2050, if emissions continue on their current trend.

But Rutledge's work suggest that even if humans burn all the coal and oil we can get our hands on, we won't be able to push CO2 past 450 ppm. Oil sands and other unconventional fossil fuels probably won't add much to that total.

Murray and Rutledge diverge on the question of climate effects, though.

Using IPCC models, Rutlgedge argues that global temperatures won't get higher than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, at the lower end of what scientists think might spark 'dangerous' climate change.

"We're still going to have global warming, and it's a serious threat," says Murray. "I have no doubt the IPCC dramatically underestimates climate sensitivity."

Regardless of climate impacts, the concern over looming energy scarcity may be more acute than ever.

"I think we'll see peak coal somewhere between 2025 and 2035," says Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute in California. "This has huge economic implications. Without growth in our energy supplies, it's very difficult to see how we're going to grow the economy."

Well, its good to hear that your doing the research to come up with the way you feel about it. My questions were not ment to attack, I was sincerely curious at the basis for the question, thats all.

I look forward to conversing with you on all areas of this in the future  

Mike

A Glut of Bum Data

by Matthew Simmons

For the last several months, I have been baffled at the widespread impression that the United States has suddenly created a serious natural gas glut thanks to the miracle of abundant shale gas plays cropping up all over the place. I now realize I had probably underestimated the remarkable growth we have seen in Barnett Shale gas and the emergence of Haynesville gas and the other shale plays. At first glance, these plays are very impressive. However, they require an exponential increase in drilling and fracing as each individual well has a high decline rate once it begins production.

But I still questioned whether the growth I read about for the past few months – as much as 8 to 9 percent – could really be right, given how high the decline rates have become for almost the entire U.S. gas production base. Moreover, real-time decline-rate data is notoriously hard to capture, even for many important producers.

When the major gas players all reported their 2008 U.S. natural gas production, I finally began smelling what seemed to be a stinking rat: the fact that the top 10 superstar domestic natural gas producers grew their total gas by only 8 percent more than the major gas oil company gas producers declined. Thus, to justify the wild claims by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that natural gas supply had grown so high, all the small, privately owned independents would have to have grown their gas production twice as high as the top 10 superstars. That is a claim I had a hard time swallowing.

In early April, the EIA came out with a clumsy announcement that its key gas supply report – the so-called EIA-914 production data, which samples a wide number of real gas producers of the real wet gas they actually produce each month – had some technical glitches and was being adjusted. The organization then released a detailed report of the methodology it adopted in 2005 to try to get a better handle on real supply. You have to read this report carefully to appreciate its bizarre nature. Fortunately for the EIA, relatively few people actually read the data.

Now I see that according to the latest EIA-914 report through January 2009, total growth of wet gas, quite different from dry gas, grew by 2.7 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) between January 2008 and January 2009. However, the only regions that significantly grew their gas produced over the past 12 months were Texas – an obvious candidate, given the strong production growth of the Barnett Shale, which accounted for most of the U.S. net gas production growth – and the “other states” (excluding such players as Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming) outside the Federal Offshore. These “other states,” according to the EIA model, grew their total gas produced by 1.37 bcf/d, 70 percent of what Texas did (see Figure 1).

We are in the early stages of crushing the natural gas industry because prices have collapsed. They collapsed because we obviously had a massive supply glut. Now supply will soon plummet as the rigs drilling for gas are off 50 percent.

What a tragedy we are facing because we had bum data! This might be far more painful than the International Energy Agency’s famed “missing barrel” mistake of 1997-1999, when a new “missing barrels” category was created to account for an imbalance in supply estimates and reality.

I have been pleading for ages for our oil and gas system either to ignore EIA data or to genuinely reform the data-collection system. Might this be the sad endgame of what was never done?

This is a very sad story in my opinion.

If the American Dream involves reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I suggest that a year or two from now, our natural gas supply might collapse to the tune of 20 to 30 percent. Call it an American Nightmare. I hope for the sake of all of us that my analysis is wrong.

Matthew R. Simmons is the chairman and CEO of Simmons & Co. International and the author of Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.

I have an idea about both... but they're beliefs - not facts, and quite frankly, I have enough distrust that I consider all these bold platitudes "guilty until proven innocent".

That is to say, I don't believe him, and he'd better show up with more than words quick if he wants to make a difference.

The language used mirrors that used by oilmen and afficianados: "We're awash", "...enough for the foreseeable future", while these things sound nice - they're not specific. For example, do they take into account the growing population?
The increased demand as infrastructure deteriorates? How about the rest of the world? Is their demand for oil going to drop off too, or will this ultimately lead to more proxy, interventionist wars to secure allied oil fields?

This isn't an answer - it's a complex path with a lot of potential pitfalls and growing pains involved.
I don't disagree, but the sad truth is we're a society built far too high with far too weak of a foundation realizing far too late that gravity applies to all equally.

Cheers,

Aaron

Thanks for posting that. Somewhere I have that book buried away. It is good to see how accurate it is really considering the problems involved.

Anyone who holds that humans can go on increasing in number and use of energy with no consequences and that technology will save us, has absolutely no grasp of physics and mathematics. The bad news is that unfortunately the vast majority of humans fall into that category. The good news is that if solutions are properly worked out and pushed into action, they will follow like sheep.