Saudi oil reserves

[doodle]

It looks like like the Saudis cant back up their talk of keeping world oil supplies stabilized http://www.cnbc.com/id/46445698

Seems like the beginning stages of peak oil are starting to slowly appear...

The stunning thing when reading through blogs like gasbuddy.com is that a large majority of the posters seem to think it is inconceivable that dwindling supplies of oil could be causing high prices at pump...

Most are convinced that it is either 1) greedy oil execs, 2) wall street speculators, 3) one of the two political parties...

Any guesses when mainstream America will be ready to accept the cold hard truth?

[MediumTex]

Americans will believe it when it has been properly packaged for them.

"Peak oil" may never be accepted by many Americans, but something more palatable like an "undulating plateau" of global oil production might get some traction.

One fantasy that is going to die a long slow death is the idea that alternative energy will ever be able to replace fossil fuels on a large scale.  This sort of thinkng is "cargoism" at its finest.

[Wonk]

One fantasy that is going to die a long slow death is the idea that alternative energy will ever be able to replace fossil fuels on a large scale.  This sort of thinkng is "cargoism" at its finest.

I admit I don't know much about alternative/renewable energy's current potential to replace fossil fuels.  Based on the amazing breakthroughs we've seen in science throughout history, I'm optimistic we'll be able to do it again in the energy realm.  But maybe I'm way off.  MT, can you explain a bit about why you don't think it's possible?

[MediumTex]

One fantasy that is going to die a long slow death is the idea that alternative energy will ever be able to replace fossil fuels on a large scale.  This sort of thinkng is "cargoism" at its finest.

I admit I don't know much about alternative/renewable energy's current potential to replace fossil fuels.  Based on the amazing breakthroughs we've seen in science throughout history, I'm optimistic we'll be able to do it again in the energy realm.  But maybe I'm way off.  MT, can you explain a bit about why you don't think it's possible?

Many of the breakthroughs in science you speak of were facilitated by the availability of basically limitless cheap concentrated energy in the form of fossil fuels.  When you take cheap and easy energy out of the equation many of those scientific breakthroughs would never have happened.

In general, fossil fuels are nothing more than millions of years of concentrated solar power (i.e., when we extract a barrel of oil from the earth we are extracting the concentrated energy stored from sunlight that hit the earth millions of years ago and was used by plants to absorb carbon from the atmosphere).

Alternative energy clearly has many interesting and useful niche applications, but it will never provide anything like the compactness, portability and versatility of liquid fossil fuels, which are an absolutely amazing source of energy (or perhaps it would be more precise to say that such fuels are a means of storing energy whose source was originally the sun).

Put the finest battery we are currently building up against a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel and Mother Nature is going to take home first prize in the science fair every time.

What you DO find a lot of are alternative energy technologies that are basically what you might call "fossil fuels in drag."  When you look at the fossil fuel inputs that are necessary to build and maintain much of the alternative energy infrastructure you will see what I mean.

JMHO, of course.

[murphy_p_t]

It looks like like the Saudis cant back up their talk of keeping world oil supplies stabilized http://www.cnbc.com/id/46445698

i recall reading, in the past, speculation that saudi was vastly overstating its reserves...

[MediumTex]

It looks like like the Saudis cant back up their talk of keeping world oil supplies stabilized http://www.cnbc.com/id/46445698

i recall reading, in the past, speculation that saudi was vastly overstating its reserves...

Oh sure.  Those numbers are political, not geological.

[Gumby]

Alternative energy clearly has many interesting and useful niche applications, but it will never provide anything like the compactness, portability and versatility of liquid fossil fuels.

You're probably right. But, I think "never" is a bit too strong. While it's unlikely to happen in our lifetime, Fusion Power (which is very different from fission power) would make fossil fuels look like a joke. One kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. Fusion has no long-lived radioactive waste (I believe the half-life is only 12 years), and fusion fuel itself for a power plant would be the size of a postage stamp. Fusion fuel is easily found throughout the world — there's enough fusion fuel to last millions of years.

MT, you're almost certainly correct that fossil fuels will be untouchable for decades. However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it. Right now it's just science fiction.

[MediumTex]

MT, you're almost certainly correct that fossil fuels will be untouchable for decades. However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it.

Where is fusion research currently at?

I fully agree that such a breakthrough would be a game changer.  To date, however, I think that nuclear power has mostly been a disappointment compared to its promise several decades ago.

[AdamA]

Where is fusion research currently at?

There are a lot of theories, and a few (very expensive) experiments.  The past century was full of failed fusion experiments, and lot of scientific scandal surrounding them.

[Gumby]

MT, you're almost certainly correct that fossil fuels will be untouchable for decades. However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it.

Where is fusion research currently at?

I fully agree that such a breakthrough would be a game changer.  To date, however, I think that nuclear power has mostly been a disappointment compared to its promise several decades ago.

Fusion is very different from the dirty and inefficient fission-based nuclear power we have now. But, as I said, fusion will probably not happen during our lifetime. I was only pointing out that fossil fuels aren't the ultimate power source. Fossil fuels are a very dirty, inefficient and primitive fuel source. We just happen to be living during primitive times.

But, to answer your question... Fusion power is unlikely to be viable before the year 2050.

[AdamA]

However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it. Right now it's just science fiction.

Do you think that a practically unlimited energy source would be a good thing for humanity?  Do you think we'd wind up exhausting other resources if we had as much energy as we wanted?

[Gumby]

However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it. Right now it's just science fiction.

Do you think that a practically unlimited energy source would be a good thing for humanity?  Do you think we'd wind up exhausting other resources if we had as much energy as we wanted?

That's a great question. I have no idea. Though, technically I supposed you'd have enough energy to power a replicator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Star_Trek)

[Gumby]

Where is fusion research currently at?

There are a lot of theories, and a few (very expensive) experiments.  The past century was full of failed fusion experiments, and lot of scientific scandal surrounding them.

I believe you are referring to the famously discredited "cold fusion" experiments. Hot fusion is a reality (the Sun is an example of hot fusion power), but it's nowhere near ready for use in a power plant. Here's a good article on the current state of Fusion:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... y-for-real

[murphy_p_t]

However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it. Right now it's just science fiction.

Do you think that a practically unlimited energy source would be a good thing for humanity?  Do you think we'd wind up exhausting other resources if we had as much energy as we wanted?

not sure i understand the concern...why wouldn't the price mechanism work to allocate scarce resources, just as it does / can do today?

[AdamA]

However, fusion power will one day unseat fossil fuels. The energy potential of fusion is enormous. We just probably won't be around to see it. Right now it's just science fiction.

Do you think that a practically unlimited energy source would be a good thing for humanity?  Do you think we'd wind up exhausting other resources if we had as much energy as we wanted?

not sure i understand the concern...why wouldn't the price mechanism work to allocate scarce resources, just as it does / can do today?

It would.  Things would get more and more expensive as they became scarcer and scarcer.  Fewer and fewer people would have access to the things they wanted and needed...kind of like today. 

[murphy_p_t]

To date, however, I think that nuclear power has mostly been a disappointment compared to its promise several decades ago.

MT-

nuke power to generate electricity is safe, reliable, proven, low cost, low carbon emission (for those concerned about that), sourced from stable countries (USA, Australia, Canada...)

granted, disposal is a challenge.

care to elaborate on why its "mostly been a disappointment"?

[Gosso]

Where is fusion research currently at?

There are a lot of theories, and a few (very expensive) experiments.  The past century was full of failed fusion experiments, and lot of scientific scandal surrounding them.

I believe you are referring to the famously discredited "cold fusion" experiments. Hot fusion is a reality, but it's nowhere near ready for prime time. Here's a good article on the current state of Fusion:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... y-for-real

I have a soft spot in my heart for cold fusion.  I remember watching a documentary on the original experiments conducted by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and kept asking myself what they had to gain by showcasing this technology to the press.  Since this one press conference completely ruined their careers, I fail to see any dishonesty on their part.  I think they truly believed that they had discovered something.  But since the experiment was not repeatable EVERYTIME, they were discredited by the science community.  Also going against them was the fact that this defied physics as currently defined at the time.

The fact that the experiments worked sometimes shows that there was something there that just needs to be refined and perfected.  I truly believe that in the end they will be vindicated.

Cold Fusion is back in the news with the E-Cat device produced by Andrea Rossi.  Here is an article on it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46342612/ns ... 0MZy4f2af4

If Italian inventor Andrea Rossi's cold fusion machine, called the E-Cat, really works, then the world's energy problems are all but solved. Rossi claims that a small amount of input energy drives a fusion reaction between hydrogen and nickel atoms inside his machine, producing an outpouring of surplus heat that can be used to generate electricity. And instead of the nasty radioactive byproducts given off by nuclear fission reactors — think Fukushima or Chernobyl — the E-Cat spits out just a teaspoon of copper.

In the past year, at least 15 reputable scientists have watched live demonstrations of Rossi's E-Cat (short for Energy Catalyzer) and have declared it to be a success. Government documents reveal that NASA scientists have discussed the E-Cat extensively in meetings, and in December, Rossi even visited a senator in Massachusetts to explore the possibility of opening an energy plant in the state.

The E-Cat is fast becoming an international star. But most scientists couldn't raise their eyebrows any higher, and now, an Australian engineer has provided an alternative explanation for where all the E-Cat's excess heat is coming from, and how Rossi is possibly scamming the world.

[Gumby]

Do you think that a practically unlimited energy source would be a good thing for humanity?  Do you think we'd wind up exhausting other resources if we had as much energy as we wanted?

not sure i understand the concern...why wouldn't the price mechanism work to allocate scarce resources, just as it does / can do today?

It would.  Things would get more and more expensive as they became scarcer and scarcer.  Fewer and fewer people would have access to the things they wanted and needed...kind of like today. 

FYI... We've had this conversation before, about a post-scarcity society.

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

[Gumby]

To date, however, I think that nuclear power has mostly been a disappointment compared to its promise several decades ago.

MT-

nuke power to generate electricity is safe, reliable, proven, low cost, low carbon emission (for those concerned about that), sourced from stable countries (USA, Australia, Canada...)

granted, disposal is a challenge.

care to elaborate on why its "mostly been a disappointment"?

Fission has a lot of disadvantages to fusion. They should be fairly obvious. The fact that fission radiation can be released into the wild, in extremely large doses, is beyond obvious (see Japan). And the constant need to cool the fission waste, in pools of cool water, is a huge problem.

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

Fusion doesn't really have those kinds of large-scale radioactivity issues.

Also, the half-life of fission products are many decades. It would take 200 years for many fission products to reach the radioactivity of uranium ore. Fusion half lives are about 12 years, and the amount of waste is miniscule.

[MediumTex]

To date, however, I think that nuclear power has mostly been a disappointment compared to its promise several decades ago.

MT-

nuke power to generate electricity is safe, reliable, proven, low cost, low carbon emission (for those concerned about that), sourced from stable countries (USA, Australia, Canada...)

granted, disposal is a challenge.

care to elaborate on why its "mostly been a disappointment"?

There was talk in the 1950s of a day in the not too distant future when nuclear power would provide electricity so cheap that it couldn't be metered.

Even peak oil theorist M. King Hubbert wrote of nuclear power as the obvious successor to fossil fuels.

What has happened in the intervening years, however, is that we have failed to figure out how to build nuclear reactors that don't emit radiation into the environment periodically due to accidents and natural disasters.  We have also discovered that political incompetence and nuclear power don't mix very well.  There is also the problem of where to store the spent nuclear fuel, which we don't seem close to solving.  Finally, there is the matter of having to maintain nuclear power facilities for thousands of years when no human society has ever lasted that long.  What history tells us is that sooner or later all of these nuclear power stations will be abandoned due to some disruptive event in human society and that will create all sorts of problems that might make future humans wish we hadn't built these things at all.

Here is an interesting breakdown of where the nuclear power plants are around the world.



I was surprised to see that the U.S. has almost twice as many nuclear power plants as the next country on the list.

[murphy_p_t]

The fact that fission radiation can be released into the wild, in extremely large doses, is beyond obvious (see Japan).

agreed...as a direct result of negligent design and maintenance/operation. One of the engineers involved in the original design of the specific plant wrote a letter years before the event warning of the potential (specific) failure which in fact occurred. The issue had to do with availability of cooling water in an elevated storage tank, rather than being dependent upon pumps. The recommended correction was never implemented. I will classify that as negligent and irresponsible management for failure to act upon a direct safety warning issued by the designer of said system.

[MediumTex]

The fact that fission radiation can be released into the wild, in extremely large doses, is beyond obvious (see Japan).

agreed...as a direct result of negligent design and maintenance/operation. One of the engineers involved in the original design of the specific plant wrote a letter years before the event warning of the potential (specific) failure which in fact occurred. The issue had to do with availability of cooling water in an elevated storage tank, rather than being dependent upon pumps. The recommended correction was never implemented. I will classify that as negligent and irresponsible management for failure to act upon a direct safety warning issued by the designer of said system.

But if humans are involved, sooner or later that sort of thing is going to happen.  A technology that requires perfect vigilance with respect to safety makes me very nervous.

[murphy_p_t]

MT...good comments, interesting chart...the chart will likely need updating as China is on a building spree. Also, Germany has re-started some reactors after the initial reactionary response after the Japan incident.

[Gumby]

The fact that fission radiation can be released into the wild, in extremely large doses, is beyond obvious (see Japan).

agreed...as a direct result of negligent design and maintenance/operation. One of the engineers involved in the original design of the specific plant wrote a letter years before the event warning of the potential (specific) failure which in fact occurred. The issue had to do with availability of cooling water in an elevated storage tank, rather than being dependent upon pumps. The recommended correction was never implemented. I will classify that as negligent and irresponsible management for failure to act upon a direct safety warning issued by the designer of said system.

MT is correct though. Fission radioactive waste needs to be stored for thousands of years...

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity—and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements (i.e., stable isotopes). Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent”? fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Fusion waste is tiny, with much shorter half-lives. But fission waste is just a total mess. I mean, it's totally crazy that tons of fission waste needs to be cooled and monitored well beyond the span of what many human civilizations has ever existed.

[Gumby]

If we compare Fission waste with Fusion waste...

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.

Additionally, the choice of materials used in a fusion reactor is less constrained than in a fission design, where many materials are required for their specific neutron cross-sections. This allows a fusion reactor to be designed using materials that are selected specifically to be "low activation", materials that do not easily become radioactive. Vanadium, for example, would become much less radioactive than stainless steel. Carbon fiber materials are also low-activation, as well as being strong and light, and are a promising area of study for laser-inertial reactors where a magnetic field is not required.

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_pow ... management