A future without oil

Posted here without comment:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0413-28.htm

Less than a century ago our main transport was the horse. One of the major urban problems was the massive volume of manure and removal. A positive benefit to cities was the extensive planting of trees and civic fountains we still to an extent enjoy today which offsets the heat from concrete and asphalt. These weren't put there for our aesthetic pleasure, but for the horses. Very few civic planners worry about horse manure today. Both history and prehistory are replete with cultural binges of one resource or another, Pliestocene megafauna, forests, the great fish stocks, each other and now fossil fuels. We have adapted each time, from substituting short faced Cave Bears with Jupitor, Jesus and John From as dieties to technological placebos that merely increase the chasm between humanity and nature. Maybe the collapse of fossil fuel will finally wake us up to the limits of materialism versus the limitless options of being true caretakers of our world. The irony is a far more critical shortage is looming allready- water. Maybe Aron Ralston should give motivational speeches about that, having symbolically drunk what world 'leaders' are doing to their constituents <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

You should check out "The Coming Oil Crisis" by Colin J. Campbell. He's a PhD with over 40 years experience in the oil exploration business. The book is a much more in depth study along the same lines as the paper you posted. Scary stuff, for our children if not ouselves.
Ed

That is surely the most positive reaction I've read to this impending disaster, and I agree 100%. Although I'm not so sure it will be us humans who will be lucky enough to end up being the caretakers of the planet. Perhaps it will be the ants turn, as Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson conjecture in their eye-opening book Journey to the Ants in the following quote:

"If all humanity were to disappear, the remainder of life would spring back and flourish. The mass extinctions now under way would cease, the damaged ecosystems heal and expand outwards. If all the ants somehow disappeared, the effect would be exactly the opposite, and catastrophic. Species extinction would increase even more rapidly as the considerable services provided by these insects were pulled away."

(Of course, one other "positive" outcome for members of this forum would be the chance to finally break out those Altoid tin kits, and apply our survival skills to a real world situation... <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

Maybe the Amish are right after all.

Chris,

Care to elaborate on the nature of

?

/Neal

Certainly <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> On Salisbury Plain in England stands Stonehenge. Long before Oetzi began his final ascent into the mountains it stood as a very accurate timepiece created by multiple generations with increasingly complicated and varied functions. One of these is recording periodic lunar eclipses modern astonomy wasn't even fully aware of. It seems the observations to recognise this one phenomenon took a few generations just to figure it out! Some archaeologists get all constipated over the 'why' of some things. Was Stonehenge an agricultural calender, religous clock or ancient public works project to keep the economy robust? I don't care much. But I am fascinated by a society that could come together and do something like this instead of trashing the planet like some heir to his parent's fortune who just received the last $10,000 and runs back to the club to spend it. It seems to me we've pushed the Post Copernican mechanical model of creation about as far as our hubris can. Maybe humanity should 'goof off' for oh, a thousand years, let Nature recover while we build Stonehenges to talk to whales and the guys and gals on Alpha Centaurie: Throw the Ipods, Gameboys etc. into giant communal bonfires, sit down under the stars reappearing after the sick haze of artificial light finally dies and- talk to each other and tell stories <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I recently read a most inspiring article: Japan's sustainable society in the Edo period (1603-1867).

I have a tendency to polarity in my thinking on our path - either full-on consumer driven civilization or Chris Kavanaugh's Stonehenge/Whales/Alpha Centauri laid back 'goof off'. However, the above essay describes a large relatively modern society of 30 million people on a small island group living a sustainable manner for over 250 years. Granted this system was very hierarchical and backed by the Samurai's strictly enforced cultural standards - but what else is new - how is that different from today or any other example of social organization in human history?

So despite our considerable pride in our so-called accomplishments, and since we are running on borrowed time, I find it reassuring to see that there is a successful model of a large scale human society that was able to run self sufficiently for a quarter of a millennium.

If anyone feels ambitious and wishes to begin such a sustainable society, I would like to put my name in for Tinker in charge of Swiss Army Knife refurbishment...

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

(For those interested in reading more (though imho, the essay linked above provides the best summary of the ideas), there is a translation of the book upon which it was based, "The Edo Period had an Ecological Society? by Eisuke Ishikawa, hosted by the Japan for Sustainability website. Here are the direct links to Chapters 1-8 & Chapters 9-13.)

(...and one further recommendation: The best book I have read which summarizes the "end of oil" idea, but in the context of human history, and with suggested directions for the future is "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann (check out some of the 69 Amazon reviews to get a taste of this remarkable book - and now also available in a 2004 revised edition.)

Humans seem to be instatiable in their need to improve their tools and their lives. From a strictly biological point of view, we are the most successful species.

Stonehenge was created, at considerable effort, by people, for *some* purpose, who were not goofing off. It was an investment in something, e.g., more efficient agriculture or after-life favors from higher being(s).

I just don't see the planet supporting a hunter/gatherer lifestyle for 7+ billion "wise tool makers."

I have to agree. Before we urbanized the planet and had our enormous population growth it would be no problem. However, now there's too many people and not enough nature to go around.

To paraphrase a statement from "Jurassic Park"; nature will find a way!

If nature does not institute a pandemic to kill large masses of human beings, the new "hunter/gatherer" will be hunting each other.

If that scenerio comes to pass, watch out for and neutralize Brian for the best chance of survival in Texas.

Bountyhunter

35 years ago a population of 3 billion was considered unsupportable. We were all supposed to be dead or starving by the late '80s. Read the '70s book "The Population Bomb" by Erhlichman(sp?) for a good idea of some of the laughable hysterics surrounding global overpopulation.

By "goofing off" I refer to any number of cultural worldviews literaly paved over by this pandemic hubris of humanity that we can keep re arranging the planet like an old glass 5 gallon water bottle terrerium with infinite outside resources. My grandmother once observed a indian sitting under a brush shelter. From her Missourian, fundamentalist Christian western work ethic he was 'Goofing off.' A close indian friend of mine gave me a wink. The indian in the brush shelter was performing a very important ceremony to help restore balance in the community after a violent shooting in the local, white owned bar. That act of goofing off was no less valuable than Pope Benedicts XV1s first mass. As to our being the most successful species? I woke up to ants carting off a PJ sandwich I assembled half asleep last night <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> They look a whole lot like the ants in a piece of jurrassic amber sitting on my bookshelf. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

The Plains Indians rearranged the ecosystem to be dependent upon fire by their use of that technology to hunt bison.

I do not argue that everything man does today is good. Obviously much is not. However, I believe that technological innovation will be the foundation of any system capable of supporting anything near the numbers of humans we presently have.

Even "The Project" (Rainbow VI, Tom Clancy) utilized technology to "improve" conditions on the planet! <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

/Neal

hydrogen and nuclear are the best answers, but thier obvious issues of supply and what to do with the left overs make them less that feasible.

What I don't hear people talking about is the power of corn. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Distill the corn into ethenol. It has only about 2/3s the potential energy of gas, but it is renuable. The first Fords were ethanol powered, and I've seen cars modded to use it that are fairly recent.

For heavies, bio diesel. It is vegitable oil (say, corn oil) mixed with some ethenol or methanol, and lye. Lye can be leached from a lot of things, including the ash from burned corn stems and cobs.

Doesn't do much for air travel, but that is pretty waistful. Just a thought....

The volume of nuclear waste is very much less than the waste from fossil fuel generation of electricity. Most of that goes up the stack, forming greenhouse gasses. And in the case of coal in particular, releases a bunch of radioactivity.

With the notable exception of Chernobol, the only real nuclear-waste messes and serious nasties are related to weapons production.

Ethenol has a long way to go before it's cost effective. You just have to grow too much corn for the energy recovered.

Bio diesel is more interesting. I believe part of the future energy mix will involve growing crops specialized for their oil production. Should work as bio diesel. And for air transport - gas turbine engines will work well on almost any liquid fuel.

/Neal

No arguement on the nuclear- I'm an engineer, I like thier safety record, it is as good or better than commercial avaition's. It is just a matter of when they break, people have a knee jerk reaction. That makes them politically... complicated.

*Silently preys for more money for fusion research*

As for ethanol, I agree. But a (m)ethanol-based mix with other, higher octane hydrocarbons will extend what we have.

Oh, and commercial deisel is something like 15% biodeisel by regualtion, at least around here. And you can use it to cut home heating #2, of course, which is a lot of the usage of that general weight of distillate.

You think it's just a knee jerk reaction ?????????

When they break, it's rather a matter (or a risk..) of hundred or thousand of people dying, rapidly or slowly ...
And when they don't break, we "just" have to worry about the wastes, which will be active a loooong time after we are dead anyway .. let's our children cope with that .... <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I don't mean to be preaching about nuclear power, but....

I believe that one important aspect of survival, individually, as well as as a society or species, is to understand the risks.

Buring coal to generate electricity causes an estimated 24,000 deaths yearly in the USA.
a reference


This does not take into account other hazards involved in mining, transporting the coal to the power plant, or the dangers of boiler explosions. Nor does it account for the long-term effects of the release of millions of tons of radioactive ash and greenhouse gasses.

In contrast, commercial nuclear power has killed about 42. There may be an estimated 600 cases of thyroid cancer, not all of which will be fatal. another reference

It is "human nature" to worry about things that are new or less understood than "older" hazards. But just like commercial flight is in many respects safer than driving, nuclear power has numerous benefits over burning fossil fuels. The risks are different, but the benefits deserve serious attention.

/Neal

[beginning of rant mode]

I didn't meant to preach about nuclear power risks (and I don't want to deny non-nuclear power plant impact on public health), but....

But it's rather "funny" you "accept" as an argument an estimation about coal burning consequences and take into account only immediate & direct deaths due to nuclear power industry...


All statistics can and are generally manipulated.
ie pro nuclears when they want to demonstrate the danger of, say, coal, include in the deaths toll every death in that industry, including the guy who was killed in a car crash while on the job in the mining company !
OTOH, concerning death in nuclear industry, they only enter into account, people who obviously died from direct exposure, during "incidents" that can't be hidden.

42 dead people only : that's a laugh !!!!! any kind of human activity, any industry, has a higher death toll thru out the world....

If you want references, you should look for some and you will find others : ie this one this one, about Chernobyl's facts too .
just a quote :
A common misconception is that only about 31 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster......
Approximately 134 power station workers were exposed to extremely high doses of radiation directly after the accident. About 31 of these people died within 3 months. Another 25,000 "liquidators" - the soldiers and firefighters who were involved in clean up operations - have died since the disaster of diseases such as lung cancer, leukemia, and cardiovascular disease.......
... millions of people will continue to be exposed to such doses of radiation for decades to come.


I just want to point out :

- it's true nuclear power plant have some huge advantages compared to coal power plants ;
- OTOH , it's technicaly easy to make coal power plant much much safer ; I'll admit it may be not so easy in a full liberal economic system...

- it's true nuclear power plants have the best security mesures (in the western world at least) in industry
- OTOH because of the specail risks involved, it's both a necessity and not enough to insure there NEVER will be any accident (and I don't even want to speak about terrorism possibilities...) : IMHO a 0.001% risk in nuclear industry is worse than a 10% risk in classic fuel industry.

- it's true nuclear power plants give enormous amount of energy, (up-to-now the only one..) compatible with our western (and especially USAern (??) <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />...) way of life.
- OTOH , it may be interesting to calculate the real amount of energy created by nuclear INDUSTRY (take the output of power plants and deduced the amount of energy used for :
- extracting ore
- refining uranium
- building those power plants
- destroying them after their - short : mostly 20 max 30 years - lifetime
- eliminating (how ??), reducing and stocking the wastes
- etc...)
Then may be the real final energy output would not be so huge ......
(and yes, you're right, it sure should be done for ANY power industry...)

- it's true other methods for producing energy (ie renewable energy) are not really producing much energy up-to-now....
- OTOH , invest as much money in those methods as there has been in nuclear industry (and don't forget to take military money into account : the main reason the first civil power plants have been build was to mower the cost of military fissile materials) and soon they will have better results.

- it's true renewable energy won't ever give such enormous amount of centralised energy ;
- OTOH decentralizing energy production might be a good thing ...

- it's true a whole site of windmills might not be a pretty sight ..
- OTOH , even if noisy and disturbing in the landscape, IMO it's so much less than any nuclear (or coal..)power plant with its refrigeration towers and its high tension power lines,

- aso ....


Like Chris said in an other post, may be we should look not always for more energy, but we should wonder about our life style.
I'm no extremist in either way, and I'm sure humanity could find mid-way between Cro-Magnon way-of-life and New-Yorkers (just an example... no offense intended to New-Yorkers specifically <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />).
and when I say midway, I have to admit I would rather it be closer to new-yorker's one... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Because I'm also sure that if every earth inhabitant want to have the same "confort" level as any New-York (or even Paris ...) citizen, that won't be possible, even with nuclear power plant.
You want an example ? Look at the present consequences of China economic boom : they need more steel to build their infrastructures .... buy any economics newspaper and read about steel price...
That's just the beginning ....

[end of rant mode]


P.S. :
let me add a few facts.
In France :
- most of our electricity comes from nuclear power plants ....
- some people, calling themselves environmentalists, refuse windmills due to aesthetical considerations ....
- right after Chernobyl's disaster, the french government had the "courage" (ooopss... I was about to use another word... and I remember Chris warning ... <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )
to declare that the radioactive clouds had stopped at our frontiers and kindly moved along, on the other side ; thus french people had nothing to fear, no risk involved .... <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

A Dutch newspaper wrote that with new innovative technology we will have oil for at least another three hundred years. This is because wells that were previously declared "empty" can now be re-opened because of new pumps that can handle smaller quantities. Also oil will be filtered out of sand. New oil well-detection technology allowes humans to discover the black gold which is buried deeper.

From nature point of view this is bad news. We will probably not survive when oil is history and all the Porches, 747's, freight ships come to a halt. A far quicker solution is to eradicate all human beings as we are the only species to pollute our environment.

A last word on lack of space on the planet. Many people argue that Earth does not provide enough space to farm organic. Granted that conventional farming methods provide more but also crops suffer from the intensity - artificial fertilisers, lack of grow space and pesticides provide far less nutritional, healthy energy.
People should eat less meat: it requires SEVEN times more energy to get the steak than that it provides. If the land was used to grow crops instead of raise cattle than there would be less starvation.

China only started to use inorganic fertilizers in the last 50 years. The country with the largest population were able to feed themselves organically and healthily.

I was going to go point by point, but interested readers can see here for somewhat less FUD.

Pro nuke... anti nuke... doesn't matter, really. The modern world depends on, heck even _desires_, cheap
energy. Right now, the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel appears to be nuclear.

The fear surrounding nuclear power prevents a rational discussion of the problem. Remind anyone
of another recurring topic? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Frenchy:

I think it is entirely all right to offend any New Yorker that is not part of or reads this forum regarding their energy use lifestyle.

Just do not offend their restaurants. (We need a lip licking Graemlin here.)

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

(P.S. Your posts are much more fun when they are whimsical.) <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Groo:

I am not technically adept enough to disagree with you on a fact by fact basis, but I disagree that nuclear is the best alternative.

Nuclear may be the most efficient centralized power generation system, but I believe that solar energy can be efficiently utilized for local and/or individualized use but that the technology is either not being exploited or is being purposely hidden to benefit profit mongering industrial systems.

Bountyhunter

Yeah, I know ...
I didn't want to .... but 42 dead ... LOL ......

As Groo says in his post, it's difficult to have a rational discussion on this subject , but it looks like there cann't be a mid-point : you are either pro or con ...
- If you recognise that nuclear power plants have some huge advantage against, say, coal power plants (ie reducing CO2 emissions), then you are pro-nuke
- If you ask added research in the field of renewable energy, to try to reduce the use of nuclear energy, then you are anti-nuke.

Furthermore, what?s wrong with being afraid about something which is terrifying ? ? IMHO the more afraid you are, the more precaution you will take .
To me, that?s rather a good point, as using nuke plants is not only an actual fact, but certainly a necessity for some time at least. This, hoping other sources of energy will be developped and our need/desire for energy will be curbed.

As a sci-fi reader, I like to dream about safe, cheap, powerful power plants ; but that?s still sci-fi?

I regret that the only choices we seem to have, are either coal/oil power plants producing CO2 (greenhouse effect) or nuclear power plants producing various radio-active wastes our children will have to manage for thousands of years (if they survive until then?)

Another point, making rational discussion difficult, is the economical/political aspect :
- nuke industry is consistent with centralized energy and big bucks ;
- most forms of renewable energy emplies decentralized energy systems, less controlable by the big bucks owners...

Small local energy plants or even individual energy making devices (solar cells wind mills ...) : that's a joke, no ?? you would not want to give away that much power (pun intended), back to the people ???? What would the state control ??
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Solar has promise. But right now the panels are too expensive for most and their efficiency sucks.

That said, I'd still love to have a "cabin" somewhere in the midwest powered entirely off a field of
solar panels. That, plus a satellite internet connection and I'd be all set. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I wonder how long it'll be before we outsource power production. Some little country with no
other natural resource is going to realize it could make a bundle by hosting a couple dozen
reactors around back, out of sight of the scuba diving tourists.


Edit:

Bountyhunter, this might interest you... Solar Maps

Note that in the winter, most of the country sucks, and the areas that suck less require a
two axis tracking system to not suck as bad as they otherwise would. Solar cells need to
come down in price and up (way up) in efficiency (the maps are based on a 12% efficient
cell) before solar can be a widespread supplement or replacement for grid power.

As far as the sci-fi refferences go... weren't Jules Verne and Gene Roddenberry both sci-fi writers? Let's see... space travel, submarines, automobiles for the masses, and oh, don't forget... cell-phones (they were even flip-phones, beam me up Moto)... maybe we should put those two in the same realm as Nostradamus, ya think?

Well, anyway, I certainly hope that wind/solar/hydro comes more to the forefront, even though I make a pretty good living working the NUC outages, being A PART of the industry, I'll tell ya... the on-the-job humor is mostly of the gallows variety. If they SAFELY shut down every NUC on the planet tomorrow, it wouldn't break my heart, although... it might dim the lights for a while.

I promised myself I was going to keep this light before I leaned into the keyboard, so I'm not going to let myself climb my soap-box... but as someone who is a small part of the nuclear industry, we'd all be better off without it, statistics be... well, you know.

Troy

Yes, I call it a knee jerk reaction, as it is based on fear.

I live almost immediately down wind of one of the oldest operating reactos in the US, Vermont Yankee, and I have the pamphlet on evacuation and the pills and all the other stuff. Yankee also is noticable for having misinventoried spent fuel in thier pool last year, and that material was "lost" until a full accounting was conducted.

It is medically accepted (and common sense supports) that several thousand people die every year from cancer and respritory illnesses brought about by burning coal, nat gas and oil for electricity. Add in the people who's lives are handicapped by extreme asthma, and those who's cancer goes into remission.

Contrast that to the few tens of thousands who are killed or sickened when a reactor has a major release. How often has that happened? Chernobyl is the only major accident that was not contained that I know of. Three Mile Island, the Fermi plant outside of detroit, the British one about 10-15 years ago, those were mostly contained. Was there a release of gas? Yes. Was the quantity and intensity of radioactive materials about the same as what a coal-fired plant spews out yearly? Yep.

Nuclear fission isn't THE ANSWER (tm). There is no THE ANSWER (tm). The waste is a major concern. No argueement. The feds need to get thier thumbs out and activate the Yucca Mountain facility. Will it be dangerous material a couple of mellenia from now? Yes. And by then, we will either all be dead of some plague or we will have fussion worked out. Maybe we'll even figure out how to use the old fuel for the fussion reactors. At the same time, they will be mining what was once landfills for metals.

But I can also comment on solar cells- unless you live in the desert, there aren't too many ways of making them reliable in the near future. Thier efficency is lousy, but hey, it is free energy; you get what pay for. Of course, if you don't live in the desert, and you are used to going a week, 10 days, without seeing a half clear sky, then you aren't going to be a big fan of solar.

As for wind, you said it yourself: the viewcologists don't like them, to niffliehm with the ecology. My ala matter has one (1) windmill that was designed and built by students and keeps and expansion to the farm powered 24-7. You can't see it a mile away. But someone with a lot of money who moved up to Vermont from the city and lives about 4 miles away, at the other end of the valley, tried to keep the rig from being built. :P

Ah yes... sad but true. The most evolved species on the planet is the one that is that does 99% of the damage.

Corn and Bio Diesel take more energy to create than they produce when burned.

When a plane crashes, there's a fireball, there's a mess, and then it goes away.
When a nuclear reactor burns, there's a mess, and then it stays there basically forvever.
I'll give you $10,000 to spend 1 month on the site where the Chernobyl reactor was.
That kind of permanent destruction - the lethality that just does not fade - is unlike anything else man has created.
And while burning cola releases some radiation, it's not the high rad/hard hitting stuff we get from a water cooled fission reactor.
Helium Cooled pebblebed reactors? Well now you're making sense.

There has not been a photovoltaic ("solar") cell yet produced that will return more energy in its lifetime than it cost to produce the cell. Think of them as long lasting non-rechargeable batteries - best utilized off grid, e.g., space ships (near earth), remote cabins, etc. When using photovoltaic cells, one is really just moving the cell production energy from the manufaturing plant to somewhere else in a small semiconductor package.

Who among us would give up a significant portion of his/her daily energy use? Why, think of the watts you're using just reading this! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Unless we figure out a way to reduce the human population, it's up to technology and energy to keep the species going. The old "primative" ways aren't up to the task, and in many ways they were at least as destructive, probably more so per capita, than today's more "advanced" techniques.

Therefore, I conlcude, we need to deliver more, reliable, energy at less environmental cost.

/Neal

This is a common myth about solar panels. See here.

The last word I read about solar cells from Australia was about some sort of paint like substance used to coat plain glass with connections to the substance that created electricity from exposure to the sun. To the best of my recollection or the article, the process does not give as an efficient production of electricity as other solar cells, but its production costs are a whole lot cheaper. The article was many years ago, and I am willing to bet there are newer possibilities on the horizon.

Bountyhunter

Hurray! We're saved!!!

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Groo,
I was beginning to wonder where some of the statements poo-pooing solar/wind/hydro were coming from, but didn't have a "documented" arguement. I'm just a layman, but it doesn't take a P.H.D.* to recognize that the only safe, sane, satisfactory answer to power supply/consumption is a combination of eco-friendly production (sorry, but to me that means NO nukes,coal,gas,etc.) and better/smarter use of the power produced (you flashlight folks, c'mon, get on the band-wagon, L.E.D.s vs. "old fashioned" bulbs is a perfect example).

As I've already stated, I'm just one of the common folk, but it's pretty clear to me, that as long as there's a higher profit in burning coal/gas, or using nuclear power to turn the generators at the power plants, the powers that be don't give a flying hoot about ten years down the line, let alone a hundred.

Troy

*... Piled Higher and Deeper... just couldn't resist.

"However, it should be noted that the above payback periods assume that the modules are always operated at their maximum power points [5], as with a maximum power point tracker."

And neglects the power reqired to constantly re-aim the cell(s). And apparently doesn't take into account degradation of cell efficiency over time (~1%/year), to name just a couple of criticisms via the referenced summary.

So maybe PV is close to having a net lifetime energy surplus. I do not doubt that it will someday (technology good). But for quite a while PV will be substantially more expensive than "mass produced" electricity, even accounting for distribution losses. Especially when considering small, distribued installations. Not amoritizing all of the other costs (brackets, tracking systems, inverters, grid interties and/or batteries) over a large customer base really drives the kWh cost up.

NealO:

You do not mention higher costs of manufactured power to consumers each year and the "single source monopoly" status of centralized power. If you believe the current crap about increased suceptability and danger from unAmerican terrorists and factor in natures wrath, centralized power production is less desirable.

The more localized power produced by whatever means, will insure lower price increases from fear of competition.

Bountyhunter

TESTIFY!!! AMEN BROTHER,... my coworkers and I are currently more than just a little concerned about Exelon buying out all their smaller competitors... fewer sources for jobs means less competition between employers, meaning THEY dictate the terms of employment. "Work for me or go somewhere else... oh, thats right, there is nowhere else" is a terribly strong arguement. De-centrallization in anything, whether it be agriculture, industry, or government is better for the working class, even if it's not quite as good for the bottom line in profit for those that are already rich enough.

Oh...sorry...I'll get off my soap-box now...

Troy

Bounty,

Completely unregulated electricity production is unlikely to work. Freedom to succeed and compete is also freedom to fail. What happens when "Brand X" power & light goes belly up and there isn't enough power for your house? Due to competition, all the other companies are so efficient that they have no surplus to sell you.... (And yes, they are targeting you :-)

Having said that, I agree that greater decentralization is a good thing. Rather than refineries, I wish W had plans to put reactors on those former bases. "Helium cooled pebble bed reactors consuming material taken from decommissioned weapons."

Could Gaia have been so wrong? natural fission reactors

False...There is enough food produced, NOW, for everyone to get very fat...We have distribution problems, now production problems.....Many of them politicle...

Check this out!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7746306/

Bountyhunter

Just today, I decided to take look at the "around the Campfire" forum and found this topic. So, allow me to hop up on my soap box and ramble a bit...

The recent spike in oli proces has reawakened the spector that we are running out of (mineral) oil. This price spike was driven by pure speculation. Even the Saudi's admit this. While the demand for petroleum is up, production is able to keep pace, and it will for the near, forseeable future. Does this mean that we're in the clear? No. It does mean that the sky is not falling.

This brings us to the $64,000 question - where do we go from here? There many in the "green" community who would apparently like to see humanity fade away, leaving only intriguing traces for some future ET explorer to ponder. I agree with the late William Faulkner when he said"... I refuse to accept the end of man. ... I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail." (http://http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/faulkner/faulkner.html). We need to apply the principals that we have learned to use when we find ourselves in "undesirable situations". S T O P. Stop Think. Observe. Plan.

In My Humble Opinion,

In the short term, non-petroleum fuels will not be practible for non-terrastrial (road, railroad, river and canal) transporation. Petroleum based fuels will continue to be used in high-seas shipping in the short-term and by aviation through the long-term.

The transition from petroleum fueled, internal combustion powerplants for terrastial transportation systems to the desired hydrogen fuel cell will take time and go through many intermediate steps as technology and infrastructure mature.

Wide-spread implementation of so-called "renewable energe sources" to meet base load requirements are unlikely, due to their general inability to produce constant power levels. Nuclear fission, despite its drawbacks, remains the only currently available power source able to meet the deamand. The issues of safety and waste can be effectively delt with (see below). (I would really prefer fusion and hey, I'd like to loose 100 pounds, too. Unfortunately, I don't think either will happen any time soon.)



<< There is nothing we can't do, if we really want to. >>



Climbing down off my soap box,

JimJr



Nuclear Power:
Some have are not in favor nuclear power. Issues of safety and waste are legimately brought up. World-wide, commercial, light-water reactor power plants have have excellent safety records.1 Not perfect, no - but better than that of other types of power generating plants. There are other reactor designs, like the helium cooled pebble bed reactor, that promise to be even safer. The issue of waste is always problematic, but problematic because we refuse to deal with it. Not on technical reasons but emotional and political ones. Of "spent" commercial nuclear fuel, just over 5% of the fissionable material has actually been split, recycling (reprocessing) spent fuel would reduce the waste stream more than 94%. The 5% or so of waste left is really nasty stuff, but it can be effectivetly delt with using a process known as nuclear transmutation.

1. The Chernobyl plant was a "dry" graphite moderated reactor with no containment vessel used in the west. At the time of the accident, the reactor had been subjected to untested modifications, was being operated at high power on political orders and was being operated by technicians who were not fully qualified to do so. The Three Mile Island facility, a commercial light-water plant, while possesing a surprising number of "you gotta be s****ing me" control design, training and operational flaws, managed to contained the core, releasing only a small amount of radioactive hydrogen gas.

Cold fusion sure would be nice.... oh and so would time travel. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I am currently reading this Work. I think that it is quite a Warning, and quite a Read. It joins the great tradition of Alven Toffler and other Futurists.

As such, It is certainly something to get Prepared for! Individually and as a Society / Nation, -I think it Behooves us to Get Crackin!, -while there is still yet some time to do such in. As Squirrells in gathering their nuts for the Upcoming Winter, -It may be Late August for us now, -but let's not wait till November or December! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]martinfocazio[/email]

As to the Nuclear Waste concerns raised in this thread, -we're gonna ultimately do things like send it down into Undersea Subduction Zones, into High Earth or Solar Orbit, or even into the "Solar Nuclear Facility" itself. These are of course well down the road, -and not just around the corner.

More Ultimately, -Long Range Answers are in Space, Sci-Tech, and in the Subatomic and Nano Worlds. This includes eventual and economic Breakthrus in things like Nuclear *Fusion*, and Desalinization.

We've got to Get Cracking on all of these! And as Frank says, -"Not in a Shy Way!" (to the extent it's at any time Economically and otherwise Feasable).

For now and for some time to come, -Nuclear is very much a part of the Answer. Despite it's wastes problem and other Risks.

Until the day that we through our All Out, Determined, and Non Shy Efforts, -cause us to once again Arrive upon such Sunny Energy and Resources Horizons, -We'll just have to Intelligently and Prudently, -"Suck some Things In"!, -concerning such Golden Nuclear Oppurtunity or Goose! As we have right at hand now! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]ScottRezaLogan[/email]