On Feb 18, 6:56 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yeah, it's a big coordinated worldwide conspiracy to keep the number
set at a constant 100 year supply. They meet once a year in secret
under the guidance of Dick Cheney. Participants include everyone
from the Queen of England, to President I'manutjob of Iran, to Prime
Minister Putin and all the OPEC producers, every country that's a
developer of oil resources or a consumer. It's obviously easy to
keep all those folks on the same page. When they
get done with that meeting, they move on to discussing how to
continue covering up the fact they they planned and committed the
So, it's better to hide the fact until there is only 5 years of oil
Geez... With 50 years there would be time to plan and no
panic in the streets.
No, the bottom would not fall out because we couldn't get to all that
oil in the next year or 5 years or 50 years. It would still take a
money and time to extract it. We know there is a huge supply of
coal availabe worldwide for hundreds of years and that market
hasn't collapsed, has it?
On 2/17/2011 7:49 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
(snip)exactly how long do you think we will
Well, yeah, it is, actually. But it's not like any of us, or anybody we
would recognize as the same species, will be around to harvest it. In
500? years, we have used up what it took ma nature millions of years to
lay down. Same thing as for aquifers and forests, just over a much
longer time span.
Analysis of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter has resparked interest
in the theory that oil is not really a fossil fuel but a substance that is
created out of geological and not biological processes:
I think it's not likely, though, because the microdiamonds typically found
in oil deposits are from biological carbon sources. That wouldn't be true
of geologically created oil.
Nature is always surprising that pesky little biological infestation
know as Homo sapiens. Wouldn't it be interesting if oil is a product
of both sources? Science is all about theory because a scientist may
not have a few million or billion years to carry out a practical
experiment then publish a paper. I've always wondered what could happen
if methane was trapped under the crust of the Earth as it formed so
many billions of years ago and the trapped gas was subject to intense
heat and pressure in the extreme depths at or near the Earth's core.
Scientists are always stumbling upon mysteries from our planet that
often defy explanation. One of my favorites is the existence of the
crystal caves in Mexico. :-)
For purposes of this dicussion that doesn't really matter. Whatever
produced it is not continuing to produce at a rate equal to our
consumption of it. For the near term I think we can discount
econmically getting from other solar bodies.
Oh yea, you never did cite your 5% assertion about crude oil
utilization. A little thing like that makes it difficult to
consider you to be a knowledgeable person who has any ability
to determine whether or not anything is germane to any discussion.
I have trouble spelling sometimes too so I would suggest you
take a look at the free version of WordWeb and folks might take
you a bit more seriously if you could spell. Be well. ^_^
If history is any guide, so what?
Europe and North Africa ran out of trees to make charcoal. Then coal was
used to power the industrial revolution until coal became too expensive (in
North Africa, the British used mummies to fuel their train engines). Europe
turned to petroleum and nuclear power.
When the oil runs out, or more likely when it becomes too expensive, we'll
find something else.
Which people are those? I know of no one.
The first great energy driven economy came out of Holland with wind
power. We currently use water power extensively, but not exclusively.
Why not wind also?
Reduce the demand, by using some supply from renewables and you lower
costs for other fuels as well.
Well, no, it sometimes doesn't.
During the California power debacle a few years back, they closed the
spillways on a few dams during the off-peak hours and used power from
gas-fired power plants to PUMP WATER BACK UP into the reservoir!
I don't agree; the problem is w/ any non-reliable power source one must
maintain the reliable reserve in place for when the unreliable source
isn't there. That cost has to be subsidized by either higher rates on
the conventional to account for the down time or passed on to the
non-reliable source as a cost of their business model of only generating
when they can, not necessarily when they're needed.
Not to mention that the annual average output for wind is only 40% of
installed capacity; that drives that cost up by 2.5X for the generation
construction even w/ the zero-cost fuel. It's equivalent of building a
1000 MWe coal unit but only operating it at 400 MWe--that's obviously
not an efficient use of the other 600 MWe capacity.
This is true if you consider wind as a replacement for coal, but if you
consider this as an alternative to peaked electricity particularly with
some kind of pumped storage, it's a different ballgame.
It's a big grid. Wind and solar isn't going to replace coal and
nuclear. It has it's place.
No new coal under construction:
Relative cost of generation:
Wind turbine technology is advancing rapidly.In particular with regard
to maintenance. I can't say the same for clean coal. And new nuclear
plants are ungodly expensive, where I live that is dramatically driving
up the costs.
My thoughts are that the grid will have to change.
No, it's diametrically opposed to peaking in that it is the most
unreliable source when it may be needed. Peaking capacity is that which
has to be there when there isn't enough baseload; you can't rely on wind
for it. Plus, there's no way to ramp it up on demand; either the wind
is blowing or it isn't. (In fact, summer a couple years ago in TX
Panhandle a wind shift line went thru a large facility and winds went
from 20 mph steady to near zero in 30 secs or so...that unexpected drop
on a 100+F day nearly brought the local grid completely down).
The problem I still see is that while wind/solar/etc. can provide some
replacement energy when they have a fuel source, they're going to remain
as "replacement while there" and no matter how cheap it is, there's no
getting around there somewhere has to be a reserve source for grid
reliability. No matter how cheap you make those, they have the
concomitant cost of that reserve. When you can resolve that
question/problem, _then_ you'll have something that could make a major
Wolf Creek Nuclear here is the cheapest power on the grid by a
significant factor. Owing to 18-mo fuel cycle, it has alternate years
where capacity factor is 95% or greater for the entire year, outputting
in one day the installed capacity of 10 Gray County farms if they could
manage full installed output. But, since they can only run at 40%
capacity over the long haul, it's 25 of 'em they need. Since Gray
County covers up an are that is roughly 20x80 miles already, one runs
out of real estate real quick.
There is some replacement/substitution ability there, granted, but it
just ain't the panacea hoped for by many unless the change in the grid
you're looking for is to go to the wall switch and hope the light's come
on when you want.
Taken individually few of the alternative sources are a solution. But
all of them in combination with a more intelligent national grid and
more efficient consumption, it can all add up to reduce dependence on
"Few" as in "none"... :)
As I have said, there are uses (not particularly economic in comparison,
but we'll give that the benefit of whether may come w/ time).
But which of the alternative(s) has the reliability factor? You're
proposing building 3-4-5X the required capacity from diverse sources on
the hope that out of that one _might_ have what's needed at any time?
That seems to be the argument. Might work, but has to be terribly
inefficient use of capital hence is going to be quite expensive in
All the intelligence in the grid you want can't make up for no wind or a
cloudy day and afaik the sun still sets in the evenings...
And to repeat my standard soap box when this subject comes up,
solar/wind/whatever doesn't HAVE to be thought of in terms of
electricity, especially electricity transported over long distances.
Electricity is very convenient, but it is not the only way to make use
of alternative energy. On a micro scale, you can use it to move water
from someplace low to someplace high, thereby storing up potential
energy. Gravity can power your water taps. Passive solar should speak
for itself by now, but everyone wants those damn Mcmansions of many
gables. Skylights, sola tubes, and sunwalls (with appropriate shutters)
can eliminate a lot of interior lighting requirements. Lots and lots of
ways to cut down how many flowing electrons you need, many with what is
now considered stone age tech. Those tall things on old religious and
government buildings weren't just feeding an edifice complex- open the
door in the top, and crack the windows or doors at the other end of the
bottom, and flow-through ventilation for free.
The "ungodly expensive" of nuclear is largely the problem of design to
containing radiation including separation of contaminated systems, and
necessity of multiple layers of redundancy to keep the plant safe in
fairy improbably scenarios. There are lots of improbably scenarios; some
of them happen. There have been some potential disasters in the US; TMI
is only one. The cost of mishap is high, as Chernobyl demonstrates. I
really don't think "let the marketplace decide" is safe for nuclear.
Also contributing to "ungodly expensive" is the cost of dismantling a
radioactive plant at end of life cycle. Also, now, defense against
terrorists both in design and operation.
Much of the cost is paying interest on bonds while plants are
arbitrarily and unjustly delayed. Most of the problem with waste disposal
is not technical but political - the antinukers want lack of finding a
What's so bad about vitrifying waste and dumping it into a salt dome?
The antinukers like the roadblock that the waste must be retrievable!
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.