Where is the CRASH!

[Guest]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

LOL !! A picture speaks a thousand words ...


Fred posted -

Can the US compete with China's nuclear ambitions? This sort of sizes up the problem :rolleyes:

__________________
Ed.

[bill]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

INFO:http://www.rcresearch.com.au/documents

The NERC report http://www.nerc.com/ out today confirming electrical infrastructure must be built to accommodate future power plant expansion.

Page:14

The NRC predicts to receive applications for 32
new nuclear units by 2009 – proposed as 12,000
additional MW coming online in 2015-2016.
Nuclear
A total of 12,000 MW of new-build nuclear
capacity8 is proposed in 2015–2016. The
design specifications for some of these units
are large (over 1,600 MW). Significant
investment in transmission is vital to support
these large units — including their larger
safety loads following reactor trips -- and
ensure that they are reliably integrated into
the system. Because of the long-lead times
for major transmission development and
siting, and the considerably shorter leadtime9
for new nuclear units, transmission
must be initiated sufficiently far in advance
to ensure that the transmission system will
be ready to accommodate these units when
they are licensed for operation.
Recommendations and Conclusions

•

Mandates for aggressive RPS must be accompanied by active support for the

development of, and investment in, the transmission infrastructure required to reliably

integrate those resources into the bulk power system.

The ground work is in place for transmission corridors http://nietc.anl.gov/. and I’m sure the PE boys are looking to do a deal with a supply company similar to this http://www.chinacables.com/index.php.

I think Australia will be the first supplier to ramp up uranium sales to
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release...3&sourceType=1

in the Paradox Valley of western Montrose County, where it intends to construct its Pinon Ridge Uranium Mill. This mill will be designed as a state-of-the-art conventional uranium/vanadium mill. The site is large enough to accommodate a mill to meet the needs of the Company for at least 30 years of mill operation.

http://www.energyfuels.com/

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

For any wind power freaks out there, here's something interesting...

This is from a study a couple of years ago undertaken by the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) which is an organisation under the Continental European transmission system operators.

At the time of the study Europe had 50% of the worldwide installed windpower capacity. Now the interesting part (data based on a large sample of wind generators feeding the E.ON grid)

• an average of 20% of the total wind power capacity in the control area was available for electricity generation over the year.
• for two thirds of the year less than 20% of the installed power generating capacity was actually available for electricity generation;
• for one third of the year less than 10% of the capacity was available :eek:
• In northern Europe the periods of maximum extended (not daily) peak loads occur during winter cold spells and summer heat waves. Both conditions occur during periods of stationary or quasi-stationary air masses - ie no wind. Just when you need it most...
• And the most damning conclusion for those that actually believe the increasingly popular line that wind power is the "cheapest" form of generation: "Back-up capacities from other power plants have to be kept in reserve for cases of total generation outages of Wind Power Plants (e.g. summer heat waves)..."

That's 100% back-up (I verified that using my HP calculator, eh). Maybe in northern Nevada we can do it with geothermal, and with solar in Mojave, but in most of the continent I am having a difficult time understanding how we do this without coal, or natural gas, or nukes, or more hydro dams, or something else. But then that may be just my petroleum gearhead, spreadsheet-induced non-creative environment-destroying linear thinking we are so famous for.

The study concluded that the benefit from wind power was the displacement of carbon emitting power generation with "clean" energy when the wind conditions allow it to be available. Of course it went on to enthusiastically recommend massive additions to the wind power capacity in Europe (but was strangely silent on the duplicate capacity additions required).

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

"Rajiv Look at "WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE"

Quote:
NUCLEAR ENERGY
A Lean Guide

1. Nuclear energy could sustain its present minor contribution of some 21/2 percent of global final energy demand for about 75 years, but only by postponing indefinitely the expenditure of energy that would be needed to deal with its waste.

2. Each stage in the nuclear life-cycle, other than fission itself, produces carbon dioxide.

3. The depletion problem facing nuclear power is as pressing as the depletion problem facing oil and gas.

4. The depletion of uranium becomes apparent when nuclear power is considered as a major source of energy. For instance, if required to provide all the electricity used worldwide - while clearing up the new waste it produced - it could (notionally) do so for about six years before it ran out of usable rich uranium ore.

5. Alternative systems of nuclear fission, such as fast-breeders and thorium reactors, do not offer solutions in the short/medium term.

6. The overall climate impact of the nuclear industry, including its use of halogenated compounds with a global warming potential many times that of carbon dioxide, needs to be researched urgently.

7. The option that a nation such as the United Kingdom has of building and fuelling a nuclear energy system on a substantial and useful scale is removed if many other nations attempt to do the same thing.

8. The response must be to develop a programme of "Lean Energy". Lean Energy consists of: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change to build local energy systems; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework, such as tradable energy quotas (TEQs), leading to deep reductions in energy demand.

9. That response should be developed at all speed, free of the false promise and distraction of nuclear energy."

Some deep problems with these assertions. My counter points are:


3&5: breeder reactor would solve that problem, and they are not more expensive to build that regular nukes, they only reason there are not a lot of them is because they produce plutonium. also you could use repossessing plants to extract the remaining fissionable materials(i.e. the plutonium) and put them back into the breeder reactors. Pebble bed Reactor would be the least efficient way to in terms of fuel use, they require about 8% enriched uranium, with the current light-water pressurize reactors or require ~4%.estimated. the pebble bed reactor are considered to be the safest though. US reserves 102,000 tons, a lot of uranium, and the US is not in the top five, total estimate uranium reserves tops 2 million tons.

1,4&7:nukes already are a major source of power, 21% base load capacity in the US, 70% is France and Japan, about 50% for the UK, etc, etc.

6:halogenated compounds are organic compounds such as DDT, not much to do with nukes that I am aware of.

2: Most widely use element in uranium processing if fluorine not CO2, the processing takes power which they get from the grid, which I suppose you could say that it produce CO2 though the power it consumes, but that has nothing to do with the process itself.

8&9: are dogmatic believes masquerading as a conclusion to a non-problem.

The efficiency of nukes in relation to e=mc^2 is about .5%, what that mean is during fission .5% of the mass of the uranium is converted into energy----as we have known for 50 years this means a metric butt ton load of power:eek:.

[raja]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

As energy gets more and more expensive, people will turn to energy conservation . . . not out of any altruistic ideals to save the planet, but because they simply can't afford to be energy gluttons anymore. And, the effect of conservation will be tremendous!

I bought a hybrid car last year, doubling my miles-per-gallon, and thereby cutting my oil consumption from transportation nearly in half.

I also changed nearly all my house lights to fluorescents. To give you an idea of that effect, EnergyStar.gov says, "If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars."

Of course, China and India coming on board the carbon-energy train will increase energy consumption and needs, but as energy gets more expensive, people will be forced to cut back and become more efficient. This needs to be factored into all energy use projections . . . and I don't think it is.

[c1ue]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

I bought a hybrid car last year, doubling my miles-per-gallon, and thereby cutting my oil consumption from transportation nearly in half.

Your desire is very laudable, but the $8000 premium would have bought a lot of barrels of oil. Also, the acids and reactants in your batteries have gigantic ecological footprints.

Of course, China and India coming on board the carbon-energy train will increase energy consumption and needs, but as energy gets more expensive, people will be forced to cut back and become more efficient.

You are assuming the governments of these countries will remove their existing subsidies and thus put at risk their economic expansion.

I don't agree that they would do such a thing. Removal of inexpensive power and fuel from China would destroy a major pillar of their 'economic miracle': the outsourcing of dirty manufacturing without a care for environmental consequences.

India is much less dependent on this pillar, but is much more dependent on a healthy US economy. Making fuel and power more expensive will only cause their infrastructure problems to reach another order of magnitude of unreliability.

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

As energy gets more and more expensive, people will turn to energy conservation . . . not out of any altruistic ideals to save the planet, but because they simply can't afford to be energy gluttons anymore. And, the effect of conservation will be tremendous!

I bought a hybrid car last year, doubling my miles-per-gallon, and thereby cutting my oil consumption from transportation nearly in half.

I also changed nearly all my house lights to fluorescents. To give you an idea of that effect, EnergyStar.gov says, "If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars."

Of course, China and India coming on board the carbon-energy train will increase energy consumption and needs, but as energy gets more expensive, people will be forced to cut back and become more efficient. This needs to be factored into all energy use projections . . . and I don't think it is.

raja: You are in good company. The conversion to efficient lamps on a mass scale seems to be underway and irreversible, as evidenced by the actions of companies like General Electric (post on GE - http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...bulb#post17205 )

The Province of Ontario (as one example) is legislating the phase out of incandescents.

I've been researching firms commercializing LED lighting as an alternate energy play. I note that the auto manufacturers are using them for tailights and turn signals, so this is a well developed technology, and perhaps will displace even fluorescents as costs come down in time, as I understand LED is even more energy efficient and the light spectrum can be very finely tuned for different applications.

One question - fluorescent lamps normally contain a small amount of mercury and I presume the current generation still do? Is this a potential environmental issue as the used bulbs collect in landfills (ground water contamination)? Or is the quantity of mercury so small that if a bulb breaks it all escapes as vapour?

On your hybrid, what type of battery technology does it use and what sort of service life do they have? My experience with lead-acid auto batteries is they usually have to be replaced every 3-4 years. The battery pack in a hybrid sounds like a big ticket item to replace (?) and given vehicle depreciation I am wondering if we eventually end up with a fleet of hybrid cars that are worth less (or no more) than the cost of the battery replacement. The closest analogue I can think of is the price of general aviation aircraft. The cost of an engine overhaul is substantial, so the value of used light aircraft is highly correlated to the time remaining (operating hours) before overhaul.

This isn't likely to be a problem in the next few years if fuel prices remain elevated, as demand will outstrip manufacturing capacity, thus keeping up the value of "pre-owned" hybrids. But this dynamic can't be sustained, under any fuel price scenario, as manufacturing capacity and the installed fleet expands.

One of my Directors has a Prius (in pick-up-truck-heaven Houston of all places, if you can believe it) and I've put this question to him but he's never really thought about it and it didn't factor into his purchase decision. Your insight as an tech savy owner would be interesting to hear raja.

Finally, on the matter of factoring energy conservation into future energy demand projections, be assured that all the credible models and forecasts try to factor this in. The petroleum advisory firms that supply the research we purchase have all sorts of elaborate dynamic algorithm's in their models. However, we always keep in mind that these are, after all, computer models - sort of like ones all the quants used to play with pre-August '07...

[touchring]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

4. The depletion of uranium becomes apparent when nuclear power is considered as a major source of energy. For instance, if required to provide all the electricity used worldwide - while clearing up the new waste it produced - it could (notionally) do so for about six years before it ran out of usable rich uranium ore.

Can this 6 year thing be verified?

[bart]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

However, we always keep in mind that these are, after all, computer models - sort of like ones all the quants used to play with pre-August '07...

Indeed... I ran across this chart recently and it rather clearly shows the problems with the forecasts of the IAEA.







And to another poster who mentioned uranium, the number I use for it's power equivalence is a billion watts per ton, or 500 kilowatts per pound.
That translates to about 1.7 million BTUs per pound. Oil is about 5.7 million BTUs per barrel.

[c1ue]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

fluorescent lamps normally contain a small amount of mercury and I presume the current generation still do? Is this a potential environmental issue as the used bulbs collect in landfills (ground water contamination)? Or is the quantity of mercury so small that if a bulb breaks it all escapes as vapour?

The amount of mercury in fluorescent lamps is lower than it used to be, but it is still there.

This mercury can escape - but normally it is not in liquid form. However, tiny dust bits of mercury are equally bad and eventually dissolve in liquid anyway.

BTW, mercury is not something the US produces that much of either.

The big boys: Spain, China, Kyrgyzstan and Algeria. The second tier: Russia (Siberia), Outer Mongolia, Peru, and Mexico

As a note, I've been looking into possible investments in mercury commodity/production. It is a vital component in gold mining. Unfortunately as a strategic element, the US among others has a major stockpile which could be sold once the environmental issues are resolved (or ignored).

[raja]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Hey guys, you're missing my point.
I was responding to Lukester's fears about running out of oil, and the price of oil and energy going up.
What I was saying is that the impact of conservation can effect this question a great deal, and I don't think you are putting this factor into your calculations.

Sure, some of the energy conserving techniques are not pure . . . but we're talking economic realities here.
When oil hits $200 a barrel, people are gonna use a lot less oil, and they aren't going to be so concerned about mercury and acids.

c1ue: "Your desire is very laudable, but the $8000 premium would have bought a lot of barrels of oil. Also, the acids and reactants in your batteries have gigantic ecological footprints."

One 42 gallon barrel of oil produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
So the $8000 premium I paid for the Prius would translate to 94 barrels or 1833 gal of gas.
At 12 gal per average (I'm guessing) fillup for an car, that's 152 fillups. At one fillup per week, that's about 3 years.
The warrantee on my Prius battery is 8 years/100,000 miles.
So, 3 years vs. 8 years . . . seems like a savings to me.

c1ue: "You are assuming the governments of these countries will remove their existing subsidies and thus put at risk their economic expansion."

I'm assuming that when oil goes sky high, conservation is going to get serious . . . and it's going to create serious efficiencies.
Economic expansion does not preclude conservation. China is already running up against pollution problems that will have to be faced, and they will do so in part with conservation techniques.

GRG55: "Finally, on the matter of factoring energy conservation into future energy demand projections, be assured that all the credible models and forecasts try to factor this in."

Are these guys factoring in the behavior of people during a depression. I doubt it.

If there's a depression, people are going to replace their Prius batteries after 8+ years, rather than buy a whole new car.
If there's no depression . . . then why are we worried about high oil prices ???

[c1ue]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

When oil hits $200 a barrel, people are gonna use a lot less oil, and they aren't going to be so concerned about mercury and acids.

I think the return of the nerveless babies might change a few minds back.

That was why mercury was made non grata to start with.

As for oil at $200 a barrel - the first questions I would ask are:

How much is 1 loaf of bread?

How much is the average income?

How much is the average house price?

Conservation is nice - I actually drive very little (under 7000 miles/year) given that I live 45 miles from work.

Unfortunately overall motor gas expenditures are probably still only around $350B/year for the entire United States (extrapolated from a $1.2/gallon price in 1997 vs. $3/gallon price and with total motor gas expenditures around $147B in 1997) - or around $3000 per household.

Assuming this cost is dropped by 2/3rds, it will take 4 years to repay the gas 'savings'. But that would only happen if the SUV is replaced by the Prius, for a Corolla vs. Prius comparison it would take much longer.

It is nice that you've bought into the Toyota eco-sales pitch, but from a purely financial perspective the Prius doesn't really show much benefit.

Then again, I'm sure the shoppers at Whole Foods feel the same way about their 'organic' food.

[GRG55]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

Hey guys, you're missing my point.
I was responding to Lukester's fears about running out of oil, and the price of oil and energy going up.
What I was saying is that the impact of conservation can effect this question a great deal, and I don't think you are putting this factor into your calculations.

Sure, some of the energy conserving techniques are not pure . . . but we're talking economic realities here.
When oil hits $200 a barrel, people are gonna use a lot less oil, and they aren't going to be so concerned about mercury and acids.

c1ue: "Your desire is very laudable, but the $8000 premium would have bought a lot of barrels of oil. Also, the acids and reactants in your batteries have gigantic ecological footprints."

One 42 gallon barrel of oil produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
So the $8000 premium I paid for the Prius would translate to 94 barrels or 1833 gal of gas.
At 12 gal per average (I'm guessing) fillup for an car, that's 152 fillups. At one fillup per week, that's about 3 years.
The warrantee on my Prius battery is 8 years/100,000 miles.
So, 3 years vs. 8 years . . . seems like a savings to me.

c1ue: "You are assuming the governments of these countries will remove their existing subsidies and thus put at risk their economic expansion."

I'm assuming that when oil goes sky high, conservation is going to get serious . . . and it's going to create serious efficiencies.
Economic expansion does not preclude conservation. China is already running up against pollution problems that will have to be faced, and they will do so in part with conservation techniques.

GRG55: "Finally, on the matter of factoring energy conservation into future energy demand projections, be assured that all the credible models and forecasts try to factor this in."

Are these guys factoring in the behavior of people during a depression. I doubt it.

If there's a depression, people are going to replace their Prius batteries after 8+ years, rather than buy a whole new car.
If there's no depression . . . then why are we worried about high oil prices ???

raja: I assume from your comments then that hybrid vehicles do not have lead acid batteries and are using some other technology with a manufacturers life expectancy of at least 8 years. I asked the original question as I know nothing about hybrid vehicles and I am genuinely curious.

On energy models, these are set up so a variety of economic scenarios are able to be run. These range from global recession, regional/trade bloc recession, different growth scenarios, etc. I don't know if the models can run a "depression" case, and frankly it doesn't matter because even if they could, nobody would run it anyway. The information that would come out would have no practical use in business planning. A depression implies subtantive, extended economic collapse, and short of exiting your business (sell it to someone now) what other strategy could management pursue to mitigate the effects of a depression? Nobody is going to sell their business based on a computer model depression scenario.

As for "worrying" about high oil prices be assured I spend no time worrying about it at all. What I worry about is the dumb azz government responses we are going to get (and already seeing) to higher energy prices. Higher prices are the rationing mechanism to allocate the scarce resource. I see nothing wrong with allowing that to work. A "depresssion" caused by high oil prices, if it were to occur (doubtful for that reason IMHO) would collapse demand and prices - self curing in other words.

[c1ue]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

GRG,

Hybrid batteries are in the same technology line as laptop batteries.

I believe they are mostly NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride), and starting to shift to LiI (Lithium Ion).

I can't wait to see the first hybrid erupt in flames a la Sony:

Check out:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=72134

And of course there is the battery memory issue. I haven't looked into it, but even my assiduous management of battery use yields unusable laptop batteries in 2 years, I wonder how the hybrids will fare?

The 8 year replacement lifetime could possibly be very optimistic.

And again, the ecological footprint for these batteries is quite nasty.

[touchring]

Re: Where is the CRASH!

So, who's into Lithium stocks? :p

GRG,

Hybrid batteries are in the same technology line as laptop batteries.

I believe they are mostly NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride), and starting to shift to LiI (Lithium Ion).

I can't wait to see the first hybrid erupt in flames a la Sony:

Check out:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=72134

And of course there is the battery memory issue. I haven't looked into it, but even my assiduous management of battery use yields unusable laptop batteries in 2 years, I wonder how the hybrids will fare?

The 8 year replacement lifetime could possibly be very optimistic.

And again, the ecological footprint for these batteries is quite nasty.