A scary strategic problem - no oil

[LakeSup]

The problem doesn't start when we run out of oil...it starts when we hit the PEAK after which supply starts to decline while demand continues to rise (mainly due to newer growth economies such as Asia).  The experts vary on when we hit peak fron now to within 6-8 years. 
I guess you either understand it or you don't, but don't expect to see cheap oil ever again.
Oh, and the economies (US, UK) who are anticipating this problem are making moves to secure their piece of ME and Mid Asian oil patch politically or militarily.

 

[couchcommander]

BAH! No need for messy hydrocarbons, or geothermal.

ITER is coming online soon (http://www.iter.org/), along with a host of other recent (some very recent) advances, making fusion a reality within the next few decades.... clean and 4000 megawatts a pop.  I'm sure, however, the radical greenies will find something wrong with it.

(Plus LCF is VERY HIGH! The JET reactor, offline, and in operation:

)

In the mean time, 1200 megawatt ACR's will do nicely, along with hydro, wind, and tidal power (excellent stuff, unlike wind it's predictable, and not to mention output can be far above even 10,000 megawatts).

Unfortunately, ALL of these have a high capital cost (although they have very low operating costs). Thus, the various corporations that do power generation (at least out here in Alberta) will either have to actually start to looking at the long term and make these expenditures now to protect both themslves and our economy from massive spikes in the cost of a diminishing resource (HA! Why would they do that when we've made it so easy for them to make money off of our troubles?), or the government will have to develop a back bone and decide that a vital public utility is no place for a short sighted corporation to be playing, build them themselves, and then put them under the control of an arms length crown corporation where the people and the industry who rely on the services are adequately represented on the board (i.e. NOT Canada Post, or VIA, etc.).

Or, a smart bunch of investors might just get the right idea..... nahhh

My .02... ok well maybe .03

 

[a_majoor]

or the government will have to develop a back bone and decide that a vital public utility is no place for a short sighted corporation to be playing, build them themselves, and then put them under the control of an arms length crown corporation where the people and the industry who rely on the services are adequately represented on the board (i.e. NOT Canada Post, or VIA, etc.).

Ontario Hydro (Now Hydro One) was and is such a corporation, and because they didn't and don't have to face market dicipline we have over $30 billion dollars in "stranded" debt from the old utility. and we are facing a potential situation where Ontario may have to endure brownouts or rolling blackouts, while the government has set up Ontario for the greatest financial disaster in Canadian history by supressing the market price of electricity, but using tax dollars to pay market rates for imported American electricity (peak market rates, not "base" rates). While this means of fulfilling el;eectrical demand is certainly a short term triumph of market capitalism over psudo socialist pandering for votes, we can be rest assured that:

a. American utility companies will serve their home markets first in event of a demand spike, and
b. new generating capacity is being built to service the Ontario market.....in the United States.

Nuclear fusion energy is certainly the great white hope of the energy industry, but it has been stuck in "commercial fusion will be possible in 20 years" since at least the mid 1950's, so I won't be holding my breath. There should be a more concerted effort to experiment with many more fusion concepts such as "Migma", the Farnsworth fusor, Proton-Boron fusion, and so on since the current approach has been rather dissapointing, to say the least.

 

[couchcommander]

I don't condone subsidizing a service in the slightest, I am a firm believer that the true cost of something should be reflected in what we pay for it (including environmental costs), not to mention going heavily into debt with no repayment scheme.

However, I don't think I need to point out that neither the OEB nor HydroOne board's are such that "the people and the industry who rely on the services are adequately represented" (I see a bunch of laywers, career capitalists, and energy sector people).

In the end, I think we could both agree that preferrably a mix of private/public investment in relatively low impact sources (tidal, gen 3 + nuclear, hydro, etc.) would be best (barring a dilithium chamber coming online anytime soon, of course )

 

[tamouh]

This is an interesting article on how to build 6,000 nuclear reactors by 2050:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Nuclear2050.pdf

Interesting things (if proven true), China is planning to build 32 nuclear reactors.

 

[dglad]

Geothermal isn't a solution either. The earth just doesn't generate enough heat and it takes so long for it to propagate through most rock formations. You can extract heat faster than it's being replenished from below but that's not really sustainable unless the heat reservoir is very large. A few places have underground water in close proximity to lava flows which means the heat is replenished at a very high rate compared to most rock formations but that's the exception.

Actually, the Earth has lots of internal heat, left over from its formation, plus given off by decaying radioactive elements like potassium, plus (a poorly understood amount) from tidal stretching of the planet by the Moon and Sun.  You could obtain ready access to this abundant geothermal energy, as long as you mined it in the ocean basins.  Oceanic crust is very thin and has high thermal conductivity compared to continental crust.  The abundance of hydrothermal vents and marine volcanic activity along spreading oceanic ridge zones shows the extent to which the earth's internal heat can and does vent, if given an opportunity.  Continental crust, which is relatively thick and rich in minerals that don't conduct heat as well, functions as a very effective blanket over the upper mantle--lots of heat trapped underneath, but far, far beyond our ability to access it in any reasonable way.

So if I was going to do this, I'd venture to set up something resembling an off-shore drilling platform and drop the infrastructure from it into the geothermally active zones of the ocean basins, use that heat to generate electricity, and then transmit it--probably by submarine cable--to where it was needed.  Of course, I'd also drive up the capital and operating costs by some ungodly factor as well, but there you go.

 

[dglad]

I don't condone subsidizing a service in the slightest, I am a firm believer that the true cost of something should be reflected in what we pay for it (including environmental costs), not to mention going heavily into debt with no repayment scheme.

Does that mean you support a lower rate for northwestern Ontario, since the grid west of Wawa is effectively isolated from the rest of the province by a measly 300 MW bridge?  The northwest is currently in a state of oversupply, thanks to the closures of so many forest industry operations...but the Wawa "bridge" prevents the excess energy from being moved east and south towards the GTA.  In the meantime, most electricity in the northwest is produced at about 4 cents per kWh, which is much lower than the expensive power produced (mainly by nuclear reactors and coal) in the rest of the province.

Frankly, I'd like to see the residential user base subsidizing electricity more heavily, with lower rates for industrial and commerical users.    Cheaper electricity won't help a home-owner if they don't have a job....

In the end, I think we could both agree that preferrably a mix of private/public investment in relatively low impact sources (tidal, gen 3 + nuclear, hydro, etc.) would be best (barring a dilithium chamber coming online anytime soon, of course )

Agreed.  In fact, Ontario should be looking to buy more heavily from provinces like Manitoba, that can produce relatively cheap and clean hydroelectric power on a large scale.  The issue, again, is moving it to the south of Ontario, which would require a new tranmission infrastructure.

Finally, regarding the availability of oil globally...has anyone mentioned Thomas Gold, who theorized that hydrocarbons are not derived mainly from decayed biomass, as is generally held, but actually originate in the Earth's interior and "well-up" through time into the crust?  It's a, to say the least, controversial theory, that most petroleum geologists discount (it makes for interesting Google searches on "thomas gold oil", however).  It hasn't been disproven and, in fact, there is evidence from organic inclusions in igenous rocks and from results of deep experimental drilling to suggest that at least some hydrocarbons do occur in the upper mantle and lower crust.  Whether or not this can prove to be a significant source of oil and gas is highly problematic, but it does put an interesting spin on the issue of global oil supply i.e. maybe we should be looking for hydrocarbons somewhere other than the "traditional" territory of sedimentary basins such as the Middle East, west-central North America, North Sea, etc.

 

[couchcommander]

Does that mean you support a lower rate for northwestern Ontario, since the grid west of Wawa is effectively isolated from the rest of the province by a measly 300 MW bridge?  The northwest is currently in a state of oversupply, thanks to the closures of so many forest industry operations...but the Wawa "bridge" prevents the excess energy from being moved east and south towards the GTA.  In the meantime, most electricity in the northwest is produced at about 4 cents per kWh, which is much lower than the expensive power produced (mainly by nuclear reactors and coal) in the rest of the province.

Frankly, I'd like to see the residential user base subsidizing electricity more heavily, with lower rates for industrial and commercial users.    Cheaper electricity won't help a home-owner if they don't have a job....

Ah no i don't think subsidizing is the way to go. Think of it this way, the higher rates being paid in the south compared to the north will encourage a few things a) reduced usage in the south, helping to deal with the shortage, and b) either i) encourage the relevant authorities to build new infrastructure, or if they are not willing to do that ii) encouraging industry to move to the west where electricity is more abundant/cheaper. Either way, it is helping deal with the issue (there is definitely a preferable option, but it will sort itself out in the end if nothing is done).

The nice thing about capitalist markets, when they are not distorted, is that they are self balancing (and I'm no fan of capitalism, but I will definitely give it that). It's the same with home's subsidizing the cost of electricity for industry - all that does is bring down the cost of goods artificially, leading to more demand than the infrastructure can actually sustain.

Once again, as we've both agreed, the solution to all of this is building new infrastructure, not just trying to artificially reduce costs.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I came across this interesting link, apologies if it has already been posted. 

http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM

I especially liked the part where the guy says that the power from the car could run your home.

 

[redleafjumper]

I liked the part where he said you could put a new upper body on it to make it into a pick-up truck.  This looks like a good idea.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I couldn't get a sense from the video how loud or quiet the thing was while it was running.  I would think it would be fairly quiet. 
At least until it got in an accident and blew up.  :

 

[TCBF]

"At least until it got in an accident and blew up. "

- What to spend my money on.... gas or "Blow-Up" insurance premiums...

Say, by your photo, it would appear you are promoting intemperance amongst the law enforcement community...

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Say, by your photo, it would appear you are promoting intemperance amongst the law enforcement community...

Maple syrup.  It's a Super Trooper thing.  You wouldn't understand. 

 

[GO!!!]

Maple syrup.  It's a Super Trooper thing.  You wouldn't understand.   

I've heard that that movie is really more of a documentary disguised as a comedy - would you agree?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I've heard that that movie is really more of a documentary disguised as a comedy - would you agree?

Pretty much, but we haven't achieved that level of seriousness or professionalism yet. 

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

My first thought was how uncomfortable I would be sitting on top of that much Hydrogen.... then I realised that cars have even more Gas in them.... and they blow up all the time.  Why did that comfort me?

Well I know that we have a cheep way to make Hyrodgen,  http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy14r.htm
I can see it now,  large coastal algae farms making hydrogen and every community center with a large hydrogen producing public park.  Just imagine complete independence from foreign sources of energy.  A dream... just a dream.  Now imagine we switch our farming base onto those engines... suddenly we have a stable food source. (Now to develop the technology top produce plastics/chemicals from renewable resources.... http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2003/EnergyandClimate/5.20.03%20Biomass/5.20.03%20Biomass.htm  and better http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040205/science.htm#1  Humm,  maybe when peak oil comes,  we'll be just fine.  (Although switching now would save tonnes of money and health problems)

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Save your kum-bay-ahs for now.  Do some looking and see who holds the pattents for the new tech. 
Ding.  Big oil. 
We won't see these things until all of the cheap, easy to process oil is out of the ground and the oil companies have found a way to ease out of the industry and diversify their money into other areas.  The tech has existed for something like 20 years, it has just been shelved by and large.
They have us by the short stubbies.  That's why when the hippies started crying about "No Blood For Oil" in Iraq, my response was always "why"?  Cheap oil helps all of us, and no (affordable) alternative is going to show up any time soon.  Waxing Sadam and his pack of arseholes was a bonus side trip.
Standing by for lefty salvo... :warstory:

 

[rmacqueen]

If you want to read an interesting book on the subject have a look at THE BOTTOMLESS WELL
The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy by Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills.  In it they point out how historically shortages of one kind have always led to new inventions to overcome the problem and some of the new forms of energy scientists are working on.

One concern I have with the idea of hydrogen is the exhaust.  Sure, it is nothing more than water but what affect would billions of cars worldwide creating water have on the atmosphere?  Could we be creating a new kind of greenhouse "gas"?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

One concern I have with the idea of hydrogen is the exhaust.  Sure, it is nothing more than water but what affect would billions of cars worldwide creating water have on the atmosphere?  Could we be creating a new kind of greenhouse "gas"?

I have heard of that sort of gas.  I think it was called "vapour" and I have heard (probably just conspiracy theory, mind you) that it can lead to a thing called "clouds".  I read a paper in a science journal that said that "clouds" when subjected to the right atmospheric pressure can produce a by-product called "rain" that there is no known way to stop. 
Imagine the streets covered in auto fuel.  The potential for death is unimaginable. 
:dontpanic: (I know, I'm being a dick.  But it is meant in fun )

 

[rmacqueen]

I have heard of that sort of gas.  I think it was called "vapour" and I have heard (probably just conspiracy theory, mind you) that it can lead to a thing called "clouds".  I read a paper in a science journal that said that "clouds" when subjected to the right atmospheric pressure can produce a by-product called "rain" that there is no known way to stop. 
Imagine the streets covered in auto fuel.  The potential for death is unimaginable. 
:dontpanic: (I know, I'm being a dick.  But it is meant in fun )

Awe, you hurt my feelings  :crybaby:

Actually, though, an excess of vapour creating clouds could trap heat especially if global warming is, in fact, a natural phenomenon and the world continues to warm without the aid of pollution