At 04:16 PM 7/15/00 -0400, Vandergraaf, Chuck wrote:
>Let me make a few comments, some from a nuclear energy perspective.
>
>One can argue about exactly when oil production will peak. It's just a
>matter of time. The production of all non-renewable resources peak. Since
>we know that oil production will peak, we should get ready for the day that
>it is priced out of (most of) the market. If, as you say, the oil
>production will peak at 30 billion barrels of oil (bbo), extending the peak
>by one year will, obviously, require that you and your fellow oil people,
>find an extra 30 bbo.
Or conversely the world use 30 bbo less.
[snip]
>I don't know if Price has figured in his projection 1+ billion Chinese and 1
>billion Indians consuming oil at the rate we, in North America, are. If he
>has not, his predictions are going to be wildly optimistic. On the other
>hand, if AIDS takes off world wide the way it has in Africa, there may be
>lots of time.
First, I don't think Price figured on the Chinese economic boom, although
when I worked China back in 1994 one could clearly see it coming. If they
were to start using oil and gas at the rate we in the US do, the end of the
oil age would be much sooner.
As to a die-off, you are correct that that would slow the depletion of oil
and gas. It won't prevent it from ending. And several of the authorities
believe that civilization as we know it will end within that 50 year period
as we run out of oil. They expect a die-off from the lack of energy. As
you pointed out to Wendee, the electrical solution she eagerly awaits won't
happen because a very large chunk of our electrical power today is fueled
by petroleum. No petroleum, very much less energy. Without enough
electricity, news will travelly very slowly as it did in the last century
which will allow political leaders once again to control the flow of
information. Dictatorships will return without the electricity to run the
internet.
[snip]
>I would think then, that we need to reserve the oil for transportation and
>lubrication. Even for transportation, oil should be used only where other
>fuels cannot be used. Thus, railways should be electrified and truck
>transport reduced as much as possible. Public transit should be by electric
>trains, subways and trams. Buses should be trolley buses; they work very
>well in Vancouver, BC. (Trolley buses were ruled out in Winnipeg in the
>1970s because the overhead wires created "visual pollution", despite the
>fact that Manitoba is an electrical energy exporting province)
But in the long run, where will our electricity come from once oil and are
depleted? Coal? Our cities will look like Beijing with a thick layer of
coal smoke haze hanging overhead. It takes energy to scrub all those
noxious chemicals out of smokestacks.
This is from a paper
***quote***
Although in the future most biomass probably will be used for space and
water heating, we have analyzed its conversion into electricity in
order to clarify the comparison with other renewable technologies. An
average of 3 tons of (dry) woody biomass can be sustainably harvested
per hectare per year with small amounts of nutrient fertilizer inputs
(Birdsey 1992). This amount of woody biomass has a gross energy yield of
13.5 million kcal (thermal). The net yield is, however, lower because
approximately 33 liters of diesel fuel oil per hectare is expended for
cutting and collecting wood and for transportation, assuming an 80
kilometer roundtrip between the forest and the plant. The economic
benefits of biomass are maximized when biomass can be used close to where
it is harvested.
A city of 100,000 people using the biomass from a sustainable forest (3
tons/ha) for fuel would require approximately 220,000 ha of forest
area, based on an electrical demand of 1 billion kWh (860 x 109 kcal = 1
kWh) per year (Table 2). Nearly 70% of the heat energy produced
from burning biomass is lost in the conversion into electricity, similar to
losses experienced in coal fired plants. The area required is about the
same as that currently used by 100,000 people for food production, housing,
industry, and roadways (USDA 1992).--from Renewable Energy:
Economic and Environmental Issues by David Pimentel, G. Rodrigues, T.
Wane, R. Abrams, K. Goldberg, H. Staecker, E. Ma, L. Brueckner, L. Trovato, C.
Chow, U. Govindarajulu, and S. Boerke
(Originally published in BioScience -- Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994)
***end quote***
That looks a bit bleak. For those who are environmentally conscious, note
the forests that oil is saving!
>
>Using fossil fuels to generate electricity is, IMHO, going to be untenable.
>Nuclear power should be used to provide base load with pumped storage to
>provide energy for peak demands. In a pinch, natural gas turbines could be
>used with hydro where possible.
>
>I agree with you that "the auto will be a thing of the past." I don't think
>we will al have to telecommute or bicycle to work. I think that we will
>have to give up our quarter acre of grass around our house and start to live
>in row houses or apartments and increase the population density so that
>public transit can be effective. In Paris, most people within the
>"Perepherique" (belt way) are within 5 minutes walking of a subway entrance.
>The Metro is 50+% nuclear powered since more than 50% of France electrical
>energy is supplied by nuclear reactors.
You are probably correct. I would ride a bus to work if I could but the bus
that leaves from the Woodlands goes downtown, passing the place I work.
Unless I want to jump out at 70 mph on a busy highway, I can't ride the bus
effectively.
>
>Oil resources will need to be conserved for farm use, although it may be
>possible to run farm equipment on corn-based alcohol or other biofuels. We
>may also start to have do without grapes in December because the shipping
>costs will be out of this world.
>
>As for alternative sources of energy, we are limited to hydro and nuclear;
>everything less is "small potatoes." There are untapped rivers that can
>supply us with more hydro power, but the environmental cost is not
>insignificant. The frustrating thing is that nuclear power has such a bad
>press. Note that Germany has just decided to phase out their nuclear power
>reactors at the end of their life, if not sooner. Nothing has been
>mentioned how Germany will generate the energy afterwards and nobody seems
>to want to ask the question.
I guess they will freeze in the dark.
[snip]
>We already see changes in energy use: cars use a lot less iron than in the
>past and some car manufacturers (BMW?) are starting to use recyclable
>plastic components.
Uh... plastics come from oil. THat won't be a viable future option. BAck to
the heavy metal--music or autos. Heavy metal music can make one forget that
we will need heavy metal for our cars. (
For those who don't know, aluminum also requires lots of energy to refine
as does iron. A fuel crisis will restrict these industries as well.
>We can do a lot more recycling. We can do with less.
>
>I don't think that we need to look into the future with pessimism. The
>handwriting is on the wall, though, and you've highlighted some of the
>sentences. The changes will be painful and, as usual, affect the poor and
>disenfranchised most. As Christians, we have the opportunity to show God's
>grace in all of this and help to minimize the effects of these changes.
Agreed. I have already given up my half-acre house and live in a small
townhome here in Houston. That alone saved a bunch of money in AC bills.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 17:14:35 EDT