RE: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay

Ok, lets talk hydrogen. Where is your hydrogen mine, George? Where are you
going to drill a well to produce hydrogen? It corrodes everything it
contacts. How are you going to ship it in bulk quantities. You are a
physicist and should know that hydrogen is an energy CARRIER, not an energy
source. Aren't you aware that to generate hydrogen requires lots of coal to
be burned to produce electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in the
water molecule? And if it isn't coal, it is natural gas being burned, or we
are using solar or wind, neither of which is there in sufficient supply.

Oil represents 35% of the world's energy use. To replace it means one of
the other primary energy sources must be increased. Which one are you going
to increase?

Don't look at nuclear. This is a report from an energy conference

Michael Dittmar then talked about Nuclear Energy and some of the issues that
face that industry. There are currently some 439 plants, producing 371 GWe
and in 2005 this was 15% of the world electric power generation. There are
currently 30 reactors under construction. The age of the reactors, however,
means that soon some of this fleet must be closed down which will lead for
the need for some form of action.
Breeder reactors, that were once held to be very promising, have not proven
as successful as hoped. He had tried but was unable to find how long it took
to double the fuel elements concerned, and there Is only one breeder
operating, with two under construction. Ho noted documentation that said
that the (current) world uranium reserve will be gone in the time range
between 2030 and 2040, meaning that we must anticipate developing
'speculative' resources. A 7 GWe reactor needs 180 tons of uranium/year. And
the 371 GWe production from 439 reactors adds up to a need for 67,000
ton/year. With a 1 - 2% growth for 20 years, this will lead to a need for
between 51 and 130,000 tons of uranium. The reserve is thus going to run out
in less than 50 years. In regard to those who say that uranium can be
recovered from seawater, he noted that:
A reactor uses 6 gm/sec which, at seawater concentrations will require
processing 10,000 cu m/sec of water. To put that in context the Rhine river
flows at 2,000 cu m/sec.

He noted the flooding of the Cigar Lake mine and subsequent setbacks which
was supposed to re-open in 2008 has led to the mine being set back to
possibly 2011 , with the likelihood that this will lead to international
shortages of fuel.

In looking at fusion, the current goal is to get to a prototype reactor by
2060, however this requires 56 kg of tritium/year. However, at best, the
world supply of tritium in 2027 is expected to be 30 kg. This, and similar
problems, leads him to state that "commercial nuclear fusion energy will
always be 50 years away."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2994

Run the numbers, not what the news media claims.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:52 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay
>
> One of the biggest mistakes this country made following WWII was the
> decision to subsidize automobile travl & the trucking industry with the
> interstate highway system at the expense of passenger &, to a lesser
> extent,
> freight railroads. (Of course "decision" is a loose term there - I
> don't
> think anyone in power said "Let's shut down the passenger trains" &c.)
>
> If I were elected dictator today I would mandate a major program to
> develop
> hydrogen propulsion systems, not for personal cars & trucks but for a
> new
> generation of hydrogen powered high speed trains, both pasenger &
> freight,
> together with the infrastructure (tracks &c) needed for the system,
> together
> with nuclear power plants to supply the energy for hydrolysis. Such a
> system, when developed, could replace a good deal of automotive traffic
> &
> trucking transport, especially with tax dis-incentives for use of
> petroleum
> powered transport. Quite apart from questions about energy and fuel
> availability, it would make more sense for several reasons to do this
> instead of just trying to keep the same system we have but switch from
> petroleum to hydrogen power. There's economy of scale & safety
> considerations for a start.
>
> A really good 21st century rail system could also handle a good deal of
> traffic that now goes by air. Of course you can't take a train
> overseas &
> sometimes you do need to get from NY to SF in one day, but for many
> trips
> some speed could easily be sacrificed. When I went to Philadelphia
> last
> month it would have been much better if I could have hopped on a fast
> train
> (Eilzug) in Akron & taken a few hours to cross Pennsylvania instead of
> going
> throough the standard airport ordeal (with delays) that we're all
> accustomed
> to now.
>
> "Only the details are missing" - please remember that I'm a theorist.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> To: "'j burg'" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 8:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay
>
>
> > Hi Burgy, you wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On
> >> Behalf Of j burg
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:52 AM
> >>
> >> On 6/4/08, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Last month there was a discussion of $4 gasoline and is it here to
> >> stay. Way
> >> > back in 1999 I wrote an article entitled "The Coming Energy
> Crisis,
> >> which
> >> > was eventually published in the ASA in 2000.
> >>
> >> FWIW, Glenn, I did not think you "nutty" back then or now.
> >
> > My broker, who went and checked with other people in the oil
> industry, all
> > of whom said we didn't have a problem, thought me batty when I told
> him
> > what
> > I wanted to do.Even today the talking-heads on TV will often say
> things
> > that
> > can't possibly be true. Steve Forbes said the other day that 80% of
> the
> > rise
> > in the price of oil was due to the falling dollar. Since the dollar
> has
> > only
> > fallen about 30% since 2001 and oil has nearly quintupled, that can't
> > possibly be true. Sean Hannity citing a USGS report which claims
> that
> > there
> > are huge volumes of oil in the Bakken formation of North Dakota
> thinks
> > that
> > we have enough oil there to run our nation's cars for several years.
> He
> > doesn't seem to understand the difference between oil in place and
> what
> > can
> > be gotten out and moved to market. George Soros thinks oil is a
> bubble. I
> > sincerely hope that guy goes short on oil. Daniel Yergin, of The
> Prize,
> > founded a company which advises oil companies. I once asked a vice
> > president
> > and Kerr-McGee why on earth we paid for his advice since he was wrong
> all
> > the time. For the past many years, he has been predicting a decline
> in the
> > price of oil (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.htm). Only in the
> last
> > month has he actually predicted that the price would rise--it then
> fell
> > from
> > $135/bbl to $120/bbl!
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Using some of your thinking, I added an article on my web site
> >> predicting $4 gas by last summer. Later, I revised it to this
> summer.
> >>
> >> Now where are we going? There are suddenly all sorts of alternative
> >> energies and auto-propellents being developed. I see these --
> >> eventually -- having an effect, even as conservation and car pooling
> >> have an effect. But slow -- and the ramp getting there will be
> >> painful.
> >
> > I would be interested in what 'auto-propellents you are thinking of.
> I can
> > think of none that will work. You are a physicist, Burgy, surely you
> have
> > run the numbers comparing the amount of energy burned each day in oil
> vs
> > the
> > rate of rise of wind and solar. There is a huge disparity.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> My guess is $6.00 gas next summer -- and this is independent of what
> >> candidate wins in November.
> >
> > Agreed. But, if we pull our troops out of Iraq precipitously, and
> Iraq
> > descends into chaos, it will remove 2.1 million barrels per day of
> oil
> > from
> > the world markets--2.5%. Now, if you think gas prices are high now,
> just
> > try doing that and see what happens. Same thing goes if Israel
> becomes
> > convinced that Obama won't protect them from Iran and they decide to
> nuke
> > Iran first, then the price of oil will look fantastic today. If any
> of
> > that
> > happens be ready to lose your job.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Here is another perspective though:
> >>
> >> I keep records a lot. Recently I found my auto records from 1962-
> 1964.
> >> An analysis of these may be of interest. All numbers rounded.
> >>
> >> 1. My primary car during these years was a simple sedan, getting 13
> >> mpg on 32c gas.
> >> 2. The inflation factor 1963 to 2007 is about 7.
> >> 3. So I really paid $2.24 for gas. 17c per mile.
> >> 4. My daughter today also has a simple sedan. It gets on average 26
> mpg
> >> 5. You can do the math. She pays less per mile today than I did in
> >> 1962-64. At $4.00, 15c per mile.
> >>
> >> Her car has A/C, and a host of gadgets that mine (in 1962) were
> >> luxuries or only pipe dreams. .
> >>
> >> In 1963 I bought a Chevy compact -- 19 mpg. Now my cost was 12c per
> >> mile. But I had to pay (in 2007 dollars) about $20,000. Still no AC
> or
> >> other amenities though.
> >>
> >> I think my daughter might be able to buy a 32 mpg economy car --
> that
> >> would get her per mile cost down to 12c also.
> >>
> >> So -- $4.00 a gallon is "OK." At least for now.
> >
> > Yeah, but, even in Houston now, I can walk into restaurants on a
> Saturday
> > night which used to require an hour's wait and be seated immediately.
> > People
> > aren't eating out as much as they used to. I suspect that it is gas
> and
> > food
> > which are causing this change.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 6 14:28:27 2008