The issue of oil

[word]

I don't care what side you're on, the greener side with solar and windmills on every house and yard, or 'drill here and drill now'.

THE issue is the trade imbalance. The last year we were in the black with trade was 1975. I don't care what we make or produce but oil is moot. It's not about oil. It's about buying more than we sell. And that shit, has come to a head.

I ask you this. How do we compete with .50 an hour labor in China ?

I'll tell you we can't.

Tariffs and protectionism. That, and we build a shitload of nuclear power plants, like France.

But I don't care how we do it, but we need to balance the books. THAT is what is killing us.

[4>0rings]

If you don't like it, do something about it.

[RandomGuy]

I don't care what side you're on, the greener side with solar and windmills on every house and yard, or 'drill here and drill now'.

THE issue is the trade imbalance. The last year we were in the black with trade was 1975. I don't care what we make or produce but oil is moot. It's not about oil. It's about buying more than we sell. And that shit, has come to a head.

I ask you this. How do we compete with .50 an hour labor in China ?

I'll tell you we can't.

Tariffs and protectionism. That, and we build a shitload of nuclear power plants, like France.

But I don't care how we do it, but we need to balance the books. THAT is what is killing us.

What percent of our current account deficit is caused by oil imports?

[word]

I make dildas. Your mom is my biggest customer.

[word]

What percent of our current account deficit is caused by oil imports?

That is moot. I agree with the drill here drill now philosophy simply because it means we buy less. Oil is product. We have oil.

We'll never become energy independant, if that is the goal, with oil. But that's not the goal. The goal is to produce more of various things, that we can sell to other countries, that equals or exceeds what we buy from other countries.

What that is, is totally irrelevant.

[RandomGuy]

I make dildas. Your mom is my biggest customer.

???
(edit)

My initial response was based on this being directed at me.

It wasn't. So I simply deleted my own errant post.

[ChumpDumper]

We already have almost twice the number of nuclear reactors of France.

[word]

Wasn't talking to you.

Data to back it up? The last time we had a trade surplus was 1973. 1975 we were in the red. It's steadily increased every year since.

[RandomGuy]

That is moot. I agree with the drill here drill now philosophy simply because it means we buy less. Oil is product. We have oil.

We'll never become energy independant, if that is the goal, with oil. But that's not the goal. The goal is to produce more of various things, that we can sell to other countries, that equals or exceeds what we buy from other countries.

What that is, is totally irrelevant.

Oil is fungible.

If we drill more, or spend money on drilling more, we essentially help the Chinese government subsidize their citizen's use of it.

If you like, I can get the guy with the PhD in economics who does consulting with oil companies to explain that in great depth, although that is probably pearls before swine, IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

So your magic wand here is to build nukes and hope we'll eventually sell more oil than we use?

We simply don't make as much stuff anymore.

[word]

Nope. We buy less. Nuke or coal, pick your poison.

Botton line is we need to sell more stuff than we buy.

What's your answer ?

[RandomGuy]

Wasn't talking to you.

Data to back it up? The last time we had a trade surplus was 1973. 1975 we were in the red. It's steadily increased every year since.

and oil is becoming an increasing large percentage of that.

The ONLY way to get us to import less oil is to USE less oil, unless you use government restrictions or regulations limiting the ability of the free market to import it.

You cannot drill your way to energy independence, because, as I stated, oil is fungible.

[word]

Oil is fungible.



Is that a new buzzword for 'commidity' ? Yes, oil is a commidity. So what. So is coal and corn and bacon.

That has zip to do with shit. We spend more money buying stuff from other people. As a result, we owe a lot of people money. What do we make that other want in the quantity necessary to balance our trade ?

[RandomGuy]

Nope. We buy less. Nuke or coal, pick your poison.

Botton line is we need to sell more stuff than we buy.

What's your answer ?

False dillemma.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156366

and

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620

get reading.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. We buy less. Nuke or coal, pick your poison.

Botton line is we need to sell more stuff than we buy.Show us your numbers on how this would work.

We don't use oil in power plants, so how does making other power plants make us use less oil?

[word]

and oil is becoming an increasing large percentage of that.

The ONLY way to get us to import less oil is to USE less oil, unless you use government restrictions or regulations limiting the ability of the free market to import it.

You cannot drill your way to energy independence, because, as I stated, oil is fungible.

Goddamn your ignorant....

I know oil is a commodity. 'Fungibl'..you fucking hillbilly, is just another way of saying 'commodity'. So fucking what. Oil is a commodity. Surprise surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

The issue isn't oil. The issue is paying for it. If we can make enough 'stuff' that people want to sell it to them, then spending money on oil or heroin or dolls...it doesn't matter what we spend it on, is moot.

[word]

Show us your numbers on how this would work.

We don't use oil in power plants, so how does making other power plants make us use less oil?

We use natural gas in power plants. We have natural gas running out of our ears. And coal.

[RandomGuy]

We already have almost twice the number of nuclear reactors of France.

Ever read the interesting assessment that calculated, conservatively, that we would need to build 700+ reactors over the next 30 years to come close to getting the same % of our electricity from nukes as the French do?

Given that nukes always end up costing 200-400% more than originally estimated, that seems to be a bit... expensive. Given further than nukes ALWAYS have required government subsidies, and pretty substantial ones too, in the past, I can guess how that would go over.

Bit ironic that the same crowd that puts forth nukes as the one of the only viable solution to oil imports or future energy needs almost universally is against government subsidies, isn't it?

[RandomGuy]

We use natural gas in power plants. We have natural gas running our of our ears. And coal.

Both of which suffer the same depletion charactoristics as oil.

Both of which get lumped into pretty much every calculation concerning the coming "tough oil" period.

The easy stuff is gone, what is left is harder to get. That goes for oil, gas, or coal.

We are entering an era where our economy will stagnate unless we actively change it to be less dependent on these sources.

[ChumpDumper]

We use natural gas in power plants. We have natural gas running out of our ears. And coal.We use neither in cars.

[word]

Ever read the interesting assessment that calculated, conservatively, that we would need to build 700+ reactors over the next 30 years to come close to getting the same % of our electricity from nukes as the French do?



So ? But here is the thing. We have more coal and natural gas and oil than France.

What is it exactly, that your types propose other than...stop using oil/gas ?

You have an answer ?

Like I say, I don't care what we do, we just gotta stop shipping our money overseas. India and China aren't going to fall for that 'carbon credit' scam.

What's left ? Besides you killing yourself, after you kill your family, to give the rest of us a little more.

[word]

We use neither in cars.

dumbass

Your city busses run on natural gas. We could use natural gas for cars. We just need a safe way to refuel so dumbasses like you don't blow everyone up when they put $2.00 worth of gas in their car.

Wait...your answer is ...electric cars. Of course, you have to get that electricy from somewhere.

[ChumpDumper]

dumbass

Your city busses run on natural gas. We could use natural gas for cars. We just need a safe way to refuel so dumbasses like you don't blow everyone up when they put $2.00 worth of gas in their car.

Wait...your answer is ...electric cars. Of course, you have to get that electricy from somewhere.I have given no answer, dumbass.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the numbers for your plan, dumbass.

[word]

Run away.

Hey man, we could power cars on rainbows and incense. Maybe potpourri. You'd be happy then ? Just think of the wonderful smell. Houston would be a virtual paradise. People would go there to get aroma therapy.

[word]

I have given no answer, dumbass.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the numbers for your plan, dumbass.

You're right. All is lost. There is no answer.

Wait. We could build a giant dam in the grand canyon.

[RandomGuy]

So ? But here is the thing. We have more coal and natural gas and oil than France.

What is it exactly, that your types propose other than...stop using oil/gas ?

You have an answer ?

Like I say, I don't care what we do, we just gotta stop shipping our money overseas. India and China aren't going to fall for that 'carbon credit' scam.

What's left ? Besides you killing yourself, after you kill your family, to give the rest of us a little more.

Renewables, nukes, possibly fusion if we can ever figure it out.

Oddly enough getting into space in a big way also poses some substantial possibilities.

Nukes and the suicidal determination of al Qaeda etc. to get their hands on fuel/waste for dirty bombs is not an option I would spend solid money on, although some nukes will be necessary.

[RandomGuy]

Your city busses run on natural gas. We could use natural gas for cars. We just need a safe way to refuel so dumbasses like you don't blow everyone up when they put $2.00 worth of gas in their car.

Wait...your answer is ...electric cars. Of course, you have to get that electricy from somewhere.

Electric cars or "hydrogen" both require sources of energy for the electricity. Many don't seem to understand that and you are right about that.

[word]

I knew chumpers was the dumbest poster on spurstalk, but why do you want to unseat him ?

al queda and terrorist is the reason you don't want to build nukes ?

Smoke another doob, kid.

[ChumpDumper]

Run away.

Hey man, we could power cars on rainbows and incense. Maybe potpourri. You'd be happy then ? Just think of the wonderful smell. Houston would be a virtual paradise. People would go there to get aroma therapy.


You're right. All is lost. There is no answer.

Wait. We could build a giant dam in the grand canyon.I'm still waiting for your answer, dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

I think the US will eventually go off oil, but only when it starts running out. I'd love to see something proactive, but it just won't happen until the money makes sense.

[word]

Electric cars or "hydrogen" both require sources of energy for the electricity. Many don't seem to understand that and you are right about that.

Lets list the things that produce more energy than required to put into it to get it.

Oil and Gas
Coal
Nuke
hyrdro
Trees ( maybe. if they're close. )

Did I miss something ?

Oh yeah, wind and solar.

Talk about having to build a lot of nukes.

And solar...fuck that...that's dead on arrival. Always has been a scam. That actor in New Mexico has a solar powered house...I mean, he still drives and stuff..and flies on jets....but his electricy is solar...$160k worth of solar panels. He has a ranch. Val Kilmer. But most of us don't have the money or the land to do that, do we. Lets see you solar power the eastern seaboard.

Wind. Well, the fucking wind doesn't blow all the time. So when it stops I guess you just freeze.

[word]

I think the US will eventually go off oil, but only when it starts running out. I'd love to see something proactive, but it just won't happen until the money makes sense.

You don't think. Smoke another joint and forget about it.....

[RandomGuy]

Nukes and the suicidal determination of al Qaeda etc. to get their hands on fuel/waste for dirty bombs


I knew chumpers was the dumbest poster on spurstalk, but why do you want to unseat him ?

al queda and terrorist is the reason you don't want to build nukes ?

Smoke another doob, kid.

You don't think that al Qaeda wants to build a conventional WMD using a large bomb spiked with nasty radioactive materials?

They have been trying for years to do just that. I can find the links to the intelligence assessments and direct interviews/statements to support that if you wish to read about it.

How much would it cost to provide enough security for fuel/waste shipments to secure them to a reasonable extent against 19-20 men armed with automatic weapons, grenades, and explosives who aren't afraid to die?


(by the by, I am 39, and a former army intel analyst, not by any stretch, a "kid")

[CosmicCowboy]

We already have almost twice the number of nuclear reactors of France.

per capita? Not even close.

[RandomGuy]

Lets list the things that produce more energy than required to put into it to get it.

Oil and Gas
Coal
Nuke
hyrdro
Trees ( maybe. if they're close. )

Did I miss something ?

Oh yeah, wind and solar.

Talk about having to build a lot of nukes.

And solar...fuck that...that's dead on arrival. Always has been a scam. That actor in New Mexico has a solar powered house...I mean, he still drives and stuff..and flies on jets....but his electricy is solar...$160k worth of solar panels. He has a ranch. Val Kilmer. But most of us don't have the money or the land to do that, do we. Lets see you solar power the eastern seaboard.

Wind. Well, the fucking wind doesn't blow all the time. So when it stops I guess you just freeze.

Wind and solar do not suffer resource depletion curves. (see "hubbert curve")

There is a lot more to both techs than you are aware of.

and

It will be expensive, just as any ramp up of nukes would be. I think wind/solar would probably end up being quite a bit cheaper than an equivalent amount of MW from nukes, without a lot of the security risks/costs.

[word]

You don't think that al Qaeda wants to build a conventional WMD using a large bomb spiked with nasty radioactive materials?



Well you were a shitty intel analyst. You think terrorist are going to get fissile material from US nukes ? Try Pakistan or Iran or even Russia or China. North Korea.

WHAT THE FUCK HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH US HAVING NUCLEAR POWER ?

And fuck your resume. I had a Q clearance for 9 years. Sandia Labs, ARL-UT, Los Alamos.

[RandomGuy]

By the by, in case you don't know what an actuary is:


An actuary is a business professional who deals with the financial impact of risk and uncertainty. Actuaries provide expert assessments of financial security systems, with a focus on their complexity, their mathematics, and their mechanisms (Trowbridge 1989, p. 7).

Actuaries mathematically evaluate the likelihood of events and quantify the contingent outcomes in order to minimize losses, both emotional and financial, associated with uncertain undesirable events.
Actuaries have specialized math degrees, and as it happens, the highest job satisfaction ratings in the US.

Read it. Most of you conservahawks on oil/global warming are ill-equipped to really dispute her assumptions or conclusions, but feel free to try. I generally agree with them, although she is MUCH more pessimistic about the end results (http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Tverberg_Exponential%20Growth%20and%20Oil%20Limits .pdf) (link is .pdf presnetation).--RG

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6574#more

Posted by Gail the Actuary on June 17, 2010 - 10:15am
What happens when energy resources, such as oil, deplete?

One view is that energy prices will rise, substitutes will be found, and prices will come back down again, perhaps settling at a somewhat higher equilibrium reflecting the cost of producing the substitute energy source. The economy will continue to function pretty much as before. The catch is that we aren't finding reasonably-priced, scalable substitutes, so this isn't happening. Oil prices are down, but not because of substitutes.

Another view, popular among those concerned about peak-oil, is that oil and energy prices will just keep rising. If scalable substitutes aren't found, some expect that oil prices will rise from their current price of $75 barrel, to $100 barrel, to $200 barrel, to $300 barrel, and eventually to $1,000 barrel or more.

The problem with this view is that it doesn't take into account the amount of money people actually have available to spend. Just because oil or energy prices rise doesn't mean that people will get additional income to cover these higher expenditures. In real life, prices can't keep going up.

I expect that what really will happen is oil prices may bounce up, but they will soon come back down again, because of recessionary impacts and credit crunches caused by high oil prices. Most of the time, oil prices will end up in the uncomfortable middle--too high for the economy to buzz along, but too low to encourage much new oil production, or much new renewable production. The result is likely to be continuing recession, getting worse over time, because of what will be generally viewed as inadequate demand for oil.

What really happens when energy prices go up

Energy expenditures are not a big share of income for high income people, but they are for the many people getting along on minimum wage, or close to minimum wage. If oil prices go up, these folks find the price of food and gasoline going up, and perhaps the price of home heating and electricity (because the prices of the various types of energy tend to move together). They find their budgets stretched, and they either

1. Cut back on discretionary spending, or

2. Default on loan repayments.

A similar situation happens to the many people who earn more than minimum wage, but live paycheck to paycheck, and pretty much spend all the money they earn. As the prices of energy-related goods rise, these people too find a need to cutback. Some will cut back on discretionary goods; others will default on loan repayments; some will do both.

Thus, when oil prices rise (or energy prices in general rise), we end up with two main effects:

1. Banks find themselves in worse condition because of many loan defaults.

2. The economy starts feeling recessionary impact, because so many people cut back on buying discretionary goods.

These impacts are likely to lead to others as well:

1. Banks become less willing to make loans, because of the problem with defaults.

2. Many people are laid off from work, because of reduced demand for discretionary goods (restaurant meals, vacations, new homes, new cars, new home furnishings, for example.)

The cutback in the purchase of new homes, new cars, new home furnishings and the like leads to yet more impacts:

1. The price of homes drops (because fewer are upgrading to more expensive homes, and because loans are harder to get).

2. There is less demand for oil (because oil is used in making cars, new homes, and many other things. Also, if fewer people take vacations, and fewer people drive to work, this reduces oil usage).

3. There is also less demand for natural gas, coal, and electricity, because all of these are used in manufacturing discretionary goods.

The next round of effects then becomes:

1. Even more people default on their loans, because with the decline in home values, they owe more on their homes than their homes are worth. This may also happen if people have lost their jobs, and can no longer afford their homes.

2. The prices of all energy products drop (oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, ethanol) because of reduced demand. Many fewer solar panels are sold as well.

About this time, governments come in with stimulus funds, bails out for banks, and the problem appears to mostly solved. It isn't really solved though--it is mostly transferred from private citizens and from corporations to governments. But governments find revenue vastly exceeds expenditures, and debt is rapidly rising. Something needs to be done--either raise taxes and cut services, or default on debt.

Before we talk about these options, let's talk about timing.

When does all this happen?

The popular myth among people concerned about peak oil is that difficulties do not really start until oil production begins its down-slope. In my view, the difficulties start much sooner--as soon as oil supply cannot be provided at close to a constant price.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Oil%20prices%20begin%20rising%202004.png
Figure 1. Average monthly West Texas Intermediate spot prices, based on Energy Information Administration data

Oil prices were in the $20 a barrel range for many years, but then started rising about 2004, as Chinese demand began rising. So this was really the first sign of problems.

A second measure of when this happens is when the growth in oil supplies starts to falter. The world had been accustomed to a close to 2% a year rise in world oil production, but slipped onto a production plateau starting in 2005. This production plateau has lasted until the present time (2010).

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Unconstrained%20demand.png
Figure 2. Diagram by author. Historical data from Energy Information Administration.

So if we compare what production we might have expected in the absence of higher price or credit problems (green line), to the actual production (blue line), a gap started to appear about 2006. This is another measure of when we would expect symptoms of energy shortages to start affecting economies.

I know many will say, "Oh, but while we had problems with sub-prime mortgages about then, and housing price drops, it couldn't have had anything to do with oil prices." I would point out:

1. Recessionary effects happened around the world, not just where there were subprime mortgages. Japan was affected even before the US, and didn't have subprime mortgages.

2. The effects that we would expect from higher oil prices had to be manifested somewhere. It turns out the greatest manifestation was with lower income people, living in distant suburbs where the commutes were longest. These are precisely the folks one would expect to be most affected by higher oil prices.

3. The impacts of recession and credit problems have gradually spread more broadly than subprime loans, as we would expect, based on the foregoing discussion of the expected impacts.

I should point out that saying that higher oil prices being instrumental in causing in recession doesn't mean that there couldn't be underlying weaknesses, that would allow the manifestations to be in particular parts of the economy.

Also, we know that higher world oil usage is closely linked with world economic growth. One would expect relatively lower oil use to therefore lead to recession--and that is precisely what seems to be happening in the real world.

What is ahead?

We are now at the point where the recession seems to be better, because governments have bailed out private citizens and companies (particularly banks). But this leaves the governments with a huge amount of debt, and with a big gap between revenues and expenditures.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Gov%20Receipts%20and%20Disbursements%20div%20Perso nal%20Income.png

Figure 3. US government receipts and disbursements as percentages of disposable personal income, based on data of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 3 shows what a huge shortfall the US government now has in revenues. There are many other governments around the world with similar issues. In addition, state and local governments have serious revenue shortfalls.

If recession continues, it is difficult for governments to continue to borrow more, as expenditures outpace income. Eventually, governments are left with two options:

1. Raise taxes and reduce services, so as to get revenue and expenses back in line.

2. Default on debt.

Either one of these things will make the situation worse:

1. If governments raise taxes, the effect on citizens is pretty much like higher oil (or energy) prices. Citizens react by cutting back on discretionary spending or defaulting on loans, and we are back to more of the problems recessionary problems, plus loan defaults we had before. If governments also layoff workers, this increases the recessionary effect.

2. If only one or two small governments default on debt, the world can probably accommodate the defaults pretty easily. But if problems spread to a large number of big countries (UK, United States, and Japan, for example), then international trade is likely to be disrupted, because many sellers of goods will find themselves without payment. To prevent this happening again, the sellers of goods are likely to set stricter terms--I will sell you so much oil if you will sell me so much wheat in return, for example. The amount of trade is likely to drop precipitously, because of the cumbersome nature of such trading.

If governments mainly raise taxes and reduce services, I would expect the result to be more recession, more debt defaults, and lower prices for all energy products. Everyone will say, there is plenty of oil (natural gas, coal, uranium) in the ground. If prices were only higher, we would extract it.

If there are major international debt defaults, the situation is likely to be somewhat the same (recessionary impacts and lack of credit), but some goods may cease to be available for import. If these goods are critical goods (computers, replacement parts for the electrical grid, replacement parts for automobiles), the economy could spiral downhill rapidly.

A variation on defaulting on debt is attempting to inflate it away. This still leaves owners of bonds very unhappy, and can cause many of the same problems as regular default.

What would it take to ramp up oil production (or a substitute) so production is again on a trajectory where it is growing at, say, 2% per year?

I can see several ways such a ramp-up theoretically could be accomplished. (Some of these are more ways of circumventing the problem. Note that these are all temporary solutions. In a finite world, it is not possible to continue exponential growth forever.)

1. If conventional oil production is flat to declining, one could ramp up unconventional oil production (oil sands, oil shale, ultra-deep, and arctic for example).

2. If conventional oil production is flat to declining, ramp up production of other liquids--ethanol, biodiesel from algae, and coal to liquids, for example.

3. If conventional oil production is flat to declining, one can try to convert a large share of the auto fleet to electric, and ramp up electrical production.

4. If conventional oil production is declining, one can theoretically engineer cars to be much more efficient, and ramp up production of these new cars.

Regardless of which approach one uses, one needs:

1. A lot of time. In 2005, Robert Hirsch was the lead author or a report for the department of defense called Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management. This report showed that mitigation would take 20 years. If one stops and works through the details of any of the three solutions proposed above, one can see that each of these require long lead times. For example, scaling up oil shale would likely require new coal fired power plants in the area, new coal mines, new train tracks from the coal mines to the oil shale area, and new water supplies piped into the arid US West, not to mention building the facilities themselves. Perfecting the technology for electric cars, and building a whole fleet of these, would be a similarly slow undertaking, as would replacing the current auto fleet with more efficient cars.

2. A lot of capital. Unless oil prices are higher--a lot higher--it is hard to justify large capital expenditures, in ventures such as this. We have just seen that consumers cannot afford high oil prices, without recession.

3. Long term subsidies. If the prices of the new fuels are too high for consumers to really afford, one needs long-term subsidies. We have just seen that high oil prices seem to hurt the economy badly. High prices for substitutes can be expected to have a similar effect.

It seems like any one of these issues is likely to be a deal-killer. Since we are already at a point where conventional oil is falling short of demand, the time requirement will mean that scaling up will be very difficult. Progress to date on renewables has been very small, as shown on Figure 4.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/world_primary_energy.png
Figure 4. World primary energy production, based on BP 2010 Statistical Analysis – Graph by Euan Mearns

What is "Peak Oil"?
"Peak oil" is sometimes described as the time when conventional oil production begins to fall. There is still a lot of oil in the ground, though, but what is left is

1. Very slow to extract. It is necessary to ramp up huge amounts of production capability to mitigate the downslope of conventional production.

2. Expensive to produce. The easy to produce oil is gone.

So what peak oil really is, is a turning point. One can theoretically continue to produce the same amount of oil or more, if one makes huge investment well in advance. The problem is that it is really too late now. By the time new production finally gets started, conventional oil production will be down very substantially from its peak level. The fact that no one ramped up unconventional production (or alternatives production) before it was too late leaves us with precisely the problem that the peak oil community has been warning about--oil production capacity that can be expected to decrease over time, as individual fields deplete.


Peak Oil and Exponential Growth
Oil supplies are expected not just to level off, but to actually decline. Part of this happens because of the natural decline rate of conventional oil fields, as the finite amount of oil that is in the field is extracted.

The decline is likely to be more severe than historical decline rates (2% to 8% per year) would suggest, for two reasons mentioned earlier:

1. Declining credit availability, as high default rates continue among buyers. Lack of credit will tend to keep oil prices low, and discourage investment.

2. Higher tax rates on fossil fuels. Governments are short of funds and oil companies are temping targets. If tax rates are raised, this will likely cut back production, since oil companies base investment decisions on expected after-tax profit, and this will be lower for many projects.

Meanwhile, we have a huge number of variables growing exponentially:

• Economic growth
• Money supply
• Stock market prices (hopefully)
• Population

These variables are not independent of energy supplies. If nothing else, people need food to eat, and oil is used very extensively for food production. It is questionable whether these variables can continue their exponential growth if oil and other energy supplies are declining in quantity.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Could%20energy%20decline%20cause%20general%20colla se%20of%20exponentials_0.png
Figure 5. Graph from report Dangerous Exponentials by Tullett Prebon.


“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”. Kenneth Boulding

[RandomGuy]

You don't think that al Qaeda wants to build a conventional WMD using a large bomb spiked with nasty radioactive materials?


Well you were a shitty intel analyst. You think terrorist are going to get fissile material from US nukes ? Try Pakistan or Iran or even Russia or China. North Korea.

WHAT THE FUCK HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH US HAVING NUCLEAR POWER ?

And fuck your resume. I had a Q clearance for 9 years. Sandia Labs, ARL-UT, Los Alamos.

Your opinion of my resume does not change the fact that al Qaeda wants to build a dirty bomb.

You didn't answer either question from my post.

I think it remote that al Qaeda would be able to successfully strike a US waste/fuel shipment.

Possible, but remote.

The problem with such a remote possibility is that they only have to be successful ONCE to irradiate a large metropolitan area and render it uninhabitable, effectively permanently.

Which city are you prepared to sacrifice for nuclear power?

[word]

Wind and solar do not suffer resource depletion curves. (see "hubbert curve")



The problem with the renewable gang is they want to go from step A to step D without the in between.

What about 'right now'. Those technolgies are nowhere near mature enough to amount to jack squat.

[word]

Your opinion of my resume does not change the fact that al Qaeda wants to build a dirty bomb.

You didn't answer either question from my post.

I think it remote that al Qaeda would be able to successfully strike a US waste/fuel shipment.

Possible, but remote.

The problem with such a remote possibility is that they only have to be successful ONCE to irradiate a large metropolitan area and render it uninhabitable, effectively permanently.

Which city are you prepared to sacrifice for nuclear power?

No wonder our government is nuts. So lets say we shut down every nuke in the US.

We aren't the world. I say again. AQ isn't going to get the materials you're worried about from US nuke facilities. Just because WE don't do something, doesn't mean others don't. It's a big world, Mr. Intel Analyst.

Good night. I just...no wonder our nation is going down the toilet. You're an IDIOT. An absolute fucking idiot. What crazy fucked up logic. WE should not build nuclear power plants because of AQ.

Fuck me. I give up.

[RandomGuy]

The problem with the renewable gang is they want to go from step A to step D without the in between.

What about 'right now'. Those technolgies are nowhere near mature enough to amount to jack squat.

That is where you are wrong.

The costs per generated MWh for both wind and all forms of solar has been falling pretty much for the last 50 years.

Both forms of power are currently less competitive than coal, although given that trend it is certain that will change, especially with effeciencies of scale.

I do understand there will be a transition. I don't expect it to happen overnight, and understand we will be burning coal/oil/gas for decades to come.

I have seen no indication in anything I have read that costs for solar/wind will stop coming down. Indeed, with the amount of hardcore seed capital flowing into research and start-ups, not envirowackos mind you, but steely greedy capitalists, who compare costs and technologies, I think the trend will accelerate.

The only thing I advocate for is that we ramp up our R & D budget and provide some solid, market-based incentives for renewables and efficiency gains.

No more, no less.

[RandomGuy]

No wonder our government is nuts. So lets say we shut down every nuke in the US.

We aren't the world. I say again. AQ isn't going to get the materials you're worried about from US nuke facilities. Just because WE don't do something, doesn't mean others don't. It's a big world, Mr. Intel Analyst.

Good night. I just...no wonder our nation is going down the toilet. You're an IDIOT. An absolute fucking idiot. What crazy fucked up logic. WE should not build nuclear power plants because of AQ.

Fuck me. I give up.

:dramaquee

Nukes just cost too much, relative to the alternatives. Sorry.

If you don't want to be realistic about the costs, then you have not been honest or comprehensive in your thinking.

I am probably smarter than you are, and I have definitely done more reading and analysing on the information available concerning energy topics than you have, based on your remarks.

Your opinion of me will change neither of those facts either.

[CosmicCowboy]

No wonder our government is nuts. So lets say we shut down every nuke in the US.

We aren't the world. I say again. AQ isn't going to get the materials you're worried about from US nuke facilities. Just because WE don't do something, doesn't mean others don't. It's a big world, Mr. Intel Analyst.

Good night. I just...no wonder our nation is going down the toilet. You're an IDIOT. An absolute fucking idiot. What crazy fucked up logic. WE should not build nuclear power plants because of AQ.

Fuck me. I give up.

Aw, keep on trying...I like your posts.

Part of the Nuke expense problem (IMHO) are the endless multiple design/review/red tape problems and they reinvent the damn wheel every time they build a plant. The US government does everything it can to make sure the process is terminally painful.

Then, once the plans are finally approved, every single damn thing is custom built on site. Thats a stupid and incredibly expensive way to do it.

I propose that we come up with ONE PLAN for a mid size reactor and get everyone on board that this is the PLAN and the one we will build X20 or 50 or 1000.

Then set up fabricating/inspection sites to build all the components except the containment vessel/infrastructure which obviously has to be done on site.

That would cut the cost of building a plant by probably a factor of at least 5 and possibly more.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't think.You have yet to prove you do, dumbass. Still waiting. Smoke another joint and forget about it.....[/QUOTE]


per capita? Not even close.Pure genius.

[ChumpDumper]

No wonder our government is nuts. So lets say we shut down every nuke in the US.

We aren't the world. I say again. AQ isn't going to get the materials you're worried about from US nuke facilities. Just because WE don't do something, doesn't mean others don't. It's a big world, Mr. Intel Analyst. Who says AQ has to "get" materials, dumbass?

[jack sommerset]

Who says AQ has to "get" materials, dumbass?



I say again. AQ isn't going to get the materials

[ChumpDumper]

So the answer is no one said AQ has to "get" the materials.

[boutons_deux]

The trade imbalance is just like the US corps want it. It didn't happen by accident.

Many US mfrs are now partly or mainly importers/distributors as much if not more than manufacturer. They find it cheaper to buy over there than build in USA. aka, exporting jobs. That's why the US corps have been pushing globalism, free trade, etc, so hard these last couple decades. It's to their advantage, not to the US's advantages nor citizens' advantages, about which the US corps don't give a fiduciary fuck.

They make more money that way, and that's the exact and only reason they exist.

Tariffs and protectionism might have worked decades ago, but the corps have co-opted and captured govt so govt ain't neve gonna vote against corporate profits.

[RandomGuy]

Who says AQ has to "get" materials, dumbass?

I highly doubt that AQ could breach any fixed facility's security in the US with a suicide attack using 19 or so people with automatic weapons and explosives, as word seems to suggest I think.

Much more probable is the risk to the fuel and waste shipments. Of course this assumes the eventuality that we finally decide to find a place to store waste, but that is another issue.

Given that the average reactor requires refueling every 3 years or so, from what has been discussed here before, building something on the order of 700 plants over 30 years as would be required to get the majority of our electricity from nukes, that means 400 EXTRA fuel+waste shipments per year, by the time you get to that point (currently 104 reactors, btw)

The laws of probability state that, given enough time and enough chances, the odds of even remote events occuring will approach 1 or 100%.

Armed theives, at least the smart ones, know that attempting to break into a bank's vault to get cash is harder than attempting to get at the shipments of money to/from.

In a similar fashion getting to the fuel/waste shipments is easier than breaching the facilities.

AQ doesn't have to "get" the materials. All they have to do is seize a shipment for just long enough to detonate an explosive large enough to breach the container, or break into the container first, then detonate a large truck bomb.

The costs for defending shipments to a reasonable degree rise with the number of fuel and waste shipments, as to the odds of a successful attack on one of those shipments.

This is in addition to the eventuality, no matter how good your safegards, of an accident.

One MUST weigh this and acknowledge this as a cost in really "going nuclear" in a big way, just as one must acknowledge the cost of catastrophic oil spills is part of the cost of using oil.

If you can't be honest and say that you are prepared to lose a major city to either an accident or a dirty bomb, or that you will incur a lot of security costs at the very least then you can GTFO, because you are simply not viewing the issue comprehensively.

[Blake]

strange thread

nothing new..... just felt the need to point it out.

[RandomGuy]

strange thread

nothing new..... just felt the need to point it out.

Yup.

Nothing new except an OP who obviously was too lazy to read or look for the 5 other recent threads on this topic.

It says something about human nature that "word "essentially came up here to rant on a soap box then acted like a petulant child when someone had the temerity to question his assumptions and opinion.

What does it say about the strength of your argument, when the first time someone asks you to back it up with something so silly as actual facts or data, and all you can do is sputter and call them an idiot for not agreeing with you?

[Winehole23]

What does it say about the strength of your argument, when the first time someone asks you to back it up with something so silly as actual facts or data, and all you can do is sputter and call them an idiot for not agreeing with you?I'm not sure it says anything at all about the strength of any possible counterargument to you. But true, the case has not yet been made on the other side.

It does suggest impatience or irascibility on the part of word,
which suggests to me that word is a highly typical "Politics" poster and may fit right in with the more general trend in this forum to express righteous scorn, but very little else.

[Winehole23]

@RG: have you considered that word may not be trying to persuade or refute anyone?

[Winehole23]

It ain't exactly debate club in here.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure it says anything at all about the strength of any possible counterargument to you. But true, the case has not yet been made on the other side.

It does suggest impatience or irascibility on the part of word,
which suggests to me that word is a highly typical "Politics" poster and may fit right in with the more general trend in this forum to express righteous scorn, but very little else.


@RG: have you considered that word may not be trying to persuade or refute anyone?


It ain't exactly debate club in here.

Correct on all counts.

You are entirely correct that the ultimate strength of word's arguments are independent of his abilities, or lack thereof, to back them up.

I always find it a bit sad that people tend to act like whiney little titty babies when you ask them to actually support or back up their opinions with any real reasoning or actual data. I wish people's opinions in general were actually supported by *some* topical knowledge, as opposed to emotional arguments.

[johnsmith]

I always find it a bit sad that people tend to act like whiney little titty babies when you ask them to actually support or back up their opinions with any real reasoning or actual data. I wish people's opinions in general were actually supported by *some* topical knowledge, as opposed to emotional arguments.


I think that's because most people recognize this website for what it is - a site dedicated to the San Antonio Spurs with a small sub forum for people to bitch about politics anonymously either emotionally or intellectually.

That and the fact that most people DON'T GIVE A FUCK about what you ask them for while on this anonymous website. You are a faceless assclown on a website that focuses on the NBA, not algorithm's that explain oil spills in the gulf.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think that's because most people recognize this website for what it is - a site dedicated to the San Antonio Spurs with a small sub forum for people to bitch about politics anonymously either emotionally or intellectually.

That and the fact that most people DON'T GIVE A FUCK about what you ask them for while on this anonymous website. You are a faceless assclown on a website that focuses on the NBA, not algorithm's that explain oil spills in the gulf.

speaking of faceless assclowns how's it going johnsmith?


Oh wait I'm not allowed to ask questions because someone else has that schtick..:lmao

[johnsmith]

speaking of faceless assclowns how's it going johnsmith?


Oh wait I'm not allowed to ask questions because someone else has that schtick..:lmao

Honestly, I just can't compare to your unreal sense of humor. The way you took what I said, and than said the exact same thing, but turned it around on me......wow, that shit is priceless man......it's almost like you said, I know you are but what am I, and everyone knows that there is absolutely no coming back from that.

Whew, I have to get off of this site now becaue I've been pwned.

[Winehole23]

I always find it a bit sad that people tend to act like whiney little titty babies when you ask them to actually support or back up their opinions with any real reasoning or actual data.It cracks me up that the whiny tirades often consume far more effort than any direct factual riposte would have. OTOH it makes you sad, presumably for the loss to enlightenment, of its very own subjects. To each his own.

People love to bitch. It's a passion. I ain't immune.


I wish people's opinions in general were actually supported by *some* topical knowledge, as opposed to emotional arguments.I see it as a minimal courtesy to give information (or at least my honest opinion) when asked to do so, but others may regard it as an irritation. Vive la difference.

[RandomGuy]

I think that's because most people recognize this website for what it is - a site dedicated to the San Antonio Spurs with a small sub forum for people to bitch about politics anonymously either emotionally or intellectually.

That and the fact that most people DON'T GIVE A FUCK about what you ask them for while on this anonymous website. You are a faceless assclown on a website that focuses on the NBA, not algorithm's that explain oil spills in the gulf.

I don't make this out to be any important battleground. It is, as you say, simply a sports forum with a sidebar for those who want to talk about politics.

Faceless assclownery can be had here aplenty. The thing I find most amusing about your remarks is that if I am a faceless assclown, what does that make someone like you, who contributes even less of value?

I think, by your own definition, that makes you a assclown's clown. I think of you as the little retarded clown that the rest of the clowns like to make fun of.

Here are your floppy shoes. Now make me laugh, clown-boy. :lol

[Winehole23]

Some people would rather vent or use this forum like a bathroom stall, than really try to talk to other posters.

[Winehole23]

There's no accounting for taste.

[jack sommerset]

Honestly, I just can't compare to your unreal sense of humor. The way you took what I said, and than said the exact same thing, but turned it around on me......wow, that shit is priceless man......it's almost like you said, I know you are but what am I, and everyone knows that there is absolutely no coming back from that.

Whew, I have to get off of this site now becaue I've been pwned.

He's rubber and you're glue.

[word]

As a side note to all of this ....and I think whinehole got it right....but this kind of thing also makes me go ...why....

Riots at the G20 in Toronto.. Why not fly into some place there are less people ?

It's like the John Houseman ...biiilderberrrrg group.

Why not meet in.....Lubbock ? Or a much lesser known place with a runway ? Why are they always meeting in these high profile large metro area places ?

Thousands of airports in the world that will accomodate medium size jets. Thousands.

And of course...your response...is moot to me so.....I will go on worshipping solar and wind power and go about my way....laughing along the way while not providing ...a...single....link. You have to realize you're a dumbass on your own.

[Winehole23]

....and I think whinehole got it right....Please, call me wino. :toast