Mitigating Energy Shortages.

20th Nov '08 by rpcroft

9 comments 5570 reads

Energy prices are set by the price of Oil, and will continue to be set by the price oil until we have an oversupply of alternatives.

Future oil prices will be set by the marginal cost of production.

The marginal cost of production is running away from us. ( presently $80-90 per barrel and climbing at at least $10 per barrel per year)

We cannot survive within our present organisation structures beyond a certain energy price ceiling.

There is a malthusian cataclysm coming unless there is a MASSIVE and IMMEDIATE expansion of alternatives.

WE MUST SET A CEILING TO ENERGY PRICES.

Nuclear is the only alternative which is immediately viable. Solar, wind, HEP, biofuels etc etc all have their place but none have the ability to put a ceiling on energy prices within 5 years.

What we need is the immediate design and construction of an ASSEMBLY LINE which produces pre-fabricated nuclear reactors. We need several PER DAY.

We must aim to produce as much power as is presently supplied by oil and do this as quickly as possible.

We must create an oversupply of electricity. The oversupply will allow low prices.

Low prices will incentivise the development of electrical transport. This will provide for an easier transition from oil.

How many reactors?

Well, present oil consumption is 85 million barrels per day. Which is 983.8 barrels per second.

1 Barrel of Oil contains 6.1 GJ (5.8 million btu) : so we need 983.8 * 6.1 * GJ / s = 6001 GW of power.

So 6000 1GW power stations are needed to replace energy presently provided by oil production.

Our worry is the escalating marginal cost of production for oil. The IEA estimates present fields are depleting at 6% per year.

This is equivalent to 5 million barrels per day being lost over the course of a year, or 13651 barrels being lost per day which is .158 barrels per second.

From previously 1 Boe = 6.1 GJ........ thus .158* 6.1GJ/s = .967 GW = approx 1GW

So we need one new 1GW power station per day to replace depletion losses. (and thus not need to extract the expensive oil)

This would not increase the net supply of energy...merely allow us to stand still. I would suggest getting well ahead of the curve and aim for 3-4 new 1GW nuclear reactors per day.

Now lowering electricity…

Unlock with Email

Unlock with Google

Already have an account?
Login here

Stocktaculous

11th Dec '08

I am sure people were saying the same in the 1990s, the 1980s, 1920s... Human ingenuity will win the day. And spiralling energy prices, and the prospects of super-normal profits, are what's required to motivate that innovation. That's capitalism.

rpcroft

12th Dec '08

you think people were talking about an assembly line producing prefabricated nuclear reactors in the 1920s?

Before nuclear power. Before assembly lines?

Did you even read my post?

promethean

The marginal cost of production must be falling considerably right now - the $80 quoted must be based on raw material costs that are out of date... the CRB is back to levels last seen in 2002 when people weren't screaming 'the sky is falling'.

rpcroft, apologies as my reply was ambiguous. I was actually taking issue not with your main argument but with your apocalyptic conclusion - "What is certain is that the march of human progress can only continue with access to cheap energy and if energy prices are allowed to fly as high as they will if there is not a massive and rapid expansion of alternative capacity, then not only will we not be able to continue this "march of human progress" but we will find ourselves unable to sustain ourselves and a chaotic period of famine, war and pestilence will be entered until we are reduced to numbers which may be sustained."

Anyone got any prozac?

:-)

16th Dec '08

Prom.

Lower material costs undoutedlty help but new fields are getting smaller and smaller, which means that costs must be amortised over shorter and shorter field lives.

Oil companies are not exploiting lower material prices to bring on new capacity more cheaply. They are putting new projects on hold due to the low oil price.

It is imprtant to understand that while the suddenness of demand destruction has led to significant overcapacity, field depletion will rapidly bring this into balance if new capacity is not brought on.

Any economic rebound will thus be immediately swatted by high oil prices due to supply constraints but i dont expect this. I expect continuing economic deterioration and declining oil production. Expensive oil is not useful.And oil will be expensive and it will continue to destroy demand and lower standards of living.

We need nuclear.

And we need it NOW!

You "capitalism will save the day" thinking presumes a free market to which new innovations may be brought.

There is no free market in energy. Try building a wind farm and you will run into crazy regulation and "what about the butterflies" idiot (environ)mentalists.

Let alone a nuclear power plant.

Meanwhile coal, gas and oil are burnt.

Our political system has degenerated to the point where not only the livelihoods of citizens are threatened but their very lives too. A moronic public has voted in moronic politicians who are implementing moronic policy.

It seems like you're confusing innovation and production. I agree that it's not easy for Jo Schmo to build a wind farm in his backyard but does that impede innovation? It's perfectly possible for someone to spend time and money researching and developing a green energy technology, there are plenty of clean-tech VC funds that are willing to help develop that idea further, and then there are plenty of ways to sell that technology to a larger industrial energy player for a broader roll-out. What makes you think that the market isn't working? It's just a hard problem that is taking time to solve...

Having said all that, I do agree that, as a society, we are unable to have a rational discussion about the merits of nucleur power because of the histrionics of the likes of Greenpeace. That has to change.

Even Lovelock bangs the nuclear drum... so there are dissenting voices in the green camp. The message will get through eventually. Have you not noticed how the green voices have disappeared from the agenda since the credit crunch took hold? As the situation gets worse, there will be less public support for green issues.

I also believe that innovation will win the day. Yes, capitalism is based on cheap energy... the whole miltary-industrial complex is based on it... so you can be sure that regulation will be sweeped aside if people's standard of living is damaged by higher energy prices. It's just a matter of time.

But also higher oil prices leads to alternative energies becoming more attractive to investors. Increased investment will lead to increased innovation, which will lead to lower prices, and eventually green energy could be priced at grid parity to fossil fuel energy. I'm no expert, but that day will certainly come.

If westerners need to accept a lower standard of being, then so be it... that's no cataclysm, it's just uncomfortable.

stopthenewworldorder

The best and most realistic scaleable answer is Coal to Liquids - especially using Underground Coal Gasification.

Aside from that, I fear you underestimate what Agent Smith and his pals have lined up for us all.

Mitigating Energy Shortages.

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

Rpcroft

9 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...