It seems these kind of graphs are becoming the norm nowadays.
German 1-year forward baseload electricity went over 340 Euros. For at least 10 years before 2021 it was 50 Euros or lower.
France is in a similar situation. Its price surged to 440 Euros per MWh. This is 675% above the 10-year average. And 1 year forward prices are meant to be more stable!
Maybe now wasn’t the best time for France to take half its nuclear power stations offline for maintenance.
Nor is it the best time for German to switch off its remaining nuclear power stations after already closing several of them in 2021.
And whilst France are relatively self-sufficient when their nuclear power stations are operational, they want to follow Germany and close them all by 2050.
Already, Germany is rationing hot water, closing public swimming pools and dimming street lights. And it’s only July. These kind of prices are going to crush their manufacturing sector, if not the country as a whole. Power prices are already forcing US industrial operations to massively scale back.
Germany’s energy regulator recently published various scenarios for their natural gas supply this winter.
Six out of seven of those scenarios led to completely empty or virtually empty supplies by mid February, if not earlier.
And as things get tighter and tighter, countries will stop exporting, leaving vulnerable countries screwed. For example Libya has just announced that they will reduce gas exports to Italy by 25% to resolve energy prices at home.
In other financial news, US mortgage rates plunged to 5.3%, the biggest drop since 2008.
And credit default swaps for Credit Suisse are heading back up to the moon. These kind of insurance prices, against default, were last seen in 2008.
Your support is very much appreciated. Please consider taking out a paid subscription to support independent journalism.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
No this inflation has been caused by incredible money printing at the same time as a deliberate supply disruption due to the Covid Plandemic. This was all artificial and all contrived.
Strange - I bought some compost the other day ... it is $59 per cubic ... I said the guy -- wasn't I paying something like $45 4 months ago?
Yup - $45 ... wow I said that's a huge increase.
Yep he said -- it's cuz diesel prices are up more than double --- so the haulage fees are much higher as are the energy costs to make the stuff... nobody is making more money - it's all related to diesel costs
Likewise I bought a pallet of coal two months ago - the price was up 25%... spoke to the manager of the shop and he blamed it on diesel costs... that alone has added two bucks per sack.
Nobody mentioned money printing.
Guess what - the MSM will NEVER tell you we are out of cheap energy -- that would cause a panic...
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
From what I understand, while France may itself be in a better position than many countries re energy, they have locked themselves into the formal EU energy market structure that equalises the pain. Hence why France's follow's Germany's graph. So France takes a hit because of Doltz and his green goblins' actions.
Spent fuel from nuclear fission plants has to be water cooled for about 5 years (think variation of a cold swimming pool with spent fuel lying at the bottom). On site at the nuclear plant. After that time period, it can be removed and go to the “dry cast storage” phase. The best place for this phase is deep underground (google Yucca mountain) - but NIMBY and politics have prevented this from happening.
I've read about Yucca Mountain and vitrification and all of that for years.
But to your point--so what happens when there's an accident/natural disaster while all that contaminated water is cooling the spent fuel? What happens if it ends up contaminating groundwater in an entire region?
I do not believe in the Nuclear Fairy, or her happy home far under the magic mountain, either.
The water isn't contaminated, the nuclear fuel rods are sealed, unless there is fuel rod damage due to a LOCA (loss of cooling accident) during the reactor operation and then they would go to a special facility for disposal. And there isn't a lot of water involved compared to most industrial process.
All that will happen to the cooling water is some tritium will be bred which is mildly radioactive water, with a 12yr half-life, they put it in watches for illumination until some greenie nutballs freaked out. Dump it in the ocean, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the tritium naturally in the water.
You do not believe in the Nuclear Fairy? Well then you believe in death, subjugation and a dismal future for humanity, a dystopian nightmare which the Demons of Davos are preparing for us. That's why they despise nuclear power, raw hatred, and love the REAL FAIRIE DUST = wind & solar.
No I'm strictly a rationalist. I actually embrace some ancient methods, and simpler lifestyles, it just needs to be done according to reason and proven success and not by imposing ideologies on people who don't want them.
That's the swedish actor tasked with handling all radioactive waste. The link should take you to their english language version.
"The method that has been developed involves first encapsulating the nuclear fuel in copper canisters. The sealed copper canisters will then be placed in a system of tunnels about 500 metres deep in the solid bedrock. Here they will be embedded in Bentonite clay."
500 meters is far below any ground water. Edit: I should say: far below any ground water used for human consumtion. Water migrates through different types of rock/material, but I'd have to ask my brother for exact tables and figures, since he is a hydro-geologist. The point is, even a total leak at that depth would have zero effect on anything on the surface. Here that is, other mountain ranges and methods will of course affect the truth of this statement.
As for accidents, well we've had nuclear power since 1954. Zero accidents. Thanks to nuclear and hydroelectric dams we have been able to get rid of coal and oil. We retain oil powered plants for emergency back up purposes only: unfortunately, due to greens in governement, we have shut down several reactors forcing us to import coal-made electricity from Poland, so thanks to anti-nuclear greens we contribut to the dirties energysource in existence - coal.
We use both BWR type reactors and PWR type. We use sea water for cooling, and the only side effect of that is that the water leaving the plant is warmer than the sea - it is in no way radioactive, not anymore than seawater usually is.
Also, the warm water have a very beneficial effect on local populations of seals, fish and birds.
I would question the wisdom of burying spent nuclear fuel that is 97% fuel for GenIV reactors currently operating and many more versions being built or in advanced design stages right now. The Blue Ribbon Presidential Commission that studied SNF storage concluded dry cask storage is entirely safe, reliable and practical for 100's of years into the future. During that time advanced reactors including fission-fusion hybrids will be quite capable of burning the fuel and much more practical spent fuel processing can be done with molten salt or pyro-processing of the fuel. No need of the archaic aqueous UREX or PUREX reprocessing that has numerous deficiencies. After burn-up in GenIV reactors and recovery of the many valuable isotopes, the tiny amount that remains can easily be dropped down a deep borehole in granite where it only remains dangerous for 300yrs.
The storage system allows for the removal of the canisters. On top of that, we have substantial untouched uranium deposits. Not on the scale Demark or India has of course, but plenty enough for domestic use for the foreseeabe future.
Funnily enough, a few years ago the Greens demanded of their coalition partners the Socialist Democrats that a law be made exempting the swedish deposits from foreign prospecting. The Greens' aim was "environmental" of course, but the Socialist Democrats readily acquiesced. The real reason was to round international agreements and the EU, preserving our deposits for our own use in the future.
And when journalists pointed this out to the then leader of the Greens... oh the hilarity!
Any uranium mining will bring out all kinds of environmental opposition against mining. Recycling spent nuclear fuel = energy efficiency on steroids sounds like much more environmental goodness.
Nuclear in Sweden is only 21% of their primary energy supply. The goal with these high temperature reactors like the Elysium is to replace the entire energy supply except for hydro. That would greatly increase Sweden's uranium requirements using Light Water Reactors.
Given your motivated reasoning - you don't want nuclear to succeed, no matter how carefully we approach it - it is similarly impossible to have safe running water.
Just look at Flint, MI. The population of an entire city suffers ill health due to problems with the chemical properties of the water and the material of the pipes.
Surely, this is evidence that running water can never be safe. These people would be better off drinking and bathing in the local river, like people did 1000 years ago.
It doesn't have a huge accident/terrorism vulnerability. There has never been a terrorist damage to a nuclear power plant. And Fukushima, 3 meltdowns, worst case scenario for a commercial reactor killed zero people. And trivially easy to avoid. Combustion fuels kill 12 million/yr. A hydro failure killed 200,000 people. Chernobyl possibly killed up to as much as 1000 over a full lifetime, but was a Military plutonium production reactor with no containment, and a positive void coefficient of reactivity (all illegal) nothing whatsoever to do with commercial nuclear power.
I already told you, worst case scenario for a commercial reactor was Fukushima, 3 meltdowns, zero deaths. Trivial compared to one hydro dam failure decimating hundreds of square miles of land and killing 200k people. Don't believe the corrupt, Davos owned greenies and their Nudear Fear Porn. Why won't Greenpeace reveal where they get their $350M/yr from.
One of the painful truths about modern life is that some things invented or discovered thousands of years ago are still the best answer. It's just the technology around producing and using them can be better refined.
Really? Using whale fat as a lubricant, almost decimating the World's whale population. Same with sea turtles, their shells were used before plastics were invented. Vast forests destroyed, ecosystems of wildlife decimated just for dirty, smoke belching firewood. This is still sadly occurring in developing nations due to a lack of modern clean energy supplies. Water polluted with human excrement. Wonderful human beings, children dying by the millions for want of a simple antibiotic. Give up on the Eco-primitivist dogma.
You are absolutely correct. I’m as “old school” as it gets. I wish we all could go back to living with 1850’s level technology; but we’d have to reduce the human population to what it was back then (or less, given all the degradation since then). That is as they say “a non-starter”.
I will whisper to you my shameful confession that if anyone had told younger me that I would someday be calling a piece of modern technology "my darling little laptop." I'd have thought them insane. And yet here we are.
Do not take from me electric lighting (but I went from incandescent to natural light-simulating LEDs and skipped right over those hazardous-waste abominations they tried to force on us) or baseboard hot-water radiators or a constant supply of hot water in my faucets. I've experienced what it's like without them, during some overseas adventuring, and I'll echo what Charleton Heston said, though in another context.
Well said. I think we’d agree that no matter how stupid the societal decisions were back in Sumerian times, at least these decisions never put the entire planet at existential risk. But yeah - humans have been collectively “not so smart” for a long time
If it put the whole city at risk, it was just as bad, comparatively, because that might be a person's entire world.
It's not that we're "not so smart." Every living creature has its own imperatives that inevitably make things wretched for others. You think the fish whose rivers are impeded by what I'm sure they'd call "those fucking beavers" are any different that we are, when someone changes things to their own liking and pretends it's a glorious improvement?
This is relevant- a very good video discussing the downsides of human decisions (https://youtu.be/_yv8zGzzLpg ). During this discussion, one guy refers to nuclear power situation as a doomsday device- as in the entire planet. No Sumerian stupidly ever came close to that.
Jesus. Listening to idiotic crap like that you'll have to shorten your handle by removing the Not part. Doomsday device? Explain how you figure commercial nuclear power can cause Doomsday. Not having nuclear power will GUARANTEE collapse of our industrial civilization and billions of deaths. Call that Doomsday if you wish.
Or maybe that is not feasible but they tell us that to comfort us?
Even if you cask the fuel after 5 years those casks need to be maintained...
There are 4000 spent fuel ponds ....
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
More fear porn nonsense. Ya know that spent fuel puts out about 10 watts/kg @ 1yr after leaving the core. And 0.5 watts/kg @ 10yrs. You could hold that in your hand, it wouldn't even be warm, it would be deadly for the radiation, but the heat is insignificant. Sure with 4 cores or 800 tonnes including assemblies in the Spent Fuel Pool you may have 8MW of heat but that is spread out over a large area. Even if the pool was dry, air cooling would easily keep it below ~100 degC. The only problem without being immersed in water is mainly gamma radiation will be high and some volatile isotopes might leak out causing some local danger, within the plant area. That's all folks. Spent fuel is NOT a problem and anyone who says so is either corrupt or misinformed by Bankster financed Fear Porn.
These guys are unaware of even basic heat flow concepts. A typical nuclear power plant core will run ~10MW of heat 4 days after shutdown which gradually declines to ~ 1MW @ 1yr to 200kw @ 4yr in a spent fuel pool. You can buy a 200kw electric boiler smaller than a standard office desk cooled with a 2" water pipe and a 2 hp pump. Pretty easy to supply that level of cooling. Even a garden hose would work. And there isn't enough heat to catch fire, that's nonsense. Watch youtube video of someone trying to set zirconium tubing on fire with an oxyacetylene torch, won't burn even @ 2000deg:
Even @ 200degC air cooling would be sufficient. There is no conceivable way a spent fuel pool would release any significant amount of radioisotopes to the environment even if personal just abandoned the site which means total social system collapse, Mad Max scenario in which case there be military weapons, bioweapons, nuclear, chemical, phosphorus and more available. The last thing anyone would worry about is nuclear spent fuel pools, which even a concerned high school student could figure out how to keep cool, easily. What you think little gas, alcohol & diesel pumps or siphon hoses are going to disappear?
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
There's no clean energy. Clean energy is less people less consumption so we can destroy our world slower=maybe we find a solution before complete annihilation.
Yes, I know there's no clean energy. And unfortunately, too many people on every side of this issue are fanatics for one thing or another.
Too many believe in the Electricity Fairy, or the Radiation Eating Fairy (neither of them relations).
If we'd invested in technology to make coal-burning plants cleaner; to reduce the possibility of oil spills and to clean them up better, etc. etc. etc., we'd be far better off.
Too many poeple who sound really sensible and reasoned on these issues never address my--uh--core--questions, which is where I started here. Some will explain to me why Chernobyl was just "handled badly" and variations on that theme.
I got news for 'em. Every nuclear plant, or oil rig, or coal mine is operated by human beings, some of whom are morons and will make really, really, really dangerous mistakes. So we should determine where bad mistakes can cause the least harm, all things considered.
Lot's of arm-waving and wild claims that you can't justify with data. Chernobyl was not a commercial power reactor. It was designed for military plutonium production. It would be wildly illegal under IAEA regulations. Starting with no containment structure. And a positive void coefficient of reactivity. Bad stuff. Still only 52 died, maybe up to 1000 eventually due to mostly thyroid cancer. 200k died in one hydro dam failure. 12M die every year from combustion fuel pollution. Energy poverty will kill billions.
I also watched a programme from Chernoble where many of the people went back to live! It's on YouTube. They lived a very simple life, off the land, fishing from the lagoon or river. They did live well into their 80's. They had to go and get tested and the geiger machine went quite high. So, maybe it's not as bad as we are led to believe?
The people exposed to the initial explosion--plant workers, the emergency teams sent in--died horrible, horrible deaths in appalling numbers, and many pregnant women in the area, exposed to the environment or to a dying spouse, had a terrible rate of stillbirths or extremely sick babies.
You might want to read Voices from Chernobyl, but I warn you it's just about unbearable.
It was far worse than you can imagine. But life goes on, everywhere. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are beautiful cities now, though people after the bombing had their skin melt right off, and cancer deaths kept happening years afterwards.
Oh, I don't doubt it, that so many suffered terribly. It didn't say how long after they returned but I think most were widowed already and just wanted to be "home." In war humans commit such atrocious deeds. My father lost his Aunts, Uncles and cousins who lived in Dresden and got fire bombed. I've seen pictures of the aftermath of that as well as Japan. Let's hope the idiots start negotiating a peace instead of ratcheting it up in Ukraine else goodness knows where it will end.
Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five brought home to me the horror of Dresden and I never forgot it. I'm very sorry for the suffering of your own family. Blood of some of my relatives is part of that soil of Ukraine.
I watched a video about this. I think it was Sellafield in Cumbria UK. They keep the spent stuff cooled. Wonder what would happen if the cooling element failed due to some catastrophe? Then they put them in concrete blocks. They have lots of them there. They are supposed to then go to some deep storage, well below the earth, to be buried forever. Problem is, they are still deliberating where to put them! I don't know about the water element. Maybe they reuse it and just top up?
What if the energy companies just ignores the dictates of the administration and just built the pipelines and started drilling? Is it time for civil disobedience in the U.S.?
That's a great idea, but most people will still put a mask on to go in a store if a sign tells them to do so. The vast majority of people don't have the moral courage to make any kind of a stand.
Over here people are starting to panic over the national bank increasing the official bank rate, which pushes their interest rate on their mortgages up. We've had flat to zero to even below zero rates the last fiv-six years or more, and naturally neither markets nor businesses nor consumers or governement has banked assets towards a "rainy day". And the total tax pressure is about 75% or more. When the farmer buys a tractor, 25% of price is VAT. When he sells his produce the buyer pays 25% VAT. When the buyer sells it to refinery it too pays 25% VAT. When a store buys the refined product it pays 25% VAT. And when you buy it from the store you pay 25% VAT. And on top of that there are lots and lots more taxes. Small wonder fewer and fewer swedes and migranst opt out of working at all - it's no use unless you can land a job paying more than $2 500/month net. A family of two adults and three children get as minimum $2 450/month from welfare. And if you are on welfare, lots of things - like dental - are heavily subsidised or free.
Well, it's starting to pour and all else being equal it's going to rain like in the days of Utnapishtim.
Damn, France was 70% nuclear. The only country that could upgrade to electric cars and it would actually be greener than gasoline cars. Europe's actually a good place to have nuclear power plants too since it's far from any significant fault lines so it doesn't have to worry about earthquakes like Fukushima at least, and on the other hand they get so little sunlight throughout the year that solar panels aren't worthwhile. Then again there was Chernobyl... so maybe they should switch to thorium plants.
Chernobyl was Soviet and worse run than the reactor from 1954 still running at Stockholm University - almost 70 years ticking along, no accidents or anything.
It's not the tech, it's what culture is using it that's the problem.
What's wrong with the Soviet culture? I know they had some troubling beliefs such as "lysenkoism" but they were the first to put a satellite in space, weren't they?
In the case of Chernobyl it was bad tech, a Soviet military plutonium production reactor with no containment and a high positive void coefficient of reactivity which meant it was capable of thermal runaway, which it did. That type of reactor would be illegal under IAEA regulations for commercial reactors.
We are on the back side of the energy resource cliff. The slope could possibly (probably? almost certainly?) be much steeper than the one we took to get here. Much, much more is in store.
#SriLanka has completely collapsed. Angry crowds now chasing and killing wealthy people as food and energy shortages hit. Over 200 dead so far, police use live rounds. State of anarchy on one side, police state on the other.
Yeah but Sri Lanka had the highest ESG score of any country on the planet, just shy of 100%. That's what comes with catering to the Davos Malthusian Bankster Psychopaths. Trying to do the same to the #2 Agricultural Exporter Holland with their Davos Young Global Leader graduate Mark Rutte prime minister. Trudeau's bosom buddy.
These are conscious administrative decisions, and in no way reflect supply or demand. The destroyed, sanctioned, embargoed, or off-limits oil includes Venezuela, Iran, Russia, ANWAR and some Canadian oil. Prices are high because we restrict access to supply. These are conscious decisions. Now ask: Why?
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
SEE PAGE 59 - THE PERFECT STORM : The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
We can easily replace oil if the overlords wanted us to. Oil has dropped from 49% of World primary energy supply in 1973 to 31% in 2020. There is no real problem reducing oil even to zero. Rationally you would keep the less expensive oil production to supply petrochemicals and jet fuel. Everything else can easily be replaced with gas, coal & nuclear. As gas supplies deplete coal & nuclear will suffice. Note Nazi Germany and currently South Africa produce a large portion of their diesel fuel from coal. South Africa was at 30% CTL diesel fuel, last I heard.
The real truth is that the scheming, lying Davos Psychos and their minions in government have been deliberately and maliciously disrupting oil production in the West, cancelling pipelines, imposing giant carbon taxes and mandates, cancelling oil & gas drilling leases on public land, pushing refinery closures enhanced by wacky covid restrictions and of course their real bonus was to deliberately cause the Russia-Ukraine war and then use it as an excuse to impose unheard-of-ever draconian sanctions on Russia including for oil & exports. This was all planned. We are seeing true unmitigated evil at work here. If there is a supply problem, why this?:
Oil can be replaced by Coal or Gas to liquids, that's well established tech. And methanol is an easy replacement for gasoline. And DME is an easy replacement for diesel (except for jet fuel). They can be made in vast quantities from coal, stranded or flared gas, any biomass (i.e. forest overgrowth which is just burnt anyway in forest fires), seawater CO2 or cement plant flue gas and nuclear hydrogen/electricity.
so when will we replace it? Sri Lanka is imploding - I just watch video of similar scenes in Macedonia and Uzbekistan... Africa is kicking off.... soft protests are starting in Europe (they'll turn violent too at some point).
We better replace oil soon! Oh and BTW -- forget about using gas:
Controlled demolition of everything stable and efficient. Engineering chaos and misery.
I feel like a broken record: the intentional destruction of the world economy. These are choices made by our overlords, and they are deliberate!
When it comes to resources we pick the low hanging fruit first --- now what's left are all the fruit at the top of the tree.
This causes massive inflation. It will only get worse.
No this inflation has been caused by incredible money printing at the same time as a deliberate supply disruption due to the Covid Plandemic. This was all artificial and all contrived.
Strange - I bought some compost the other day ... it is $59 per cubic ... I said the guy -- wasn't I paying something like $45 4 months ago?
Yup - $45 ... wow I said that's a huge increase.
Yep he said -- it's cuz diesel prices are up more than double --- so the haulage fees are much higher as are the energy costs to make the stuff... nobody is making more money - it's all related to diesel costs
Likewise I bought a pallet of coal two months ago - the price was up 25%... spoke to the manager of the shop and he blamed it on diesel costs... that alone has added two bucks per sack.
Nobody mentioned money printing.
Guess what - the MSM will NEVER tell you we are out of cheap energy -- that would cause a panic...
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
Oil Discoveries are at record lows https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/icbkDFACM4iA/v2/800x-1.png
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: https://energyskeptic.com/2021/the-end-of-fracked-shale-oil/
Agreed
From what I understand, while France may itself be in a better position than many countries re energy, they have locked themselves into the formal EU energy market structure that equalises the pain. Hence why France's follow's Germany's graph. So France takes a hit because of Doltz and his green goblins' actions.
I keep asking, and nobody ever gives me an answer. How do we safely store the spent fuel and the contaminated water from nuclear plants?
Spent fuel from nuclear fission plants has to be water cooled for about 5 years (think variation of a cold swimming pool with spent fuel lying at the bottom). On site at the nuclear plant. After that time period, it can be removed and go to the “dry cast storage” phase. The best place for this phase is deep underground (google Yucca mountain) - but NIMBY and politics have prevented this from happening.
I've read about Yucca Mountain and vitrification and all of that for years.
But to your point--so what happens when there's an accident/natural disaster while all that contaminated water is cooling the spent fuel? What happens if it ends up contaminating groundwater in an entire region?
I do not believe in the Nuclear Fairy, or her happy home far under the magic mountain, either.
The water isn't contaminated, the nuclear fuel rods are sealed, unless there is fuel rod damage due to a LOCA (loss of cooling accident) during the reactor operation and then they would go to a special facility for disposal. And there isn't a lot of water involved compared to most industrial process.
All that will happen to the cooling water is some tritium will be bred which is mildly radioactive water, with a 12yr half-life, they put it in watches for illumination until some greenie nutballs freaked out. Dump it in the ocean, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the tritium naturally in the water.
You do not believe in the Nuclear Fairy? Well then you believe in death, subjugation and a dismal future for humanity, a dystopian nightmare which the Demons of Davos are preparing for us. That's why they despise nuclear power, raw hatred, and love the REAL FAIRIE DUST = wind & solar.
So you're a preacher for yet another cult, huh?
No I'm strictly a rationalist. I actually embrace some ancient methods, and simpler lifestyles, it just needs to be done according to reason and proven success and not by imposing ideologies on people who don't want them.
Ask and ye shall receive:
https://www.skb.com/
That's the swedish actor tasked with handling all radioactive waste. The link should take you to their english language version.
"The method that has been developed involves first encapsulating the nuclear fuel in copper canisters. The sealed copper canisters will then be placed in a system of tunnels about 500 metres deep in the solid bedrock. Here they will be embedded in Bentonite clay."
500 meters is far below any ground water. Edit: I should say: far below any ground water used for human consumtion. Water migrates through different types of rock/material, but I'd have to ask my brother for exact tables and figures, since he is a hydro-geologist. The point is, even a total leak at that depth would have zero effect on anything on the surface. Here that is, other mountain ranges and methods will of course affect the truth of this statement.
As for accidents, well we've had nuclear power since 1954. Zero accidents. Thanks to nuclear and hydroelectric dams we have been able to get rid of coal and oil. We retain oil powered plants for emergency back up purposes only: unfortunately, due to greens in governement, we have shut down several reactors forcing us to import coal-made electricity from Poland, so thanks to anti-nuclear greens we contribut to the dirties energysource in existence - coal.
We use both BWR type reactors and PWR type. We use sea water for cooling, and the only side effect of that is that the water leaving the plant is warmer than the sea - it is in no way radioactive, not anymore than seawater usually is.
Also, the warm water have a very beneficial effect on local populations of seals, fish and birds.
Well, this sounds pretty good.
But are they educating them these days well enough to manage a well-designed system, going forward?
The system we have doesn't need more than a few dozen people, once it set up, if you mean technicians and engineers. So on that end we're covered.
I would question the wisdom of burying spent nuclear fuel that is 97% fuel for GenIV reactors currently operating and many more versions being built or in advanced design stages right now. The Blue Ribbon Presidential Commission that studied SNF storage concluded dry cask storage is entirely safe, reliable and practical for 100's of years into the future. During that time advanced reactors including fission-fusion hybrids will be quite capable of burning the fuel and much more practical spent fuel processing can be done with molten salt or pyro-processing of the fuel. No need of the archaic aqueous UREX or PUREX reprocessing that has numerous deficiencies. After burn-up in GenIV reactors and recovery of the many valuable isotopes, the tiny amount that remains can easily be dropped down a deep borehole in granite where it only remains dangerous for 300yrs.
The storage system allows for the removal of the canisters. On top of that, we have substantial untouched uranium deposits. Not on the scale Demark or India has of course, but plenty enough for domestic use for the foreseeabe future.
Funnily enough, a few years ago the Greens demanded of their coalition partners the Socialist Democrats that a law be made exempting the swedish deposits from foreign prospecting. The Greens' aim was "environmental" of course, but the Socialist Democrats readily acquiesced. The real reason was to round international agreements and the EU, preserving our deposits for our own use in the future.
And when journalists pointed this out to the then leader of the Greens... oh the hilarity!
Still the needless expense of an extreme storage system vs spending that amount on reactors like these:
https://www.elysiumindustries.com/
Any uranium mining will bring out all kinds of environmental opposition against mining. Recycling spent nuclear fuel = energy efficiency on steroids sounds like much more environmental goodness.
Nuclear in Sweden is only 21% of their primary energy supply. The goal with these high temperature reactors like the Elysium is to replace the entire energy supply except for hydro. That would greatly increase Sweden's uranium requirements using Light Water Reactors.
Given your motivated reasoning - you don't want nuclear to succeed, no matter how carefully we approach it - it is similarly impossible to have safe running water.
Just look at Flint, MI. The population of an entire city suffers ill health due to problems with the chemical properties of the water and the material of the pipes.
Surely, this is evidence that running water can never be safe. These people would be better off drinking and bathing in the local river, like people did 1000 years ago.
Bad analogy.
To those who find the analogies inconvenient, they are always bad.
You are correct- the whole thing (power from nuclear) has a huge accident/terrorism vulnerability. Which is why I really don’t like it either.
It doesn't have a huge accident/terrorism vulnerability. There has never been a terrorist damage to a nuclear power plant. And Fukushima, 3 meltdowns, worst case scenario for a commercial reactor killed zero people. And trivially easy to avoid. Combustion fuels kill 12 million/yr. A hydro failure killed 200,000 people. Chernobyl possibly killed up to as much as 1000 over a full lifetime, but was a Military plutonium production reactor with no containment, and a positive void coefficient of reactivity (all illegal) nothing whatsoever to do with commercial nuclear power.
Deaths per TWh:
Coal: 161
Oil: 36
Biomass: 12
NG: 4
Hydro: 1.4
Wind: 0.15
Nuclear: 0.04
Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t happen. If if it does happen, it’s a catastrophe
I already told you, worst case scenario for a commercial reactor was Fukushima, 3 meltdowns, zero deaths. Trivial compared to one hydro dam failure decimating hundreds of square miles of land and killing 200k people. Don't believe the corrupt, Davos owned greenies and their Nudear Fear Porn. Why won't Greenpeace reveal where they get their $350M/yr from.
One of the painful truths about modern life is that some things invented or discovered thousands of years ago are still the best answer. It's just the technology around producing and using them can be better refined.
Really? Using whale fat as a lubricant, almost decimating the World's whale population. Same with sea turtles, their shells were used before plastics were invented. Vast forests destroyed, ecosystems of wildlife decimated just for dirty, smoke belching firewood. This is still sadly occurring in developing nations due to a lack of modern clean energy supplies. Water polluted with human excrement. Wonderful human beings, children dying by the millions for want of a simple antibiotic. Give up on the Eco-primitivist dogma.
When this kind of comments with attitude come in, I wonder “why do I bother “?
You are absolutely correct. I’m as “old school” as it gets. I wish we all could go back to living with 1850’s level technology; but we’d have to reduce the human population to what it was back then (or less, given all the degradation since then). That is as they say “a non-starter”.
I will whisper to you my shameful confession that if anyone had told younger me that I would someday be calling a piece of modern technology "my darling little laptop." I'd have thought them insane. And yet here we are.
Do not take from me electric lighting (but I went from incandescent to natural light-simulating LEDs and skipped right over those hazardous-waste abominations they tried to force on us) or baseboard hot-water radiators or a constant supply of hot water in my faucets. I've experienced what it's like without them, during some overseas adventuring, and I'll echo what Charleton Heston said, though in another context.
Well said. I think we’d agree that no matter how stupid the societal decisions were back in Sumerian times, at least these decisions never put the entire planet at existential risk. But yeah - humans have been collectively “not so smart” for a long time
If it put the whole city at risk, it was just as bad, comparatively, because that might be a person's entire world.
It's not that we're "not so smart." Every living creature has its own imperatives that inevitably make things wretched for others. You think the fish whose rivers are impeded by what I'm sure they'd call "those fucking beavers" are any different that we are, when someone changes things to their own liking and pretends it's a glorious improvement?
This is relevant- a very good video discussing the downsides of human decisions (https://youtu.be/_yv8zGzzLpg ). During this discussion, one guy refers to nuclear power situation as a doomsday device- as in the entire planet. No Sumerian stupidly ever came close to that.
Jesus. Listening to idiotic crap like that you'll have to shorten your handle by removing the Not part. Doomsday device? Explain how you figure commercial nuclear power can cause Doomsday. Not having nuclear power will GUARANTEE collapse of our industrial civilization and billions of deaths. Call that Doomsday if you wish.
Or maybe that is not feasible but they tell us that to comfort us?
Even if you cask the fuel after 5 years those casks need to be maintained...
There are 4000 spent fuel ponds ....
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
http://science.time.com/2011/03/15/a-new-threat-in-japan-radioactive-spent-fuel/
The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16628547/
More fear porn nonsense. Ya know that spent fuel puts out about 10 watts/kg @ 1yr after leaving the core. And 0.5 watts/kg @ 10yrs. You could hold that in your hand, it wouldn't even be warm, it would be deadly for the radiation, but the heat is insignificant. Sure with 4 cores or 800 tonnes including assemblies in the Spent Fuel Pool you may have 8MW of heat but that is spread out over a large area. Even if the pool was dry, air cooling would easily keep it below ~100 degC. The only problem without being immersed in water is mainly gamma radiation will be high and some volatile isotopes might leak out causing some local danger, within the plant area. That's all folks. Spent fuel is NOT a problem and anyone who says so is either corrupt or misinformed by Bankster financed Fear Porn.
These guys are unaware of even basic heat flow concepts. A typical nuclear power plant core will run ~10MW of heat 4 days after shutdown which gradually declines to ~ 1MW @ 1yr to 200kw @ 4yr in a spent fuel pool. You can buy a 200kw electric boiler smaller than a standard office desk cooled with a 2" water pipe and a 2 hp pump. Pretty easy to supply that level of cooling. Even a garden hose would work. And there isn't enough heat to catch fire, that's nonsense. Watch youtube video of someone trying to set zirconium tubing on fire with an oxyacetylene torch, won't burn even @ 2000deg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x__2yWx9zGY
Even @ 200degC air cooling would be sufficient. There is no conceivable way a spent fuel pool would release any significant amount of radioisotopes to the environment even if personal just abandoned the site which means total social system collapse, Mad Max scenario in which case there be military weapons, bioweapons, nuclear, chemical, phosphorus and more available. The last thing anyone would worry about is nuclear spent fuel pools, which even a concerned high school student could figure out how to keep cool, easily. What you think little gas, alcohol & diesel pumps or siphon hoses are going to disappear?
If you are concerned about the spent fuel ponds here is the person to contact.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/new-biden-dept-energy-appointee-part-time-drag-queen-queer-activists-145352610.html
There are 4000 Spent Fuel Ponds Around the Globe…
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
http://science.time.com/2011/03/15/a-new-threat-in-japan-radioactive-spent-fuel/
The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16628547/
There's no clean energy. Clean energy is less people less consumption so we can destroy our world slower=maybe we find a solution before complete annihilation.
Yes, I know there's no clean energy. And unfortunately, too many people on every side of this issue are fanatics for one thing or another.
Too many believe in the Electricity Fairy, or the Radiation Eating Fairy (neither of them relations).
If we'd invested in technology to make coal-burning plants cleaner; to reduce the possibility of oil spills and to clean them up better, etc. etc. etc., we'd be far better off.
Too many poeple who sound really sensible and reasoned on these issues never address my--uh--core--questions, which is where I started here. Some will explain to me why Chernobyl was just "handled badly" and variations on that theme.
I got news for 'em. Every nuclear plant, or oil rig, or coal mine is operated by human beings, some of whom are morons and will make really, really, really dangerous mistakes. So we should determine where bad mistakes can cause the least harm, all things considered.
Lot's of arm-waving and wild claims that you can't justify with data. Chernobyl was not a commercial power reactor. It was designed for military plutonium production. It would be wildly illegal under IAEA regulations. Starting with no containment structure. And a positive void coefficient of reactivity. Bad stuff. Still only 52 died, maybe up to 1000 eventually due to mostly thyroid cancer. 200k died in one hydro dam failure. 12M die every year from combustion fuel pollution. Energy poverty will kill billions.
Your fairies are getting tiresome. As for human mistakes, stepping on a rake can be a really grave one. And every rake is operated by a human being...
I also watched a programme from Chernoble where many of the people went back to live! It's on YouTube. They lived a very simple life, off the land, fishing from the lagoon or river. They did live well into their 80's. They had to go and get tested and the geiger machine went quite high. So, maybe it's not as bad as we are led to believe?
The people exposed to the initial explosion--plant workers, the emergency teams sent in--died horrible, horrible deaths in appalling numbers, and many pregnant women in the area, exposed to the environment or to a dying spouse, had a terrible rate of stillbirths or extremely sick babies.
You might want to read Voices from Chernobyl, but I warn you it's just about unbearable.
It was far worse than you can imagine. But life goes on, everywhere. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are beautiful cities now, though people after the bombing had their skin melt right off, and cancer deaths kept happening years afterwards.
Oh, I don't doubt it, that so many suffered terribly. It didn't say how long after they returned but I think most were widowed already and just wanted to be "home." In war humans commit such atrocious deeds. My father lost his Aunts, Uncles and cousins who lived in Dresden and got fire bombed. I've seen pictures of the aftermath of that as well as Japan. Let's hope the idiots start negotiating a peace instead of ratcheting it up in Ukraine else goodness knows where it will end.
Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five brought home to me the horror of Dresden and I never forgot it. I'm very sorry for the suffering of your own family. Blood of some of my relatives is part of that soil of Ukraine.
I watched a video about this. I think it was Sellafield in Cumbria UK. They keep the spent stuff cooled. Wonder what would happen if the cooling element failed due to some catastrophe? Then they put them in concrete blocks. They have lots of them there. They are supposed to then go to some deep storage, well below the earth, to be buried forever. Problem is, they are still deliberating where to put them! I don't know about the water element. Maybe they reuse it and just top up?
thepulse.one
What if the energy companies just ignores the dictates of the administration and just built the pipelines and started drilling? Is it time for civil disobedience in the U.S.?
That's a great idea, but most people will still put a mask on to go in a store if a sign tells them to do so. The vast majority of people don't have the moral courage to make any kind of a stand.
Come on, please tell me, those are from Neil Ferguson, right? RIGHT???
- a German stocking up on candles
Over here people are starting to panic over the national bank increasing the official bank rate, which pushes their interest rate on their mortgages up. We've had flat to zero to even below zero rates the last fiv-six years or more, and naturally neither markets nor businesses nor consumers or governement has banked assets towards a "rainy day". And the total tax pressure is about 75% or more. When the farmer buys a tractor, 25% of price is VAT. When he sells his produce the buyer pays 25% VAT. When the buyer sells it to refinery it too pays 25% VAT. When a store buys the refined product it pays 25% VAT. And when you buy it from the store you pay 25% VAT. And on top of that there are lots and lots more taxes. Small wonder fewer and fewer swedes and migranst opt out of working at all - it's no use unless you can land a job paying more than $2 500/month net. A family of two adults and three children get as minimum $2 450/month from welfare. And if you are on welfare, lots of things - like dental - are heavily subsidised or free.
Well, it's starting to pour and all else being equal it's going to rain like in the days of Utnapishtim.
Damn, France was 70% nuclear. The only country that could upgrade to electric cars and it would actually be greener than gasoline cars. Europe's actually a good place to have nuclear power plants too since it's far from any significant fault lines so it doesn't have to worry about earthquakes like Fukushima at least, and on the other hand they get so little sunlight throughout the year that solar panels aren't worthwhile. Then again there was Chernobyl... so maybe they should switch to thorium plants.
Chernobyl was Soviet and worse run than the reactor from 1954 still running at Stockholm University - almost 70 years ticking along, no accidents or anything.
It's not the tech, it's what culture is using it that's the problem.
What's wrong with the Soviet culture? I know they had some troubling beliefs such as "lysenkoism" but they were the first to put a satellite in space, weren't they?
In the case of Chernobyl it was bad tech, a Soviet military plutonium production reactor with no containment and a high positive void coefficient of reactivity which meant it was capable of thermal runaway, which it did. That type of reactor would be illegal under IAEA regulations for commercial reactors.
We are on the back side of the energy resource cliff. The slope could possibly (probably? almost certainly?) be much steeper than the one we took to get here. Much, much more is in store.
Yep. We are right now going over the Seneca Cliff.
These people are a bit ahead of us:
video https://twitter.com/search?q=sri%20lanka&src=typed_query
#SriLanka has completely collapsed. Angry crowds now chasing and killing wealthy people as food and energy shortages hit. Over 200 dead so far, police use live rounds. State of anarchy on one side, police state on the other.
Yeah but Sri Lanka had the highest ESG score of any country on the planet, just shy of 100%. That's what comes with catering to the Davos Malthusian Bankster Psychopaths. Trying to do the same to the #2 Agricultural Exporter Holland with their Davos Young Global Leader graduate Mark Rutte prime minister. Trudeau's bosom buddy.
These are conscious administrative decisions, and in no way reflect supply or demand. The destroyed, sanctioned, embargoed, or off-limits oil includes Venezuela, Iran, Russia, ANWAR and some Canadian oil. Prices are high because we restrict access to supply. These are conscious decisions. Now ask: Why?
We have a ... very serious ... energy problem.... as in we are running low on the cheap stuff... and civilization cannot function without cheap energy
Conventional Oil peaked in 2005 http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/C-Cdec141.png
Shale in 2018.
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
Oil Discoveries are at record lows https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/icbkDFACM4iA/v2/800x-1.png
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: https://energyskeptic.com/2021/the-end-of-fracked-shale-oil/
Shale boss says US has passed peak oil | Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/320d09cb-8f51-4103-87d7-0dd164e1fd25
Our fossil fuel energy predicament, including why the correct story is rarely told https://ourfiniteworld.com/2021/11/10/our-fossil-fuel-energy-predicament-including-why-the-correct-story-is-rarely-told/
SEE PAGE 59 - THE PERFECT STORM : The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
We can easily replace oil if the overlords wanted us to. Oil has dropped from 49% of World primary energy supply in 1973 to 31% in 2020. There is no real problem reducing oil even to zero. Rationally you would keep the less expensive oil production to supply petrochemicals and jet fuel. Everything else can easily be replaced with gas, coal & nuclear. As gas supplies deplete coal & nuclear will suffice. Note Nazi Germany and currently South Africa produce a large portion of their diesel fuel from coal. South Africa was at 30% CTL diesel fuel, last I heard.
The real truth is that the scheming, lying Davos Psychos and their minions in government have been deliberately and maliciously disrupting oil production in the West, cancelling pipelines, imposing giant carbon taxes and mandates, cancelling oil & gas drilling leases on public land, pushing refinery closures enhanced by wacky covid restrictions and of course their real bonus was to deliberately cause the Russia-Ukraine war and then use it as an excuse to impose unheard-of-ever draconian sanctions on Russia including for oil & exports. This was all planned. We are seeing true unmitigated evil at work here. If there is a supply problem, why this?:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/despite-record-pain-pump-joe-biden-blocks-oil-drilling-millions-acres-us-land/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/gas-prices-time-highs-biden-decides-cancel-oil-gas-lease-sales-alaska-gulf-mexico/
Oil can be replaced by Coal or Gas to liquids, that's well established tech. And methanol is an easy replacement for gasoline. And DME is an easy replacement for diesel (except for jet fuel). They can be made in vast quantities from coal, stranded or flared gas, any biomass (i.e. forest overgrowth which is just burnt anyway in forest fires), seawater CO2 or cement plant flue gas and nuclear hydrogen/electricity.
so when will we replace it? Sri Lanka is imploding - I just watch video of similar scenes in Macedonia and Uzbekistan... Africa is kicking off.... soft protests are starting in Europe (they'll turn violent too at some point).
We better replace oil soon! Oh and BTW -- forget about using gas:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/natural-gas-prices-are-skyrocketing-globally-what-it-means-for-the-us.html
This is what peak cheap energy looks like -- massive inflation leading to massive unrest leading to total collapse
Enjoy the remaining time left