China and Nuclear Power.. Failsafe / Never Melt Down!

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by GT98
If prices went up to 10 dollars a gallon, the whole global economony would grind to a halt.

Wait for it, it's coming!

Did you think that $2/gallon was possible a twelvemonth ago? And that is just a tiny blip on the global scene

However, I'm not sure about the economy, though. Of course, there will be painful adaptations to adjust, but the whole world will be on equal footing.

Various estimates have been made about Peak Oil. The most pessimistic is 2005 and the most optimistic 2030. With the present increase of demand and supply capacity, with known reserves, it is more likely to be somewhere between 2008 and 2012. Many countries, such as the UK, have already passed peak and therefore place more pressure on those that haven't. Of course, the USA passed peak decades ago.

This is one of the best prediction models regarding exploitable supply.



I don't think this leaves too much to the imagination, does it? So, by 2050, we'll have the same amount of oil we had available in the mid-1960s. Go, figure, while thinking of China, India, Indonesia, Africa, S.America. Something's got to give, hasn't it?

If I were Mr Saudi Arabia, Mr Venzuela, Mr Nigeria or Mr. Iraq, I'd tell the consumer nations to go stuff themselves; I'd sell them just enough oil to keep my own economy ticking over slowly and wait until the price rose to $200-300/bbl before I increased the trickle slightly. This would ensure that I could keep my own people decently provided for for a much longer period, rather than squandering it now. I think Russia has already started this, hence the Yukos fiasco and the closure of supplies to China.

And, mark my words, as oil supplies diminish, so the demand for natural gas will increase and Peak Gas will be on us before a donkey can twice shake its leg.

If you don't think nuke is the only way we can save our economic bacon, then I suggest you will have to think twice or thrice more. But we shall have to start building our new stations NOW.

[Dr Mordrid]

$2.00/gallon gasoline is about right when you use inflation adjusted dollars. Back in 1965-1970 we were paying about $.035/gallon for gas. Using the Columbia Univ. inflation calculator that price inflates to exactly $2.00/gallon in 2002 dollars, the most recent year numbers are available for. Any overage could easily be accounted for by tax increases tacked on in the intervening years.

As for the year of "Peak Oil"...that curve has been moving later and later every year since its inception.

The problem with the "Peak Oil" calculation is that it has done a poor job of accounting for new reserves. It tries mightily to estimate them, but has a historically poor record of predicting them.

Another problem with the "Peak Oil" calculus is that it's also been very poor at predicting how much oil you can extract from existing reserves. This changes dynamically because of new extraction technologies.

Perhaps one of the most massive miscalculations made by most people is that oil is a fixed resource created from ancient biomass, which is a small percentage of Earths carbon reserves. This would provide a fixed resource, and tend to confirm what some eco-nuts like to push, but it's just not true.

In fact oil and gas reserves are ABIOTIC; being formed continuously by high pressures exerted on massive archaic carbon deposits left by carbonaceous metorites that hit during Earths formation. In addition no small amount of methane was brougnt in by other impactors originating in the outer reaches of the solar system.

These sources are far more vast than archaic biomass, it's just a matter of finding them and using them with greater efficiency. Right now technologies like hybrid power are the most practical. Later on higher efficiencies will come along.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, Doc, it has been moving downwards towards 2000, not upwards. It takes into account ALL known reserves and estimates of other reserves. In fact the curve shown above is the latest 2004 Campbell estimation, which is considered as one of the most likely and it has just downgraded the peak from 2010 to 2008.

I agree that PO is an estimation, but no one has yet exceeded 2030, which assumes that new discoveries will continue at the same rate as the discoveries over the last 50 years, with weighting for likely volumes. I also agree that lateral drilling improves the yield for any site, but this is already factored in to Campbell's calculations.

Please don't hide your head in the sand (especially Canadian tar sands! ). We know that production can no longer keep up with demand for the next few years, after which production will drop. Even Russia and Europe, as well as the USA, are already post-peak and as their production falls off, so the demands on other sources will increase. Don't forget that many countries use HFO for electricity generation.

I can't bet you on massive price increases over the next 10-20 years as I don't expect to be here to collect but $100/bbl is forecast for late 2005/early 2006 by industry experts, economists etc.

[UtwigMU]

Brian, since you seem to be familiar with the subject:

What would be the price estimate of electrolysed hydrogen at the gas stations. In other words, how much would it cost in Euros per equivalent energy as can be derived from a liter of gas (or MPG)?

Consider the neccessary investments (nuclear plants, waste disposal, costs of decomission after EOL, carrying capacity - both electric power grid and other means such as tankers or pipelines).

At what gas price (per barell and per liter/gallon) is hydrogen cheaper?

Also what would the taxation model be? For instance European and other goverments derive great deal of taxes from gas compared to USA.

Currently the price of gas in Europe is about 1 Euro +/- 15c per liter /~4.66$ per gallon

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis

I can't bet you on massive price increases over the next 10-20 years as I don't expect to be here to collect but $100/bbl is forecast for late 2005/early 2006 by industry experts, economists etc.

Comeon...the Price of oil right now is over valued due to unrest in Mid east and the tempory shut down of Gulf Oil rigs...I find it very hard to believe that oil prices will double in a year, If anything they will come back down to a more manageable level of $40 then double in price. The current price is on a bubble.

If $100 barrel prodiction comes true as you say it will say hello to Great depression of 21st Century.

[Marshmallowman]

I think the price of oil is quite undervalued and has almost always been....it just that most are quite happy to sell in the current buyers market.

Any country who can hold on to there oil supplies for another 40 years is going to be VERY VERY well off. But politicians and CEO's are lucky if they look more than 6 months ahead...

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by UtwigMU
Brian, since you seem to be familiar with the subject:

What would be the price estimate of electrolysed hydrogen at the gas stations. In other words, how much would it cost in Euros per equivalent energy as can be derived from a liter of gas (or MPG)?

Consider the neccessary investments (nuclear plants, waste disposal, costs of decomission after EOL, carrying capacity - both electric power grid and other means such as tankers or pipelines).

At what gas price (per barell and per liter/gallon) is hydrogen cheaper?

Also what would the taxation model be? For instance European and other goverments derive great deal of taxes from gas compared to USA.

Currently the price of gas in Europe is about 1 Euro +/- 15c per liter /~4.66$ per gallon

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to forecast. From nuclear power, the International Energy Agency estimate the cost of hydrogen at USD 15-20/gigajoule, as opposed to USD 1-5 from fossil sources and USD 25-50 from solar cells, so carbon-free hydrogen will be very expensive.

Taxation is another matter. The motorist is currently a milch cow and without them feeding the public purse through petrol/diesel taxes, most countries would become bankrupt, especially in Europe. It would therefore be expected that hydrogen would also be taxed for automotive use. I would also expect the taxation to differ according to the source of hydrogen. It would be much larger for fossil fuel derived hydrogen, because of an additional carbon tax, which will become inevitable.

I don't know whether you know this, but, taxation apart, the price of petroleum products is extremely artificial. A given refinery will be configured to give a mixture of products ranging from LPGs through to bitumens according to the demands of the market, via various grades of fuels from aviation gasoline through to HFOs for power stations, plus gaseous and liquid chemicals, oils for blending into lubricants etc. The cost of each product is totally variable, it is the overall cost of refining plus the cost of the crude that counts. It would therefore be theoretically possible to fix the prices so that automotive fuels were free of charge (except for the additives), provided you pay a fortune for the lubricating oil in a car, or vice versa. This is why tax-free prices for, say, petrol/gasoline can vary enormously from one country to the next; the refiners can just charge what they want for a given product and compensate it with the price for another product. This will not be the case for electrolytic hydrogen.

I've discussed hydrogen in the Cypriot context at http://www.cypenv.org/Files/hydrogen.htm

[UtwigMU]

Gasoline ?energy value?*: 46,5MJ/kg or 31,6MJ/l (specific weight = 0,680kg/l)

Gas price without taxation (Europe):
0,39$/l (it's also ~retail US price)
Gas price with taxation (Europe)
1,30$/l

So bare gas price without taxation at gas station is: 12,34$/GJ

With taxation (Europe) it would be 41,14$/GJ

Let's say, that goverments cannot give up the income from gasoline taxation and that electrolysis hydrogen derived from energy produced by nuclear plants costs 25$/GJ (worst case scenario, account 5$ for higher transportation costs - powergrid). In this case the energetic hydrogen equivalent to liter of gasoline would cost 0.79$ without taxation.

Since taxes are largely fixed, this would translate to 1.70$ per l eqiuv. or 1.3€ /l equiv.

Since in USA gas is not as taxed as in Europe, this would be 0.79$ per l or 2.99$ per galon.

Since the price of nuclear powered electrolysis hydrogen equivalent to liter of gasoline is twice (2.03) as high as that of gas, oil prices would have to rise to at least twice (likely more due to fixed cost of refining and transportation of crude) the current price in order for hydrogen to become competitive.


Since according to you 100$/bbl is not that far in the future, hydrogen indeed seems viable.


*Is this the right term?

[UtwigMU]

Originally posted by Marshmallowman
Any country who can hold on to there oil supplies for another 40 years is going to be VERY VERY well off.

Unless American administration will decide that they require some freedom and democracy building.

[GNEP]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
...the price of petroleum products is extremely artificial. A given refinery will be configured to give a mixture of products ranging from LPGs through to bitumens according to the demands of the market, via various grades of fuels from aviation gasoline through to HFOs for power stations, plus gaseous and liquid chemicals, oils for blending into lubricants etc. The cost of each product is totally variable, it is the overall cost of refining plus the cost of the crude that counts. It would therefore be theoretically possible to fix the prices so that automotive fuels were free of charge (except for the additives), provided you pay a fortune for the lubricating oil in a car, or vice versa. This is why tax-free prices for, say, petrol/gasoline can vary enormously from one country to the next; the refiners can just charge what they want for a given product and compensate it with the price for another product.

Erm I think I see what you're trying to say here, but try telling that to our refineries!

Largely speaking refinery gate prices are supply/demand balance led (ie the refiners don't have much power over the output prices) as it is a global commodity market, with interesting geographical dynamics. Add into that the unpredictability of crude (the input) prices, and refinery profitablity is largely at the mercy of global GDP growth movements, in addition to supply movements due to turnaround schedules and events such as the recent storms in the Gulf of Mexico knocking out a number of refineries for a week or two.

What they do have some control over (in the medium term), is the output configuration of a particular plant in terms of product mix - however to change this requires significant capital programmes to re-configure the mix of kit in the plant.

As a result, you will see from the attached a "marker margin" which is like an "industry average refinery", on to which must be overlaid an "uplift margin" which takes into account the actual product mix and their appropriate supply/demand characteristics. Note these are gross margins, ie after the cost of the crude but before you have paid any of your refinery technicians, overheads, etc, etc, etc (in very simplistic terms).

[Brian Ellis]

Interesting, but it's not as simple as that. I suspect that there are amny infrasturcture costs that are not included which your extra USD 5/GJ does not cover, but I see one big flaw in your argument: the USD 15-20/GJ is the cost of production, not the cost of distribution, including the retailers' profits.

Also, losses from a hydrogen system are estimated to be triple those from a liquid fuel system (mainly evaporation), because of the minute molecule size. Containing hydrogen is very difficult, especially at pressure.

That is why I was very hesitant about cost predictions.

[UtwigMU]

This is a great oppurtunity for EU:
- we build a load of nuclear plants (some propaganda will be required to convince enviromental nutjobs that carbon free is the way to go)
- we support (via tax breaks, subventions) renewable sources
- we convert public transit and transportation (trucks, trains,...) to hydrogen in order for infrastructure to be built
- establish consortium of car industry and institutes and acquire patents
- via tax breaks support adoption of H cars
- export vehicles and engines, technology - high added value - US car industry is behind anyway
- gradually, when oil price meets hydrogen, we become main energy exporting region
- Euro becomes the new reserve currency, which allows for a huge deficit, USA investment in ME geopolitics doesn't pay off
- World investments shift to Europe from US


Brian: you can use fuel cells, and H cartridges which are secure, standardised and modular and interchangable with batteries. This would aleviate for transportation (powergrid - cartridges are filled near sources of energy, no need for distribution of raw hydrogen) costs and loss from pipelines/evaporation.

It would due to modularity also allow for powering of other things (laptops,...) and due to interchangeability with batteries allow for easier shift.

[GT98]

Originally posted by UtwigMU
- export vehicles and engines, technology - high added value - US car industry is behind anyway

But you forget that 2 of the biggest Players in Eurpean Auto Operations are US based Manufactures. Its not that we are behind, just have a different taste in vechicles. You forget about the Japanese also...the Auto manufacturing world is one of the Most Globized industries in the world.

[UtwigMU]

You mean Ford and Opel/Vauxhall (GM)?

Daimler Chrysler is under Mercedes (Euros have higher weight).

[Brian Ellis]

At our current knowledge of technology, these ideas are very utopian. Anyway, just to take one point, hydrogen for trains would be stupid. We would get over twice as much driving energy for the trains by connecting the nuke power stations to overhead wires, rather than go through hydrogen electrolysis and fuel cells.

What a lot of people haven't cottoned on to is that the overall energy efficiency from the uranium to the driving wheels of a vehicle is hardly better than a decent petrol engine burning oil pumped up in Saudi Arabia, duly refined and distributed.

Another problem that is little known is that fuel cells take about 10 minutes to start producing electricity, from cold. Not many people will want to wait 5 - 20 (possibly longer at sub-zero temperatures) minutes before they can move off, so the cars have to have a hefty battery to allow the car to run with lights, aircon or heating and everything at full blast for, say 30 minutes. Then the FC needs to be able to recharge the battery very rapidly, as well as driving the car. It's therefore no use having an FC car just for driving the kids to the local school and nipping down to the supermarket, as the battery will never be charged (unless you keep the cell running after you get back.

I'm afraid Europe is well behind on FC technology. The acknowledged world leaders are Ballard, a Canadian company, http://www.ballard.com . I doubt whether there is much hope to catch up.

Another question that needs answering is the lifetime of a fuel cell. It depends on the purity of the hydrogen and air. As far as I've been able to ascertain, it requires the H2 to be at 99.99% purity or better, as impurities will clog the membranes, which are the mainstay of the FC, and the definition of an impurity is anything which has a molecule size greater than that of hydrogen.

A further unresolved problem is freezing of the water. FCs work at a relatively low temperature (~200 deg C), so the exhaust gases are cool, compared with that of an IC engine. At -20 deg C, the water vapour condenses and freezes before it has a chance to escape as does any residual water in the FC, when the car is at rest.

I don't think any of these problems are insuperable, but the car manufacturers keep pushing back the date of mass production starting. A guy from Ford R&D told me they were aiming for 2010, about 6 years ago: they are already talking of 2015 and some even say 2020. Sounds like the pushing back of fusion!

IOW, there are many problems to resolve before we'll see FC cars as a mainstream technology; my personal feeling is 'if ever'.