Uranium reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by Bardal » 03/04/19, 01:20

eclectron wrote:Thank you for the detailed feedback.
On paper, the world energy could indeed be nuclear electricity for + 1000 years.
This implies to transit on all that is transports, rather towards the hydrogen a priori. Sacred renewal or adaptation of the machine park.
I fear alas that all these technos are not operational in time, that is to act significantly in favor of the climate and avoid crises on oil.
The "we could" do not reassure me about the fact of avoiding major crises, question of deadlines and the extent of retraining.



I am not sure that it is desirable to produce all the electricity in the world with nuclear power, even from molten salt plants. An electrical mix must include several sources of energy, and renewable energies have development potential, significant in some countries, which it would be awkward to refuse.

To give just a few examples: photovoltaics can be very profitable throughout the intertropical zone (and beyond) and wind power is particularly suitable for certain regularly windy areas (trade winds for example); hydroelectricity still has enormous untapped potential in Africa, Asia, America (including that of the north); moreover, an intelligent nuclear cogeneration system would provide, almost free of charge, considerable thermal energy (heating and / or production of fresh water, or industrial heat); geothermal energy also has significant potential in certain regions ...

Hydrogen comes up against the problem of its production today, which is very energy-intensive in the end, and the almost total absence of a manufacturing-distribution sector. It seems to me that electricity, of which we have the manufacturing techniques and the distribution networks, would be a safer and immediately available means of exiting carbonaceous energies, including for transport.

In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human.
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by Bardal » 03/04/19, 01:23

bardal wrote:
eclectron wrote:Thank you for the detailed feedback.
On paper, the world energy could indeed be nuclear electricity for + 1000 years.
This implies to transit on all that is transports, rather towards the hydrogen a priori. Sacred renewal or adaptation of the machine park.
I fear alas that all these technos are not operational in time, that is to act significantly in favor of the climate and avoid crises on oil.
The "we could" do not reassure me about the fact of avoiding major crises, question of deadlines and the extent of retraining.



I am not sure that it is desirable to produce all the electricity in the world with nuclear power, even from molten salt plants. An electrical mix must include several sources of energy, and renewable energies have development potential, significant in some countries, which it would be awkward to refuse.

To give just a few examples: photovoltaics can be very profitable throughout the intertropical zone (and beyond) and wind power is particularly suitable for certain regularly windy areas (trade winds for example); hydroelectricity still has enormous untapped potential in Africa, Asia, America (including that of the north); moreover, an intelligent nuclear cogeneration system would provide, almost free of charge, considerable thermal energy (heating and / or production of fresh water, or industrial heat); geothermal energy also has significant potential in certain regions ...

Hydrogen comes up against the problem of its production today, which is very energy-intensive in the end, and the almost total absence of a manufacturing-distribution sector. It seems to me that electricity, of which we have the manufacturing techniques and the distribution networks, would be a safer and immediately available means of exiting carbonaceous energies, including for transport.

In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human, which effectively leaves room for quite a few possible crises.
0 x
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by eclectron » 03/04/19, 09:28

Agree on pragmatism.
For electric vehicles, I doubt that we have enough materials for batteries for everyone.
A priori a traditional vehicle could run on hydrogen, subject to adaptation.
bardal wrote:In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human, which effectively leaves room for quite a few possible crises.

Unfortunately, yes : Lol: it is a roof ...
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by Bardal » 03/04/19, 16:02

eclectron wrote:Agree on pragmatism.
For electric vehicles, I doubt that we have enough materials for batteries for everyone.
A priori a traditional vehicle could run on hydrogen, subject to adaptation.
bardal wrote:In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human, which effectively leaves room for quite a few possible crises.

Unfortunately, yes : Lol: it is a roof ...


Electric vehicles are not just battery vehicles; for public transport in particular, direct power is commonplace, and generalizable ... Furthermore, batteries are not limited to lithium batteries; we can expect progress and changes in subsidiaries, some of which are already in the start-up blocks ...

As for hydrogen, I have little hope for this vector; in the current state of science and technology, the use of hydrogen for vehicles leads to very low yields (0,25 to 0,3), incompatible with the scarcity and cost of the electricity required to its production. There will undoubtedly be progress, but we do not yet see the tip of the nose ... and the time to create a sector and a distribution network ... The electrical network exists.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by Exnihiloest » 03/04/19, 16:20

eclectron wrote:...
bardal wrote:In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human, which effectively leaves room for quite a few possible crises.

Unfortunately, yes : Lol: it is a roof ...

Alas no. Unless of course, if you want to sacrifice everything else. The "technical means" to operate airliners on electricity, or the "financial means" to replace the world fleet of agricultural machines with thermal engines, we do not have them. Two tiny examples among hundreds of others.
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by Bardal » 03/04/19, 19:32

The day when there will be only the planes to run on hydrocarbons, we will consider that it is won…

As for agricultural machinery, this is one of the simplest things to settle (if you don't know, send me an email, I'll explain it to you)…
0 x
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by eclectron » 03/04/19, 19:37

Exnihiloest wrote:
eclectron wrote:...
bardal wrote:In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human, which effectively leaves room for quite a few possible crises.

Unfortunately, yes : Lol: it is a roof ...

Alas no. Unless of course, if you want to sacrifice everything else. The "technical means" to operate airliners on electricity, or the "financial means" to replace the world fleet of agricultural machines with thermal engines, we do not have them. Two tiny examples among hundreds of others.

Alas if : Lol:
Without introducing voluntary sacrifice, we simply have no choice.
Not because of RC, which is a problem in itself, but because of the peak oil coupled with the ever increasing demand for oil.
Even assuming that demand remains constant, quickly it will get stuck. Oil at the rate we consume it is far from eternal.
Whatever happens, we will have to diversify the sources of energy wherever we currently use oil, which will force us to make technical adaptations anyway.
Admitting that we persist on carbon fossils, it will be gas or coal that will compensate for the physical decline of oil. Not good for climate stability ...

While nuclear (electricity) can be an abundant primary source for 1000 years depending on technology. It makes it possible to make hydrogen that can be used by a current fleet of modified machines (nevertheless corrosion problems before being 100% compatible with hydrogen)
I don't really believe in battery powered commercial aircraft! : Lol: it weighs its weight ...
Oil could be reserved for uses where it is really essential or irreplaceable and why not agriculture and aviation.
We are going towards a period of forced technological transitions because of the peaks, the climate is the cherry ...
Even if it means changing, you might as well make sustainable choices.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
ENERC
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 725
Registration: 06/02/17, 15:25
x 255

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by ENERC » 03/04/19, 19:57

For air and sea transport, either pure ammonia or hydrogen can be used to transform biomass into fuel.
We can either locally produce hydrogen with renewable or nuclear power, or import it in the form of ammonia from very favorable regions in solar / wind or the price per kWh is very low.
I recommend Cédric Philibert's blog and in particular the video on this page:
http://cedricphilibert.net/electrificat ... hydrogene/
He talks about fuels for maritime transport from 24 '.
There are currently meetings with EDF for hydrogen production when the reactors are not at full power to make steel by reducing iron oxide by H2 instead of using coal. In the transition phase where renewables will reduce the nuclear load factor, this is a common sense solution for the environment and for finances.
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by Bardal » 03/04/19, 21:54

Useless to think of an overabundant electricity, and which would make it possible to supply hydrogen cheaply…

Contrary to what some green NGOs say, we are not going towards a drop in electricity consumption, except by massively maintaining fossil fuels (this is the choice made by the German Greens, as well as Negawatt for that matter. , and the "exit nuclear" network); in addition to the electricity that we currently consume, there will be, in addition, to replace the heating of buildings (more than electrical energy) and transport (more than electricity); even with unbearable efforts of sobriety, we will not succeed in producing constant electricity.

Choosing hydrogen is, from already expensive electricity, throwing 3 kWh out of 4 for an identical service. No need to dream of power plants that would not run at night: they will be busy recharging electric vehicles. It is also useless to dream of almost free kWh in certain regions of the world: either this energy will be used (and will undoubtedly be insufficient), or else no one will invest to produce kWh which would only be used occasionally.

Make no mistake, we are heading towards a period where energy will be scarce and expensive, even with nuclear power; without nuclear, I dare not even think about it…


NB On the other hand, hydrogen will undoubtedly have niche markets, for example effectively the steel industry, in place of coal ...
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9791
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2648

Re: Uranium: reserves and equivalent Hubbert curve




by sicetaitsimple » 03/04/19, 23:06

bardal wrote:Useless to think of an overabundant electricity, and which would make it possible to supply hydrogen cheaply…


I quite agree with you, even if I remember an exchange 2 or 3 months ago (about negative prices in Germany) where we did not share the same point of view, I maintained that the negative prices (in Europe) originating mainly from German wind power would not last with the end of nuclear power and the progress of the network in Germany. I would have to find this exchange. But let's go, it's not really the subject ...

The mantra of negative prices, often put forward by some to justify any process of transforming electricity into another form of energy, whatever its energy efficiency, is just a pipe dream.

There are no negative prices in the long term, there are temporal imbalances between the production of a supposedly "optimal" production park and that of the production park as it exists at time T.

But temporal imbalances will never justify massive investments in new processes (H2, ...), except to assure them by a guaranteed rate a certain profitability.

This will be less and less the case for wind and solar power, hence a regulation that will be done "naturally", because if it is paid at market price, a wind or solar developer, in about ten years or less, it just will not be able to develop, it will have almost no chance of getting into its nails (in the case of Europe).

Self-consumption, individual, commercial or industrial, should somewhat escape this logic.

And therefore no "superabundant" electricity, even if it is different in terms of origin, I agree.

PS: but of course if the specific hydrogen for the uses of hydrogen can be produced "profitably" by electrolysis rather than by reforming methane, that will please me!
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 144 guests