 |
| Source: http://www.corbisimages. com |
Dear readers,
During the last two posts have discussed intensively on technical issues related to the safety of nuclear energy addressed comprehensively, not just looking at the process taking place in nuclear power plants . Well, that was the plan, but with the advent of Domenek most of the discussion has shifted to the viability of nuclear energy as an energy not only for the future, but as future energy . Domenek has spoken to us neatly on technological options that would allow better use of available resources uranium, disposal of hazardous radioactive waste and, ultimately, achieving a clean, safe and virtually eternal. But reality says nothing about it: as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago Mr. Tahull on the radio, and its own International Energy Agency provides that in the EU enlarges its nuclear power over the next 25 years - see Page 230 of the latest World Energy Outlook. Given such a contradiction between the promises made by technology and the reality of what is developing as the energy crisis is set to full extension, reaches a conclusion Domenek popular today: it's all our fault corrupt and inept leaders, who are not able to stimulate the necessary changes. But while our political leaders are certainly not innocent (among other things because know but silent), the problem is actually more complex and what we find difficult to grasp is that these "solutions" (it is doubtful that anything that encourages BAU is a solution) are not really viable, not from the technical point of view - maybe yes or maybe not-but economically.
One of the first things that should make clear is that the energy is in our society, precursor economic activity. Besides serving to move our trucks and machinery, it allows people to travel long distances or enjoy advanced electronic devices, even for those who have recreational uses, are in fact the industry and benefit of others. Consume large amounts of energy, and while certainly wasteful, it is a prerequisite for reaching the levels of development and economic exploitation that we have today. So much so that more sober lifestyle can reduce a small percentage of our final energy consumption, but if we try to reduce still further we will just affecting economic activity since the end we are reducing the consumption of goods and services accessories (eg, a weekend in Paris, a larger microwave, etc) affect the income statement of the respective companies.
In his seminal work, " Causes and consequences of the 2007-2008 oil shock , Professor of Economics at the University of California San Diego James Hamilton concluded that the cost of the oil bill, and therefore that of energy, has a ceiling which, if exceeded, causes economic recession. The idea is simple: the impact energy prices cascaded throughout the production. That is, the energy cost of nuts increases the cost of the machine, which affects the cost of the products in the range of commercial intermediaries and sell it, and ultimately in all activities done with the machine in question. Over each link of the process reenters energy for assembly, maintenance, repair, transportation, distribution, etc. So every dollar that oil goes multiplies in increasing cost tens of dollars within each line of production and services of the economic system. In the end, there is a maximum value from which the increase is such that the products are sold enough to be considered less as margins and some other economic activities are no longer profitable. When the volume of such activities affected is large enough, then triggers a sudden spiral of economic destruction (because some businesses rely on others), instead of a smooth transition, is triggered, then a recession. James Hamilton estimates that U.S. the threshold to trigger a recession is when the oil bill exceeds 5% of GDP or 10% of the total energy bill. In the case of Spain, that limit could be lower given the lower energy efficiency in industrial processes in the country, but perhaps is more due to the use of more efficient cars. In any case it is instructive to calculate how much can be worth as much oil per barrel to trigger a recession. In the case of the U.S. Hamilton makes us the calculation and the result is disturbing: $ 80 per barrel. That means that if current oil prices last long enough U.S. necessarily enter into a new wave of recession, in fact, probably, this is now inevitable. You can repeat the calculation for the case of Spain, although this is only marginally interesting (if the U.S. goes into recession will drag us to all, given the interconnectedness of the Western economies). Let's see what has been the evolution of oil consumption in Spain in recent years.
The graph comes from Oil Watch Monthly ASPO-Netherlands published each month (can be accessed here OWM), and is built with JODI data. Show up to December 2009, and shows a marked downward trend in consumption (as already discussed here ). OWM himself tells us that consumption media in 2007, 2008 and 2009 were, respectively, from 1.59 million barrels per day (Mb / d), 1.54 Mb / d and 1.44 Mb / d. A lack of accurate data, 2010 we estimate that in 2010 the average consumption of oil in Spain was about 1.4 Mb / d. With the current price of $ 115 per barrel have that amounts to about 58.7 billion dollars, an exchange rate dollar / euro to $ 1.40 / € turns out to be about 42 billion euros. Taking Spain's GDP is about 1 billion euros we find that the current oil bill accounts for 4.2% of our GDP. The break value in the case of Spain, would be about $ 137 a barrel, provided when the euro / dollar remains unchanged.
the economy's problems also will have an effect on the ability to generate energy, as already mentioned a few times here. Starting with the oil, is an accepted fact today that oil prices can be neither too high nor too low. If it is too low there are not enough incentives for the development of sources such as tar sands Canada are more expensive to produce, if too high, demand contracted and the economic crisis desencandena, as mentioned. A little more than a years it was accepted that the minimum price was about $ 60 a barrel, after which time the tar sands begin turning a profit, also publicly accepted by representatives of OPEC $ 80 was the upper limit, consistent with the calculation of James Hamilton. therefore had to keep prices at the right place . The problem is that the window of optimal price has been moving over time, and lately spoken 80 to $ 100, in what appears an attempt not to admit he has closed and no suitable price. The seriousness of the matter is that the subsequent price volatility, with predictable large ups and downs to Over the years, means that investment in oil exploration and development is too risky and therefore investors flee from it and this, in turn, will lower our future supply, exacerbating the problems. The impact of instability in the oil ends up affecting all raw materials, the need to use large amounts of oil for extraction and processing. This will cause them also to be somewhat unstable and can be, in the cases of the most affected areas, current problems of disinvestment and further aggravated shortages because of this effect. This problem is particularly acute in the case of coal and uranium. In short, our way of exploiting energy resources in a free market system makes when starting the oil shortage of the latter and other materials is aggravated by a very destructive positive feedback, another nonlinear effect adding to the abrupt down the right side of the Hubbert curve .
interactions between economic and energy system are not only undermining our ability to keep our energies from the past, also are slowing the deployment of energy of the future. The most exemplary case of this effect is the generation problem renewable power and its clash with nuclear energy. I recently participated in a radio debate on the future of nuclear energy (you can see a summary filmed here. Note: Believe it or not, I was not attacked there.) It was clear that the position of some of those advocating renewable energy clashes against some supporters of nuclear energy. For me personally this debate seems a bit sterile, though it is easy to understand its context particularized for the case of Spain. In Spain, thanks largely to the wind farms installed capacity has grown much faster than electricity consumption, which has been accentuated by the decline in consumption that occurred due to crisis in 2009 and stabilization in 2010. The fact is that today many power stations remain idle hours per year because they no longer need its installed capacity, and that is harmful to the economic interests of the utilities to which they belong. These companies, which in many cases are often also shareholders of nuclear power plants, correctly identify the excess renewable energy is hurting their business and charge against them emphasizing their shortcomings, particularly its intermittent and unpredictable. In response, proponents of renewable energy (Which is a more fragmented sector) charged against the other party, and particularly against nuclear energy because of its risks. Amid this debate, no one shall be two basic facts. The first is that electricity is, as posted, between a fifth and a sixth of the total energy consumed in Spain. The second is that the power consumption is not increasing, because electricity is a specialized type of energy but that does not fit all industrial and domestic uses, it makes electricity can not help solve the energy crisis. Therefore investment in this critical sector now stands idle, so that future problems will be more serious, as it happens with exploration and development of new oil fields that we discussed earlier.
Actually, the problem is that the electric car has not arrived, if he had, the total demand for nuclear power and renewable grow and would be happy, without having to compete for the same piece of cake. The thing goes beyond the entelechy of the electric car ( amply discussed in this blog ): Electricity does not allow us to have trucks, bulldozers and heavy machinery in general, lack of energy density and electric battery power, also is inappropriate for use in industrial furnaces and foundries, because it involves consumer goods and prices much more expensive than current options. In short, electricity only cost us a lot to keep competitive industrial production, and again we have a problem of incompatibility between our economic system and the energy bill. As the economic crisis that followed the energy will destroy our industrial base, it will cost more to build and maintain new energy collection systems can also give us a type, the electric, which is not well suited to our needs. It feeds with dire consequences. In the case particular nuclear power advocated by Domenek, it is a large-scale technology, in great need of expertise and large industrial facilities both for supplies and for consumption, and also requires a large installation (mains ) of complex management for distribution. But the deterioration of the financial and the disappearance of the basic industries will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Of course the situation is similar for wind or solar.
What is the solution to these problems? I have none, but what we know for sure is what leads to nothing good is to continue stubborn if they are dogs or hounds.
Salu2,
AMT
