Long Charge Panasonic Lumix

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

How Many Computers Can I Install Microsoft Flight

Correspondence with readers: the risks of nuclear energy

Dear readers,

A kind reader who studied nuclear engineering, has sent me a series of reflections and critiques on the last post . As interesting as the arguments presented and their general interest, which coincide with many of which employ the advocates of nuclear energy when I recall the risk list nuclear energy was the main content previous post, I thought it was worth writing a post Mail readers, in order to advance this debate before the increased current state of unrest of war and prewar the world engulfs the possibility of finishing. Here is the letter of the reader


--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

I found very interesting all the comments, and much to consider with what is happening now and that nuclear energy brings to the forefront of public attention, mainly for two reasons:

1) Accident FUKUSHIMA, which makes us think about the issue of security and the extent to which nuclear energy has a ratio benefit / risk acceptable.

2) symptoms, such as Antonio said in a thread from one of his posts, the blog, that INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION MAY BE THREATENING undone ... I think nuclear energy is by a known technology, the only way we have to escape this dangerous bottleneck, "not only, of course, that our civilization is the progressive exhaustion of oil reserves (first) and other fossil fuels later. And this without going to touch on global warming.

In any case, in relation to last post Antonio on Nuclear Energy and its risks, comment the following (obviously susceptible of doubt, discussion, improvement, clarification, correction or as appropriate):

In what lies behind this paragraph, each block of 3 asterisks (***) is followed by an excerpt from the blog of Antonio later, after each arrow (->) and in case, my comments. I know online capitalization equivalent to scream, but I used here for clarity, so it would look good which is the original post and the considerations which I could SUPPLEMENT these ideas or give extra context.

: o ----------------------------------------

--------------------------------- ***

MINING: The natural uranium extraction activities have significant environmental impact. Most of the uranium mineral deposits in the world have a very low concentration, since the distribution of the wealth of ore (usable mineral percentage in relation to the rock where it is) follows a log-normal distribution, thus most uranium stocks have a low concentration (estimated to the concentration limit to be cost-effective energy extract the uranium is 0.02% for hard rock and soft 0.01%;

-> THAT I KNOW, AND AS IMPORTANT GEOLOGISTS, whether we settle for 10 times less uranium GANGA RICA , MULTIPLY THE BOOK AVAILABLE FOR 300, AND AFTER THAT SCALE AND SCALE. URANIUM IN ROCKS THERE FOR A WHILE BEFORE YOU GET A 'precipice' ENERGY.

AND SEA WATER MORE URANIUM WHICH WE NEVER EAT. Is removable, even now, at reasonable cost. REPEAT: WE NEVER EAT even 1% of uranium in the oceans.
. ***

ENRICHMENT: To use natural uranium at a nuclear plant, it is necessary to increase the relative concentration of the isotope of atomic mass 235 (U-235), more rarely, for the dominant atomic mass 238 (U-238). To do so is subjected to a repeated series of processes that will increase the proportion of U-235 from the 0.7% found in nature to the 4-5% that is used in reactors.

-> ENRICH is expensive, complex and dangerous. NOT A SINE QUA NON, HOWEVER: CANADA, WITH THEIR ORIGINAL CANDU REACTORS, GET USE NATURAL URANIUM.

DUE TO ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED, CANADA HAS NOT been able to acquire INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENRICH, SO THAT INVENTED ingenious design, which also is tremendously INSURANCE: IF Venting 'CONTAINER' SALE OF FUEL AND HEAVY WATER, NO MODERATION AND STOP AND REACTIONS. That yes, the heavy water is a great loss MISS economic (CARA), BUT THIS TYPE OF ACCIDENT IS NOT DANGEROUS.

NUCLEAR ***: This is the only issue that was discussed during these days, which has focused all discussions. According to nuclear engineers, the risks are minimal because of the low probability of catastrophic events ... Ficosa, and when they occur is by the negligence of those operating these plants.
• Impact: Very high, with damage that takes thousands of years removed and unprecedented lethality.
• Probability: the words of the proponents of this energy, very low. If I judge by my own life (40 years) have lived three: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, although the impact of the first was small, the second was high and the third has yet to determined.

-> CHERNOBYL SPOKEN TO MORE OF THE SOVIET NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. THE UNSTABLE PLUTONÍGENO REACTOR BASED MEGA-BLOCK GRAPHITE (Fire, as in fact happened) OPERATING POPULATED AREA TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY, OR CONTAINMENT VESSEL AND WITHOUT FURTHER WITH EXPERIMENT Bold and NOT PLACE ANNEX ... HOW WAS AN ATOMIC BOMB DROP OVER BET. MADE IN USSR, ALL. IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IMPOSSIBLE IN THE USSR MALIGNANT YES THAT COULD HAPPEN.

THREE MILE ISLAND It was perfectly acceptable, and STILL IMPOSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE. FUKUSHIMA

IS YET TO BE EVALUATED. REACTOR DESIGNS NOT EVEN NEED THE FUTURE COOLING (fast neutron reactors, POSSIBLY IN A SOURCE OF PARTICLE ACCELERATOR TO GENERATE THE EXTERNAL Spallation).

AND ALL THIS DOES NOT FIT A CERTAIN COMMENT 'DETAILS' OF WHAT WERE THE JAPANESE IN FUKUSHIMA AND OTHER SITES.
. ***

PROLIFERATION: (...) The enrichment devices can be used to enrich the material to the concentration of U-235 atomic bomb itself (80%)
• A different thing is that extremist and radical groups decide to use material they can get on the black market, or even nuclear waste from a cemetery to make a dirty bomb, even home.
• Impact: Very high.
• Probability: Very high, I see it: we are in a world that walks into the Oil Crash preparation and energy descent, where the many injustices foster the desire for revenge of the disinherited of the earth.

-> NO NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE RESISTANT weapons proliferation. EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO USE A CYCLE OF THE PERMIT ENRICHMENT could be centralized.

BUT WILL NOT NEED: FOR CERTAIN FUEL CYCLE AND CLOSED AND REPROCESSING ADDITION, WE WOULD NOT NEED MORE URANIUM MINING IN CENTURIES (official with the current stock), PLUS THE REPROCESSING MATERIAL WOULD NOT Employable MAKING BOMBS: before or after the reprocessing.
.

WASTE STORAGE ***: This item was discussed in a previous post, "Cemeteries nuclear and others."
• Impact: Very high. Some authors argue that the inability of management of cemeteries nuclear exterminate life on Earth in the coming centuries.
• Likelihood: 100%. There are many cemeteries and countless nuclear waste stored at nuclear power facilities, and at least some will end up being exposed, especially if one considers that maintenance energy require and expertise and both are scarce.

-> THE REPROCESSING eliminate the need to store waste LONG LIFE, THAT WOULD BE 'BURNING' (FISSION NEUTRON NO COMBUSTION CHEMISTRY, OBVIOUSLY) TO GET RID OF THEM AND AT THE SAME TIME TO GET EVEN MORE POWER. This is technically feasible (4rta generation of nuclear reactors), AND SOON, AS NO MERGER.
.

uranium depletion ***: We have already discussed in a previous post, "The peak of uranium." In the coming years (25 at most, and 5 in the worst case) peaked extraction of uranium, and from that moment miss uranium for power plants, and growing.
• Impact: High. What about plants? Decommissioning costs are prohibitive, and our confidence in this source of energy puts us in a situation of social and economic vulnerability (though not noticeably different from our dependence on oil, gas and coal).
• Likelihood: 100%.

- Suppose that 'DEPLETION' IS AN Anglican / Latin for "out" (depletion).

THE URANIUM WILL NOT END. And so plentiful I'M NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENERGY RETURN CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED TO FREQUENTLY-PRACTICAL PURPOSES IS A RESOURCE 'RENEWABLE', OR EVEN MORE THAN RENEWABLE. ALSO IS THE THORIUM, abounding 3 TO 5 TIMES MORE AND COULD USE IN breeder reactors. ***

REPROCESSING:
...
I have not discussed here other risky activity, the reprocessing, because I have almost no data on it, but all indications are that it is very dangerous.

-> VARIOUS SCHEMES OF REPROCESSING IS KNOWN.

REPROCESSING + Actinide Incineration FAST NEUTRON REACTORS IN THE KEY FOR FUTURE NUCLEAR POWER THAT IS SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE SURELY BE THE MOST PROMISING THE REPROCESSING pyrometallurgical.

THE KEY IS THAT IDEA WASTE normally produced by a nuclear plant (COFRENTES FOR EXAMPLE) THE LION PART OF THE DANGER IS THE ONLY MEANT SOMETHING THAT TAKES THE 1% OF THE MASS OF FUEL USED THAT: ARE WASTE OF LONG LIFE, THAT REQUIRE FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS DECAYESE A REASONABLE OR LESS, PERIODS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OR EVEN MILLIONS OF YEARS. Clearly such temporary lapse NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LOGISTICS / MANAGEMENT HUMAN SCALE, IS SAY, NOT AS WE MAY BE TAKING WHAT WE ARE NOW.

1% SO THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE IS is is ALL OVER PLUTONIUM (9 tenth) AND OTHER actin (MOSTLY transuranic ie, elements with atomic number greater than 92, which is that of uranium), WITH IMPORTANT TRACE americium.

THE REPROCESSING pyrometallurgical achieved by chemical and physical (metallurgical techniques, electrolysis, sedimentation, ...) actin SEPARATE THE ONE HAND AND FISSION PRODUCTS (GENUINE "ASH" of nuclear reactions) ON THE OTHER HAND .

FISSION PRODUCTS (IE, BUT INITIAL WASTE REMOVED Actinides) RADIOACTIVITY THAT HAVE A VERY STRONG START TO FALLEN BUT VERY QUICKLY: AFTER A STAY IN A POOL OF COOLING, STORAGE CAN BE NO MORE THAN YOU KNOW LONGER LIFE HAS THERE ARE SOME ISOTOPES OF CESIUM AND STRONTIUM (LIFE MEANS A LITTLE LESS THAN 30 YEARS). IN 3 century, these 'TOPS' of radioactivity in the fission products would have decayed by a factor of APROX. 2 ^ 10 = (approx.) 1000 TIMES AND WOULD BE VERY LITTLE DANGER. AND IN 200 YEARS (TOTE AS 500) NOW WOULD BE A LEVEL OF RADIATION BACKGROUND / ENVIRONMENT. THAT IS perfectly acceptable.

AFTER REPROCESSING IN ANY CASE, WE WOULD BE STILL ON THE ORIGINAL FUEL 97% (URANIUM NOW 'DEPLETED'), which would add NEW Actinides OBTAINED FROM REPROCESSING TO RETURN TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE REACTOR ...

OF THIS FORM, we would recirculated to the reactor (FUEL CYCLE * CLOSED *) SAME ORIGINAL FUEL MASS, until exhaustion.

SE would use the uranium 80 times more than now (almost 2 orders of magnitude).

ONE THING ... But I'm still writing letters, to make this more readable, because it is already clear that this is "comment" and do not extract the blog post ...

As I was saying, he would use the uranium almost 100 times. What is said (incorrectly in my view, since it does not take into account different levels of uranium available in nature, nor the ocean uranium, thorium, etc.). That there is uranium for 40-60 years should corrected "for 4000-6000 years." No need in fact not even uranium mining for centuries, will serve as the current stocks to last for many generations to the current rate of consumption.

is interesting to see this also from the other side: the current way of working is a tremendous waste, a sign of capitalism's 'throwaway' so popular: it takes the natural uranium ore is enriched at a tremendous cost, and then, after removing only 1% of the energy content, discard the rest as "waste." I think some inefficiency indecent. U.S. operate the same way, as evidence clearly the waste repository were digging at Yucca Mountain, to which Obama gave shelved by simple electoral reasons (underhand deal with one of their feudal lords).

Certainly I think Spain should accumulate uranium (stockaje or whatever you call it), rework and change to "nuclear progress." However, a U.S. president and said we do 30 years and something we could not reprocess (allegedly linked technology weapons capabilities), and since this is a colony, they obeyed.

The future outlook for nuclear energy should be to fast neutron reactors plus nuclear fuel reprocessing. With that and developing an electric car (based on fuel cells electrically charged and / or hydrogen obtained in nuclear power plants) could have a truly green and sustainable mix. In addition, the nuclear material from * all * the steps of pyrometallurgical reprocessing (fuel before reprocessing, at intermediate stages in the end, etc..) Is absolutely unsuitable for making bombs (not dirty, of course), so a cycle would also proliferation resistant.

I am optimistic that a "nuclear path" out of the crisis (of the least energy, and also thanks to that part of the economy).

To be all that and not be accused of pulling the ember in my sardine can also say that I studied industrial engineering in college, specializing at first in Industrial Organization and Management (with what I know about from within how are the Carthaginians / bankers who have brought us to the current situation) and then also studying the art (more in tune with my likes / inclination) of Nuclear Engineering.

I then point out that not all of the above it is saying because in the future (when I finish the PhD 'nuclear' in which I am involved) will probably work in that field, but between in that field because I think there is a crucial task to perform = save humanity from the quagmire and ultimately economic power towards which (with the threat of civilizational collapse), and local level, helping Europe to have a policy not conditioned by the petro-monarchies in the Middle East and other foreign powers.

Thanks. ----------------------------------------------

------------------------------


First, thank you to the reader who has contacted me by unusual channel, and in particular its provision for permission to republish these comments, I had come first in a semi. I have found particularly interesting and instructive their details on a subject which, as I said, I am not an expert. On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize that the purpose of this reader is essentially the same as we move to discuss here, which is finding a way out of this impasse, and therefore his position is worthy of utmost respect.

Going to the substance of his comments, I see three main problems difficult to resolve, namely: the availability of natural resources, reprocessing capacity and limits of technological development.

- Availability of resources: Before going into detail, a general observation. The reader focuses on the uranium reserves (not entirely true: part of what it evokes, as we shall see, are actually resources) and to identify which are large thinks that the problem of uranium supply will not be a problem. This is an error conceptual often, that reminds me of discussions about Peak Oil in the last ten years, until the recognition by the International Energy Agency last November to the arrival of Peak Oil crude oil has settled in well as the debate. Returning to insist on it, the key point is not how much uranium on the planet Earth (resources), but how much can be extracted so that it is profitable - and energy-economic (reserves) and, more importantly, that pace can be removed (production). The serious problem of uranium, like oil, is not that small reserves, but production of uranium will peak sometime between 2015 and 2035, and judging by history extractive U.S. and France is more likely that the final date of peak production is closer to the lower end of the superior. Thus, there is no uranium for 40, 60, 4,000 or 6,000 years, uranium will be provided, only that more will come out more slowly. This topic was discussed in some depth in a previous post I do not think it worthwhile to stress. The effects of declining uranium mining will be similar to those of oil, more and more scarce, fewer plants operating, withering and decline of the nuclear industry ...
Going a little further detail, a rule of thumb I've seen mentioned by others geologist Kenneth Deffeyes and The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy is that the current limit for the uranium mining activity is profitable wealth of ore is 0.02% for hard rock and 0.01% for the soft. Therefore, there is a limit to what we can exploit. Improved technology would extend these limits, but the current values \u200b\u200band involves a great achievement and improvements tend to be marginal. Important thing to add is that the production rate drops rapidly with the poverty of the ore, the leaching of which we spoke in post this requires between 3 and 25 years to start working acid rock, and the flow of uranium is very slow.
The possibility of exploiting the sea water to extract the uranium in an economic and energy cost is ridiculous. Sea water contains 30 parts per billion (by weight) of uranium, which is a very low concentration. Some Japanese scientists have raised the Kuroshio Current take to filter networks that uranium giant. On page 27 of The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy is given a very generous estimate of the energy balance of this operation, every tonne of natural uranium would produce net energy of 120 Terajoules, but produce it in this way involves the expenditure of between 195-250 Terajoules. And that if you deploy a network of several kilometers in the middle of an ocean current western border of the most intense of the planet and in the path of typhoons from the Pacific is a company reasonably practicable.
Although the reader does not mention a source of uranium would be more reasonable to phosphates, the phosphate rock is a soft stone and the concentration of uranium in it is on average 0.01%, within the limits of what operates today. Apart from the problems of the extraction process itself is the issue of demand to produce phosphate fertilizer and today is insufficient diverted to other use may cause more instability in the food riots and create a new non-linear effect to accelerate our down the right side of the Hubbert curve .

- reprocessing capacity: Today there are only a handful of reprocessing plants worldwide , the most important in France and Russia, and France is considering quitting due to lack of economic interest, as it is dangerous, dirty and expensive . In this sense it can not be fooled: it decades that nuclear fuel is reprocessed, and a time when the ores are getting poorer (there are still those in Australia, but little by little they are running) and forecasts a shortage of uranium before 2013 (according to repeated statements International Agency of Atomic Energy and Nuclear Energy Agency) would not have felt the loss of importance of reprocessing, if it was not actually uneconomical. This limits some of the prospects targeted by the reader, particularly in regard to the availability of resources and resolution of the problem of waste.

- Development Limits Technology: Some time ago I encounter the same attitude when we begin to discuss in detail the risks and viability of this energy option. This attitude is to describe existing technical solutions to solve the central problems of course, but sometimes these solutions are neither new nor have they gone from the prototype stage, and can be applied to nuclear fleet already operating. This is particularly true of fast breeder reactors (fast breeders ), which could run up to plutonium and thorium, to which refers the reader; a quick look at the list that includes reactors in this category shows us two things. First, we're not talking about a newcomer technology: more than 50 years experimenting with it, although some media reports sell it as the latest panacea . The second is that these reactors have been modest powers and have never gone from the prototype stage, so they have had many problems with corrosion and instability, to be moderated by molten sodium. Michael Dittmar has an analysis on the subject published in pretty good The Oil Drum. In any case, it will have to agree that it makes little sense to propose as an alternative to overcome the energy crisis is upon us already and that not allow us out of economic , technologies that are still being tested and which therefore does not know his true potential. In fact, when we know their problems, and these are not very encouraging.


That's the gist of what I wanted to respond. Now they can start the debate, but without me, I'm going to Rome. Remember that the spam filter is unfortunately making mischief, be patient.

Salu2, AMT

Saturday, March 19, 2011

East Indian Escorts Central Nj

The real risks of nuclear energy scavenging

Source: The Diplomat

Dear readers,

This is probably a good time to recap what we know about the risks nuclear energy, now that the serious problems caused by the nuclear accident at the plant Fukishima in Japan are about to go into the background. Not because the problems in Japan are no longer serious, but because sound the drums of war for Libya and the whole focus of our attention has shifted there - Spain, who care a 13.4% of its vital oil consumption in this country and not find it anywhere, was quick to join the military effort of this campaign. In addition, advocates nuclear energy option were suffering too much punishment these days attempt to justify their position and it is quite fitting that we forget a little bit of Japan and the disaster. With the restoration, at least in part, the power plant in Fukushima cooling pumps return to work unless they are severely damaged, and in a few days the situation will be "under control" (although some vessels damaged reactor and have released and released some radioactive material). Time seems to play now in favor of a resolution with limited damage, and therefore the time of the debate in the media on the nuclear option is complete. However, this sudden debate will have a strong influence on the development of the Oil Crash : many countries have lengthened or deadlines for implementation of new plants and some old ones have closed, in addition, Japan needs to urgently desperately to recover electrical power. All this means increasing global consumption of oil, gas and coal, but as we know, oil peaked in 2006, the coal in 2011 and gas arrive in 2025, while in Europe will be felt from 2015, if not accelerated by increasing their consumption and that despite the "good news" of shale gas, which these days is haunting Europe . Although uranium is not much better, with a likely peak in 2015 ... We are at a transition point in regard to our viability as a society that needs to consume many resources to continue: we are about to embark on the first war of the resources of a new era of energy scarcity, but the accumulated contradictions above and the difficult balance between various factors, unstabilized food riots in many countries in the world and catastrophic events such as Japan that just having a global impact and can accelerate the degradation process. We are dominated by nonlinear effects, where a small change can be amplified greatly, and the only security we have is that the decrease of right side of the Hubbert curve be steeper than predicted by theory .

I am in favor of discussing the risks of nuclear power from the serenity and cool analysis, and that society, with all the data in hand, decide if it worth taking that risk or not, knowing well what it means to abandon nuclear energy. To clarify these issues will outline all the risks of nuclear energy, I am not an expert and topics that I will require a very deep discussion which I think corresponds to other face it honestly and without focus to defend their interests shortsighted.


The first thing to understand is that when it comes to risk are two factors that according to game theory it up. The first is the probability of adverse event and the second is the impact of this event. In discussions of these days, lawyers for the nuclear energy much affect on the first factor (it is highly unlikely a serious accident, nuclear plants are planned to monitor everything that is expected) while opponents emphasize the severity of impact (A serious accident contaminated means leaving a large expanse of land and turn it into dead land where no one can live for millennia). The street people tilts between two feelings: first that of the unpredictability of something to happen, and on the other the fear that if that "something" happens to be the end. But given the benefits that plants provide us (if you look coldly just other power source) the public opts for inaction and leave the matter in the hands of experts in charge. And these experts, whose salary depends on the continuity of this business, they have the right incentives to be objective.

Needless to say that the analysis I shall now I focus on technology we are applying to commercial scale today, which is based on uranium, on those famous reactors operating with plutonium and thorium (which although it seems that just discovered 50 years ago that is experienced with them) and maybe we'll talk another day, clearly in another context (that of its viability, as already discussed for the case of nuclear fusion ). Finally, in what follows, I will discuss briefly the various stages of the process necessary to operate nuclear power and give a subjective assessment of the two parameters of the problem: impact of the most serious accident that may occur and probability that such accidents can occur on the scale of a human life.

• Mining: The natural uranium extraction activities have a significant environmental impact. Most of the uranium mineral deposits in the world have a concentration very low, since the distribution of the wealth of ore (usable mineral percentage in relation to the rock where it is) follows a log-normal distribution , which most uranium stocks have a low concentration ( estimated that the concentration limit to be energetically profitable to extract the uranium is 0.02% for hard rock and 0.01% for soft, but details The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy ). This implies that to obtain uranium in most places you have to do for leaching (leaching English) technique which consists in filtering acid through the rock to go removing the oxides in its path, including uranium oxide. There are two ways of applying the leaching uranium, or taken out of the rock, make a stack and applies the acid (leaching of cell), or acid leaks on the ground and collecting the resulting fluid in a pipe at the bottom (in situ leaching). Leaching stack is supported only in countries with lax environmental regulation as it involves creating large pools of waste residues (similar to the infamous Boliden in Spain ). These rafts are highly polluting due to the presence of heavy metals and character very acidic, and contain traces of radioactivity of uranium extracted. In addition, these ponds are rarely treated, and would require a lot of money and add much energy, and the activity would become meaningless, usually they are left to dry in the sun for years and are covering it with mud to prevent dust heavy metals is carried by the wind. As for the in situ leaching can only be done if the substrate is porous and also implies a risk of seepage into the aquifer. U.S. the in situ leaching is the only technique currently permitted for mining of uranium, according to the Geological and Mining Service of that country. It must be said that due to exhaustion of the richest mines, most metals mining continues today these techniques, so that the risks of uranium mining are not unique to it.
• Impact: Medium to high . The toxic ponds can cause serious accidents such as a few months ago in Hungary (which was not uranium mining should clarify) and its influence is very harmful to the environment and people in the neighborhood (not just workers; affected a few kilometers around the facility), by the dragging of heavy metals by the wind.
• Chance: 100%. Rafts stranded (as is the usual practice) slowly pollute the environment, and sometimes heavy rainfall events and erosion create catastrophic events.
• Enrichment To use natural uranium at a nuclear plant, it is necessary to increase the relative concentration of isotope atomic mass 235 (U-235), more rarely, on the dominant mass atom 238 (U-238). To do so is subjected to a repeated series of processes that will increase the proportion of U-235 from the 0.7% found in nature to the 4-5% used in reactors. There are various techniques to achieve this enrichment, but the most used today (because of its better energy efficiency) is the spin of a gaseous compound of uranium, uranium hexafluoride (UF6). After separating the enriched sample, there are large amounts of residual uranium hexafluoride, depleted, which also have nuclear waste category because they are still radioactive. The great problem of uranium hexafluoride, except that is toxic and corrosive, it is very unstable and reacts explosively with water, even if the ambient humidity is high. The UF6 accidents are frequent , And storage is a serious problem because it is difficult to ensure its containment indefinitely.
• Impact: Alto. Although leaks are usually self UF6 (a product of decomposition is a solid that tends to plug the hole), a string of small explosions could break the container, causing a large explosion, spreading over a wide area of \u200b\u200bmaterial toxic and radioactive. Underground storage of this waste is counterproductive, since even the salt mines, which should be free of water leaks are important, as evidenced by the fiasco of Yucca Mountain nuclear storage in the U.S. or the Asse II in Germany (which is a real bomb), and the waste could seep into the aquifer and contaminate the water supply of large areas.
• Probability: Very high .
• Central Nuclear This is the only issue that was discussed during these days, which has focused all discussions. According to nuclear engineers, the risks are minimal for the low probability of catastrophic events, and when they occur is by the negligence of those operating these plants. This dissociation between the technical factor (on paper, in practice things do not go as planned) and the human factor is a little child: you have to consider the real-world problems with real constraints, and often designs are no worse than projected for the inability of the technicians but by the need to save costs, as Yuri Andreyev complaint in a recent interview La Vanguardia, the need to reduce costs for nuclear plants are economically viable leads a reduction, possibly intolerable security. In any case, the major problem is that the impact of a catastrophic event is extremely high: in the worst case scenario, the reactor core would melt and all the contentions would break, which would be exposed to the environment enormous quantities of highly radioactive material that the wind and rain disperse and would establish quickly. The radiation level near the exposed area would be so high that it makes it impossible for anyone near, so to clean the molten core and / or repair the crack should use robots, which implies a slower in the work and greater dispersion of heavy radioactive contaminants. It should be noted that trace amounts of heavy elements (the famous "radioactive particles") can cause serious health damage of the people who absorb, with the highest incidence of cancers and other health problems during their lifetime, these particles can travel hundreds of miles, even thousands, driven by wind. For this reason, if the damage to the containment of any of the core is too large Japanese reactors may be opting to build a concrete sarcophagus of Chernobyl-style "to prevent the rapid spread of the particles, and that endorse as a serious problem to future generations, when the concrete structure weakens in a couple of centuries, they will be faced with fewer resources and energy available.
• Impact: Very high with damage that takes thousands of years removed and unprecedented lethality.
• Chance: the words of the proponents of this energy, very low. If I judge by my own life (40 years) I lived three: the Three Mile Island that of Chernobyl and the Fukushima, although the impact of the first was small, the second was high and on the third yet to be determined. The logical probability grows with the number of reactors in service and their age, and that number has increased rapidly worldwide since TMI so far.
• Proliferation: devices uranium enrichment can be used to enrich the material to the concentration of U-235 atomic bomb itself (80%) have there-at least theoretically, the risk that Iran has uranium enrichment plants. However, states are less likely to use this material in a war over principle Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD in English, like crazy). One difference is that extremist and radical groups decide to use material they can get in the market black, or even nuclear waste from a cemetery to make a dirty bomb , even home.
• Impact: Very high .
• Chance: very high, in my view: we are in a world that walks into the Oil Crash preparation and energy descent, where the many injustices foster the desire for revenge of the disinherited land.
• waste storage: This point was discussed in a previous post, " Cemeteries nuclear and other .
• Impact: Very high . Some authors argue that the inability of management of cemeteries nuclear exterminate life on Earth in the coming centuries.
• Chance: 100%. There are many cemeteries and countless nuclear waste stored at nuclear power facilities, and at least some will end up being exposed, especially if one considers that require maintenance energy and expertise and both are scarce.
• depletion of uranium: We have already discussed in a post above, "Peak uranium ." In the coming years (25 at most, and 5 in the worst case) reach the zenith of uranium mining, and from that moment miss uranium for power plants, and growing.
• Impact: High . What about plants? Decommissioning costs are prohibitive, and our confidence in this source of energy puts us in a situation of social and economic vulnerability (although that is no different with respect to our dependence oil, gas and coal).
• Chance: 100%.

I have not discussed here other risky activity, the reprocessing, because I have almost no data on it, but all indications are that it is very dangerous.

For conclude, if you look at the list of risks of all nuclear activity, considering not only the observed or expected probability (which is not so low after all) but the impacts, taking into account not only its spatial extent but temporary, the obvious conclusion is that the risks of energy nuclear is not far from negligible. Indeed, the best way to combat these risks (except the last) is to invest money and efforts to mitigate extreme acceptable, although this implies a cost overrun on the already discussed economic capacity of this energy. The big question is how we will meet these expenses if, despite we nourish the bodies of those who fall , more will be poorer because this economic crisis will never end ...


Salu2,
AMT

P. Data: During the next week I'll be out of Spain, so I can not follow the blog. Since the blogger spam filter blocks somewhat randomly Some comments not be alarmed if your comments are disappearing, and I manually publish it as soon as possible, not repeating the same message several times because it reaffirms the filter ...

cleave but not killed.

Addenda (April 13, 2011): An interesting French documentary on nuclear waste in RTVE to the letter. essential

Bangbros Free Movie Blog

Dear readers,

In today an earthquake measuring 8.9 on the Richter scale has shaken Japan. It is a powerful earthquake that has happened in the worst way possible: the epicenter was deep under the sea, so that direct destruction of the earthquake was added tsunami that hit the coast within minutes : waves capable of penetrating 10 meters in some areas a few kilometers inland (and one thing people in these latitudes is often ignored: due to the effect of shallowing deadly waves may last several hours). The disaster has claimed no less than 1,000 lives. To finish on top, the number 1 reactor of the Fukushima nuclear plant has been severely damaged by the earthquake and it seems that at least there will be a radioactive cloud (the levels of radioactivity at the plant, at the time of writing , 1,000 times the normal), while still a risk of a meltdown, including a nuclear explosion (but do not forget, nuclear energy is the future ). In this section of the Wikipedia can follow the current state of Japan's nuclear crisis .


front of this huge disaster in a country well prepared for these events, what was the reaction of the markets? For the price of a barrel of oil has dropped a couple of dollars ...


is grotesque and disgusting talk of market prices as hundreds of people die and others may be losing thousands shortly. But what surprised. Recent months have seen how people in fifty countries around the globe have been experiencing in the flesh, the hunger for inability to pay the price of food. From Central and South America, from throughout Africa to reach Indonesia, India and China without neglecting, take place day in and day out food riots. But we are only interested in going on in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, to the point that some readers confused believes that there is only instability and unrest in those countries. Not true, but our major strategic interests are in those countries, because they depend on our supply of oil and gas.


We have already mentioned that our energy decline caused by lower production energy commodities, the decline right side of the Hubbert curve will not be as smooth as theory predicts, and is characterized by non-linear transitions and phase changes, radical changes in the economic fabric of social behavior on a global scale . These transitions, these breaks, make a point, although the price is not fully reflected, not oil for some buyers even if they can afford, is now the case of Spain, which imported 13.4% its oil from Libya and desperately searching where to buy it now that the country has been plunged into civil war, but months ahead contracts, commitments from other providers and the lack of fungibility (due to poor quality) of some excess oil will not let you find, no matter the price. In short, the world market, oil first, then all other commodities, including food, will become increasingly inefficient subdivision. And in such a situation, the misery of some is converted into an advantage for others.


If Japan is seriously injured with the events of today, given their already poor economic situation (public debt equivalent to 200% of its GDP, but fortunately mostly in national hands, more 15 years of stagflation -in fact, mild deflation continued growth with low-,...), the country advance in the process of collapse in which everyone is involved ... and free up resources for others. That's why the low oil, investors smell blood and they anticipate a fall in demand, to feel the cry of pain the fourth largest consumer of oil.


That's our cruel but, in the fall on the right side of the Hubbert curve, our only option to maintain business as usual, ie something like normality, wish failure and fall of our competitors, which increasingly look more like our adversaries, if not outright enemies. We stand by what is happening in Libya because they want to risk losing side to ally with and thus lose access to vital petroleum that Japan should we suffer and aggravate its recession ... The retention of the existing order "leads us to be carrion to feed on the remains of those who not so long ago were our neighbors. How far will this foolish exercise? Do we eat our own members - eg, municipalities that go bankrupt, autonomous communities that do not support the level of debt? When we accept living the Oil Crash, which this crisis never ends ?


Dear readers, we must react. Starting with the awareness , go on the street. Before all is full of undead ...


Salu2,
AMT

How To Make Sheltering For Street Cats

What I can do before the Oil Crash: Prelude

Note: this the first post of a series, "What I can do before the Oil Crash. " Other series in this blog are "no miracles" (denouncing false energy solutions proposed by the media), "Preparing to Transition" (with emphasis on aspects that have to take into account in our declining energy) and "The limits of renewables" (which show what can be done and what can not be done with current technology to capture renewable energy).

Dear readers,

Now that the feeling of an energy crisis is worsening and permeating the society, new readers of this blog (and most likely the former) are repeatedly urged me to give alternative, to propose solutions to propose recipes to prepare against bad times ahead and measures to prevent the disaster that could occur if never give the worst case scenario. These demands are logical and reasonable, and I of course I have to try to make my contribution in that regard, but to move in that direction should be to begin to clarify a number of issues. Now list them by a more or less logical and chronological in the final stage of acceptance of the situation that we have to live. Only, dear reader, when understood, accepted and owned every one of these preliminaries, then and only then can read the final part of this post where measures are proposed. It makes little sense to read these steps if you disagree on the diagnosis of the situation, because that will take you to focus on discussion of some individuals, if they are real or believable, and so on. To make this technical discussion is the rest of the blog , while this part is to try to move in the direction of necessary change.

Here is the list of preliminary questions about the diagnosis of the situation:

1. The situation must be resolved but staked : already discussed here: have to rethink the problem . Because of the over-specialization in Western society, we tend to see every difficulty that arises in day to day as a problem that has to be solved, and this is especially true for people like me who has followed some technical studies. However, few people realize that maybe what is wrong is the approach, which is implicit, which gives both assumed that goes without saying so explicitly. We speak of an energy crisis, we say that there is a shortage of energy, when our per capita energy consumption is hundreds of times we had a couple of centuries only, and we are looking for new sources of energy to keep consuming more and more . But every step of more than go up this ladder puts us ahead of an increasingly difficult challenge to solve, because our economic system requires a continuous and exponential growth (eg, GDP must grow by 2 or 3% per year) . If now we found a wonderful energy source, how long would our growth rate on driving her peak, at peak performance? A few years at most. And the more I go up this ladder, the harder it may be the fall when we can not continue.
2. The crisis is a crisis of model: It is no coincidence that we are living five crises at once: the energy (which deals with this blog ), economic (which distresses us each day), Financial (which prevents us from fabulous fund rescue plans), environmental (that can destroy) and politics (caused by the inability of our representatives to deal effectively with the real issues of citizenship, which they leads to ramble on peripheral issues and its loss of legitimacy before the people). All these crises are interconnected and have numerous branches (military crisis, water, food, population, corruption ,...). They all tell us that our operating model and relationship with the planet and our fellow human beings can not go ahead because we have come up against hard limits, imposed by the finitude of the planet as a last resort. It is a crisis of sustainability .
3. The time to act is now: were warned decades ago that a day like today would come, but all the studies that talked about sustainability population explosion, environmental pollution, the limits of resources, regional imbalances, etc. were neglected in favor of higher interest: economic growth at all costs. Now this haven of well-being were the Western countries is sinking in its contradictions, the disinherited of the world as we fight with our own weapons: the factories relocated sink our local industry, producers of raw materials depleted they cut off the supply, which We buy our debt are increasingly asking us to change ... There is no possible return to "normal", ie the welfare pleasant past decades, now things will be increasingly more difficult, more so if we decide to react. We must also bear in mind that technological countermeasures that are still in the laboratory or, worse, they are nothing more than concepts, will arguably for something for the rapid and acute phase of the transition, since usually require decades to implement something large scale and we have not gone so long. Worse, as the financial situation will not degrade or how to finance, and as the economic crisis deepens we will not have the necessary plants for the supplies required. That is, over time we examine the catabolic collapse.
4. The highest political authorities can not devise a coherent response to the challenge: Not evil, but because of its complexity and the impossible balance of public and corporate interests, even legitimate ones. Within our policy agenda the goal of economic growth is undeniable, and where infrastructure is projected in mind that the activity will grow more and more, not less. A speech is completely voluntary decrease suicidal or simply a modest saving measures English Government have been taken as an insult by most of the English, it is unimaginable to explain to people that never again grow, this economic crisis can never end in the current economic paradigm. Our politicians know too well from years ago that our model is feasible and what is Peak Oil, but not beyond because it is a discussion public but not publicized . When they want to react, and how they want to do (more on this below), disaster may be irreversible.
5. A single person can not stop this: Okay ask me my opinion, like any other disseminator or expert but none can individually find the silver bullet, the magic spell to stop the train. Can not wait on your couch for someone to fix the ballot, it will solve the problem. Every hand counts, and without the help of all will be more difficult to avoid disaster. I always say in the Oil Crash chat that does not help atrincherarte your cottage with your garden and plenty of weapons and ammunition, as you stop ten people hungry, but you can not stop a hundred, or mil. The solution, or is for everyone (read: a large majority) or not. At the end will be right (if only in the slogan) that only those among all fix it ...

Dear reader, if you come here ask yourself whether you agree with the substance of what has been said. If a statement seems wrong or questionable, look in the blog (there's a search bar top right) and discuss and negotiate in the post appropriate. If you really understand and accept what you just read, before continuing stand to make a self-examination. Are you satisfied with the heart ? Do you see the magnitude of the danger in its entirety? Want really do something for you and yours? Do not answer yes mechanically; reflect and internalize their response, anticipating and assessing all the cons and the problems associated with self say that each of these questions. If, after such reflection convinced her adult response remains yes to all three questions, then maybe read what follows my simple suggestions you can provide something.

1. The first step is awareness: is everyone's problem but only a fraction of the public is aware. You have to say having to repeat, we have to insist. Everyone, everyone in our office, we have a responsibility unavoidable to face, because only if approached as a challenge to all of society will have some chance of success, to survive this crisis. Already know: the solution, or is for everyone, or not ... So the rest of the post measures today that are: awareness. Later we will discuss other measures of performance.
2. The Peak Oil and Politics: We are facing a political problem in the sense of the word (because it affects the lives of citizens), but not partisan: there is no other way to left and the right to address the Peak Oil. No looking neither victims nor perpetrators of this situation: we have all benefited in varying degrees and we will all suffer for it, in any case, no time for such discussions. Some leftist politicians start talking about Peak Oil in a low voice (because it is not what stands out in his speech): Gaspar Llamazares with question the Government last June , Joan Herrera in various speeches in Congress, Joan Puigcercós in prime time morning program Catalan television TV3 (see minute 33 in the video here bound, etc.). However, the way you present it and discuss it calls into question whether they really understand the seriousness of the matter, or who know how to address it, given the interlocking interests also transferred to these parties. Anyway, as the energy crisis will become increasingly evident and the speech more audible Peak Oil will be a risk of co-optation (in the English sense of the term ) by a policy option or another. It is important that action is transverse awareness and reach the whole situation, without frontism, since it affects us all and we all want.
3. Mayors: We can not expect anyone to take personal risks for us, we go out and act. We propose to go talk to the mayor (of which we did a test pilot and took some useful lessons ) and explain the problem, since it is easier than you can get effective action from the local levels, especially in villages and small towns. To avoid interference with the political discourse in the case of Spain's best to wait to spend the current municipal elections (in May) so that is not perceived as an element of partisan confrontation at this time of distress. Should, apart from the syllabus , take some official reports as listed in post " Oil Crash: Year 5 " (if you live in Catalonia can be quite effective use this presentation on the review of the current Energy Plan de la Generalitat). What you need to ask the mayor? First, they know the problem: corporations leaving the polls in May will have to deal with the most acute (and unexpected) of this crisis. The second, arising to take measures to encourage sustainability, urban gardens, restoration of jobs to meet basic needs, to raise reasonable urban mobility plans, etc., attempting to engage the unemployed (key to maintaining social peace and the unemployment is high and long-term). Nada Vespera association collects a number of these in your web . On the other hand ask them not to obstruct sensible measures. If they are very receptive to the usefulness of implementing initiatives such as Transition Towns . In this regard, some of the issues discussed in the posts series "Preparing the transition" may be useful.
4. His personal involvement: If you, reader, believe and understand this, should be involved as much as you can and your social circle will allow. It can promote talks on the issue of Peak Oil (the OCO doing outreach in various locations inside and outside Catalonia see right column), try to participate in transition activities, permaculture, etc.. According to and as the situation permits, but always understanding that everyone has a firm commitment to the necessary change.

That's all for starters. In future posts we will discuss other courses of action.
Salu2,
AMT

How To Record On Desmume No Lag

awareness

Source: blog.residesi.com

Dear readers,


I have a couple of technical posts in the pipeline that a couple of weeks I want to write, but the hypnotic current events force me to keep writing about what is happening instead of what will happen and to discuss how we can cope. But it is inevitable: every morning you wake up and look at how is the price of oil, for example in the Oil-page Price.net :







Mixing anxiety and excitement that occurs see the evolution of oil prices these days, with ups and downs of several dollars and lost a little perspective on what is normal and people are still anxiously daily price fluctuations, believing them to interpret the certainty the global supply of oil is falling because of the different food riots in the Arab world, or even that the terminal decline of oil production has already begun. Nothing is further from the truth. You have to remember that OECD countries have a cushion of about 1,600 billion barrels that are stored ( Strategic Reserve) to meet contingencies (typically supply interruptions of up to 90 days), compared to 1.6 million barrels per day (mb / d) represent that Libya was exporting 1,000 days of supply, ie, about three years. It is true that the role of strategic reserves to cushion the prices not only fill gaps, but can be seen that there is a lack of oil given the problem of lack of fungibility oil that OPEC can supply to fill in missing Libyan oil (the surplus of the OPEC oil is of inferior quality, why not produce it regularly, so it has a higher sulfur content and southern Europe's refineries can not refine it as is.) On the other hand, since the average consumption world oil during the second half of last year exceeded 88 mb / d but output was around the 87 mb / d , that million barrels a day has gone missing subtracting strategic reserves. That is, being used as strategic reserves as a price control mechanism, which is dangerous because it undermines their main function, which is to prevent sudden shortages. However, concerns about the economic recovery in the OECD countries has led them to take, discreetly, this measure of left slightly open tap its strategic reserves, making good the Castilian of the bread today, hunger tomorrow .


In Spain it is clear that the excitement has spread in the government. After urgent approved last Friday, this week the newspapers are reeling a new set of measures that seek to minimize energy bills, reduced lighting in cities and highways, parks sharing mobile vehicles of various government ... Are announced reforms to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, and there will be more and more measures. In Europe the debate is only beginning timidly , which suggests that the most delicate situation of the English balance of payments is what has led the English government to rush. Does this mean that the state of the finances of the English State is worse, or more vulnerable-than is recognized? Or that is more aware of Peak Oil and its implications? (Maybe they read my letter , despite signs to the contrary ). In any case, the measures are insufficient and the inability to address the need for a profound change in the production model leads them to fall into the chant of energy efficiency, fallacy of speaking another day. The fact is that the English prime minister, Mr Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is touring several Arab Emirates seeking to secure oil supplies in exchange for the massive introduction of capital their sovereign funds in certain assets on which the Government holds the key (such as savings banks more or less supervised by the state after its severe financial problems last year). surely know that 49.5% of oil supply in Spain is in danger ...



And yet, despite the incipient civil war in Libya and possible U.S. military intervention in that country, despite the instability in most Arab countries (and many other countries, with their own food riots but without oil, to which Western public opinion, absorbed in his own anxiety is not pay attention these days ), although Spain - and probably other European countries can not take a price above $ 100 a barrel like the last two months we have ... despite all this, do not know if we are already entering the next phase of our energy descent or all of this is just a feint of heart. The Northern Hemisphere cold season is ending, and with it demand for oil will fall over the coming weeks, which should significantly reduce prices in a market as stressed as the present. After the revolutionary collapse of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the other oil exporters have learned their lesson and are anticipating the event, giving new subsidies to their people and at the same time strengthening its selective repression, and in many cases, with the help and advice from the Western powers, who refuse to be dragged into a new wave of global economic recession ... These factors tend to wet the wick of the bomb that we have all been composed, and there might not be to postpone the next peak in prices, the next crisis for a while. I personally think it's difficult to avoid the next price spike and the ensuing wave of economic destruction takes place this year, probably around the summer, but there are many uncontrollable factors that are beyond the navel-gazing Western vision, such as how development will China, which consumes and 9 mb / d of oil but accumulates many internal imbalances, with rising inflation, social tensions suppressed with an iron fist and a foreign market us in a position of contraction.


We are climbing the next hill of a roller coaster, and do not know if after the summit is a short fall and bearable or longer and more destructive. What we do know is that the longer we play this game, which more than mountain seems roulette without making structural changes are needed beyond the tecnooptimismo irresponsible magic and the accumulated tensions in an increasingly weaker bring us closer to that peak after which the fall will be terrible.


Dear readers, we need your help to make possible the change we need. Stay tuned.


Salu2,
AMT