DrumBeat: June 1, 2006
Posted by threadbot on June 1, 2006 - 9:15am
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
New York Times:
For Venezuela, a Treasure in Oil Sludge
Excerpts:
"We do know that the Orinoco is underdeveloped," said Mr. Nelson, 49, a geologist from California with 27 years' experience developing heavy-grade oil. "And the resources in the Middle East are at their midpoint."
With demand rising, worldwide supplies threatening to decline and oil prices near record levels, the struggle in this country underscores the growing debate between governments and oil companies worldwide over profits from technologically challenging but potentially lucrative oil fields -- whether in the Caspian Sea, the Arctic tundra or here in the Orinoco region.
The article claims that the production decline was due to voluntary cutbacks because of lower demand, but what is odd is that oil prices don't seem to reflect the lower demand. Also, if I interpret the numbers in the article correctly, the Saudis have not increased their production back up to the 9.4 range.
As I pointed out in our (Khebab & Brown) Energy Bulletin article, Saudi Arabia is now at about the same point at which Texas started its permanent decline. The Oil & Gas Journal recently published an article that had an even lower reserve estimate for Saudi Arabia than our work indicated.
What is impossible to quantify is what happened to total petroleum imports into poorer countries. We do have lots of news reports of cutbacks in consumption in places like Thailland and Senegal and news reports of riots over fuel prices and fuel supplies in India and Pakistan.
IMO, we are (temporarily) outbidding poorer importers. The recent news from Saudi Arabia doesn't offer much reason for optimism on net export capacity.
In answer to your speculation concerning the reason for the reported increase in cost per bbl of imported crude: Isn't the most probable answer the effect that some of the short term hedge fortward buying enterred into prior to the run up in oil prices haveing gone throught the systems resulting in more purchases at a current spot price? Maybe this is what you meant by the bidding war???
My nominee for the second most likely cause is that the mix between light / sweet versus heavy and sour crudes may have shifted toward the more easily refinable and tighter supply of the good stuff.
One last point to which I have been trying to elicit a comments from someone [hopefully a whole lot better informed than me]: The headline cost of a bbl of WTI or Brent seems to react to reported U.S. inventories, but the differential between WTI and Brent ain't what it used to be. Is the overall level of the market actually being driven by the inventory numbers on the other side of the pond? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks & :-)
http://www.supportourribbons.com/m/14307
While we fret about Haditha, rich, white, drive-yourself- to-the-mall-in-an-Expedition- isn't George Bush awful, politically purple Americans could give a shit. I thought it was funny that as half of us want to get rid of all the aliens, it seems the immigrants may be the only ones that care any more.
What happened to all those yellow ribbons? Not cool anymore?
I like the black peak-oil one, Step Back. I think you may have a winner there. The only thing you want to achieve is to get one person to ask - what the hell does that mean? And you've succeeded.
Definitely not a techno-curmudgeon!
http://www.energybulletin.net/16579.html
The economics of oofle dust
Commercial-in-confidence, shhhhh!
The US alone has in excess of 720,000 tonnes of depleted uranium hexafluoride in storage in enormous "parking lots". It is contained in large, thick-walled special steel containers, which must be re-painted and tested for leaks continuously. The containers hold almost all of the dUF6 that was created since 1946.
720,000 tons of toxic material. Which needs energy inputs to be maintained. In a time when humanity is looking into using food materials as fuel....how will such continual maintance be justified?
1) UF6 is 30 000 times more potent GHG than CO2?
and
1) Suggesting to release it all in the air?
and
2) Suggesting that we have to enclose it in a large steam house so that it does not condensate at night and soak in the ground (UF6 condensates at about 30 degrees Celsium)?
Great ideas! It is amazing what kind of idiotic arguments would people think of when they want to prove anything.
I'm not trying to pick an argument, but:
I don't need to prove that - he does. I just made a wild guess that 30 000 times is extremely unlikely. Want to make a bet?
2) I don't think it was a suggestion.
I think it was implied. Without anybody intentionally opening the caps and spraying this substance in the air there is physically no way for it ending up into the atmosphere in any substantial amounts.
Needless to say that even in the wildest civilisation-collapsing-terrorist-paranoid dreams I haven't seen anybody suggesting such thing. Actually I prefer fearing the Moon falling down on Earth than that.
..and water condenses at 100oC, still, there is plenty of water in the atmosphere. ie, vapour pressure is the issue, not boiling point (where vapour pressure is 1atm pressure)
Ever noticed that the water on the Earth surface is quite more than the one in the atmosphere (some several million times)? The reasons I will not explain because you seem to be acquainted with physics. If this substance ever gets released it will contaminate the soil, the underground water and just a miniscule amount will evaporate, uless like I said someone puts in our deodorands. After some years (months?) it will chemically degrade (UF6 is unstable) releasing some F in the air and most of the U will end up in the seas and on the ground.
I'm sorry for nitpicking on this, but people talk all sort of BS and sometimes others that can refute it just don't bother, cause' they think it is "self-evident". Then the BS turns into myth and the myth to a God-proven truth.
Why is the UF6 the stored form why is it not converted to a solid. I thought the gas form was just for the enrichment. Can they bombard the depleted uranium to make fissible plutonium. Then you would have fuel from waste, no? Obviously next you have wast form that fission but are they not researching multi step fission resctors that bring the waste to a lower state. I agree with you though pressurized UF6 in tanks seems like a when not an if type of disaster.
Matt
We know that Uranium w/o the radioactive part is a mutitigen. Making it a gas creates a purified U,. once you convince the F to attach elsewhere.
Thus far it looks like the disposal plan is 'the solution to pollution is dillution' and America is happy to dilute the U across the landscape of Iraq and Afaganstan.
Having 700,000+ tons from 1946 looks to me like no disposal plan. If 'we' are unprepared to deal with the waste of energy production, why again are 'we' planning on making more waste?
Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) resulting from the depleted fraction of the uranium enrichment process is indeed very nasty stuff, not so much due to residual radioactivity but also due to the fact that it is highly corrosive and highly toxic.
The only reason that this enormous amount of waste UF6 has accumulated is that, at the time, it was considered cheaper to just store the stuff and forget about it rather than to chemically convert it back into either metallic depleted uranium or uranium oxide (UO3), both of which are far less reactive, far less chemically mobile, and far less toxic than UF6. Both would pose far less danger regarding permanent disposal.
I don't see why a processing plant couldn't be set up to convert all that stored UF6 into either uranium metal or UO3. The answer, of course, is money.
By the way, UF6 is actually a crystalline solid at room temperature. At atmospheric pressure it becomes a gas at about 125 degrees F and goes directly from a solid to a gas with no intermediate liquid phase (sublimation).
The safer way to store this is to reprocess it. And we don't reprocess it because that is considered taboo under the NPT. So for purely political purposes now we are going to subject all the tomorrows to our folly.
If 'we' are not going to re-process the waste, then 'we' should not make MORE of it to not convert back into UO3.
(leaving it as U - metal is a fire hazard, no?)
I think the more obvious alternative is to start reprocessing the waste, including the one on storage what do you think? Russia does it, are we so far behind already?
leaving it as U - metal is a fire hazard, no?
Sorry to disappoint, but no. Uranium doesn't burn unless you intentionally store it as powder and even then it will not burn well. Like many metals (silver comes to mind) it reacts with oxygen at room temperature to form an UO3 cover.
But still storing it as UO3 would be a better idea.
I haven't done the math, but I bet the energy yield from a pound of uranium reactor fuel is significantly less than the energy it would take to launch that pound e.g. past the geosynchronous altitude.
to destroy Israel. :-)
Think I'll go to my happy place for a while.....
The unwashed masses, and worst of all, our leaders, prefer to stay in their mental 'happy place' instead of realistically avoiding the sledgehammer blows of PO & GW. Building large biosolar habitats offers an optomistic message of teamwork, community, and the inclusion of all Nature in a harmonious function. Widespread understanding of this message can create a positive outlook for pioneer change; a mental happy place and a physical happy place can be one and the same. This is just what Pres. Carter was trying to achieve in his 'Sweater Speech'.
Our leaders need to create some pilot programs that people can visit via webcams: to see all the physical redesign work, the permaculture efforts, and the interaction of the people involved. These initial efforts can also be closely monitored for research gains in all scientific and humanistic fields. Large pilot programs can induce a positive public outlook as we go postPeak to head off violence. Otherwise expect the unwashed masses to riot like those that invaded, trashed the offices, and beat up the employees of that African utility company.
Pres. Bush's Crawford ranch is ready to go off the grid. Is he helping his Texas neighbors in the same manner to build a future biosolar community? I really don't know, but I doubt it. Yet, he has the political power to jumpstart a biosolar program that could quickly spread for dozens of miles, in all directions, with his house at the center. His self-interest could rapidly include hundreds of other Powerdown Pioneers.
The Senators from each state could strive to do the same as most are individually wealthy in their own right. They could buy property scientifically determined to be centered in the best biosolar places in each state, then encourage the surrounding growth of Powerdown Pioneers to build a larger habitat.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
There aren't any better plans to fix the mountain tops blasted off in WV than there are to deal with the UF6.
However it might be done, I believe that the waste disposal problem must be solved before we should contemplate signimicant expansion of nuclear generation facilities. The would seems less reticent.
-- Mort.
A stable formation is also a good place, probably better than subduction zones. I can think of just THE place: depleted oil wells, the kind where ERoEI dropped to unity. Unless the owner attaches a windmill to the stripper well (four-itary extraction?) the well is capped forever. But before you cap it, you dump some nuke waste down it, fill it with cement, then cap it. Now, the solid waste sits at the drill bit thousands of feet down, with a slug of cement to keep idiots from getting at it, and the formation sits there forever. Texas would be a good "glowing state"!
If 'we' have not done the clean up when energy is cheap and plentiful, why would 'we' have 'excess energy' later?
Another of the illiterate statements made up to bash nuclear. If this 720 000 tons of UF6 are processed and enriched in breeder reactors the energy contained in them will be equivelent to the burning of 3 600 billion barrels of oil, or more than all the oil that will ever be burnt! Is this what you call "waste"? Storing them for this future where we are supposed to "run out of uranium in 50 years" makes the most perfect sense for me.
I find it ridiculous to raise this question and keeping silent about the millions tons of ashes and heavy metals released by the coal power plants in the air every day!
Thanks God there are enviromentalists like the co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore that finally saw the light.
Another of the illiterate statements made up to bash nuclear. If this 720 000 tons of UF6 are processed and enriched in breeder reactors
Lets see. Converting Uranium-238 into Plutonium-239 is an IMPROVEMENT in your world?
How does such a conversion support the idea that 'changing this poison into something benign' is 'Another of the illiterate statements made up to bash nuclear'?
So why don't you explain it then?
Because on the planet I am on, the claim YOU called an 'illiterate statement'was The energy and capital cost of changing this poison into something benign. Your 'helpful suggestion' was to take Uranium and make Plutoinum.
Go ahead. Spell it out. Without your normal handwaving though.
The cost of chemically transforming 1 kg of UF6 to reactor fuel (UO2) ~ several dollars per kilogram
The value of the energy contained in the U-239 if transformed and used as reactor fuel ~ some tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram.
Still don't thinking of U-239 is a resource? I say think whatever you want - this hardly changes reality.
You may ask why they don't make it now? Because it is not profitable at current prices, it's cheaper to just store it away. It is not even radioactive, just toxic. Like millions of tons of chemical and other waste compared to which this is just a tiny drop in the bucket. But some day it will certainly be profitable to use U-239, uranium is also supposed to run out, remember?
If in the meantime it happens that we are lucky enough to discover a better energy source in the future I will be the first to start demanding the nuclear industry to take care of it's waste - transform it, bury it in the desert, whatever. You have my word.
The cost of chemically transforming
Amazing. You start by calling "The energy and capital cost of changing this poison into something benign makes the nuclear option a loser" an "illiterate statement" and offer up the solution of converting Uranium to Plutonium.
Now you've abandoned the nuclear transormation to a MORE toxic material and offer up chemistry.
Amazing moving of debating goalposts.
If in the meantime it happens that we are lucky enough to discover a better energy source in the future ...... You have my word.
Considering your past wilingness to discount acutal issues as 'illiterate statements', your words ring hollow.
Yes it is. Ok, probably illiterate was the wrong choice of words but manipulative sure it is. The cost in question would be some hundreds of millions dollars. This is nothing for an industry working with tens of billions. Russia, Britain and France all do it without this affecting the cost of energy even slightly. But if you are in the industry and had the option:
a) to store some staff away at a cost of some tens of thousand dollars per year
2) build a plant that costs some 100 million
what would you choose? If I could spare that 100 million I could, unless the government decides to do its job and demand it to be built.
Eric, what you are doing I would mildly say is "acting a fool". You constantly challenge every word of your opponents and engage him/her in proving otherwise obvious things. I will be mild again and call this annoying. I can't escape the feeling you are doing that on perpuse in order to provoke ad hominen attacks. Now say something meaningful or please shut up.
If it is AS simple as your handwaving claim is, why does the UF6 exist from 1946?
. But if you are in the industry and had the option:
a) to store some staff away at a cost of some tens of thousand dollars per year
2) build a plant that costs some 100 million
what would you choose?
The option you opted to not list. As a corporation, you have no reason to SOLVE a long-term problem, esp. when the government has limited libality. And, as a corporation, it is 'better' for the shareholders and heads of the company to transfer any/all weath and leave the waste product behind.
But lets address what you DID claim. It is not 'affordable' to process the waste.
If you can't "afford" to process the waste material, then you can't "Afford" to make the waste.
When you say "the government decides to do its job and demand it to be built." you are AGREEING that the UF6 should be re-processed into something less dangerous.
So again, I'm not seeing why you are arguing with the position, when you are agreeeing with that reprocessing NEEDS to be done.
Eric, what you are doing I would mildly say is "acting a fool".
You can make any damn claim you want.
You constantly challenge every word of your opponents and engage him/her in proving otherwise obvious things.
And yet you don't actually PROVE these 'obvious things', nor do others. Must not be all htat obvious.
Now say something meaningful
Something Meaninful.
or please shut up.
Then how could we establish that we agree that the nuclear fission industry is un-insurable without the price-anderson law? How could we agree that the UF6 needs reprocessing?
You're right, but it is meaningless when you don't answer your opponents and keep talking crap.
How could we agree that the UF6 needs reprocessing?
One more reason it is pointless to talk to you - if you did read my answers, you would have known that I agree on that point.
The fact that the nuclear in USA does not do it should lay as a responsibility to our government. Again to claim that some couple of hundred millions is not "affordable" for the nuclear industry is a complete bullshit.
Something Meaninful
How old are you?
I'm sorry I did not answer that central question:
From wikipedia:
So I was in the ballyard with the couple of hundred million $. To put in perspective what 450 million is (the high estimate), the nuclear industry in US is producing energy worth $107 mln. every day (@ $50/MWth). So with a 4 day of energy production they can pay for a 50 years production of uranium hexafluoride. But nobody makes them so they simply shirk.
There is no 'energy scarcity'. There is a lack of CHEAP energy, matching the historical pricing.
We had electricity rationing in Bulgaria for some years before 1989. Trust me, nobody cared whether that energy that was missing was "cheap" or not.
About a year after Iran starts doing this.
if this administration was actually worried about them getting nukes they would be insisting that Russia do a wide scale collection and destroying of all their cold war bombs many of which are resting in poorly guarded facility's. many if not all of the 'Iran seeks the bomb' story's are plants like 'Iran color coding their minority's' one.
you can read more about it here.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0525/dailyUpdate.html
"There can no longer be any reasonable doubt that Iran's ambition is to obtain nuclear weapons capability."
Joschka Fischer
Former German Foreign Minister and Green Party Leader
Is he on the CIA pay role too?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C28%5Cstory_28-5-2006_pg3_7
I note that your source is a Pakistani one.
I also note the particular references in paragraph four about Isreal.
After the intial assertion the rest of the article boils down to if buts and maybes about the possible consequences (ie what other countries will do) if Iran gets the bomb... and given that Iran has signed the non proliferation agreement and Pakistan, India and Israel have not... can any argument directed solely at Iran be considered any thing more than hypocritical? I'm as concerned about Iran getting the bomb as I am about Bush having his finger on the button now.
I quote him because what he said is unequivical and he is a respected figure clearly outside of US policy circles.
It seem the first line of defense for Iran apologists (not saying that you are one) is insisting they do not have plans to make a bomb and any other assertion must be a CIA plot. Then when evidence is presented the fall back position becomes "Well why can't they have one."
Now that we have gotten that over, do you dispute what Fischer said?
Neither you nor I have access to any of the "facts".
My point is that Fischers assertion is an assertion regardless of its unequivocal nature or his standing vis a vis US political opinion. The article you reference provides no "facts", only speculation of possible motives and consequences of the various players. An appeal to authority is not a convincing starting point for a discussion, and recalls various other authoritarian assertions made re Iraqi intentions to give WMD to terrorists - since proved to be completely without justification - on mulitple counts. So I guess I remain unconvinced on that front.
I mention Pakistan as of course Fischers opinion would be quoted there - and as an oblique reference to Pakistans non signatory status re the non proliferation treaty. And considering that the now stated reason for US involvement in Iraq appears to be "bringing freedom and democracy", the outwardly accomodating treatment of this military dictatorship (and others) is interesting in comparison to the kick in the teeth offered to Iran... where elections do actually occur. Also it is still required of Germany to atone for its past and support Isreal - granted the President of Iran has made some unhelpful remarks on that front. But then, he wouldn't be the only one to curry favour at the expense of others.
And finally "Well why can't they have one[?]"
If you object to Iran having the bomb you have to object to all powers with the bomb, do you? The frequently touted and unsubstantiated 'they would give it to terrorists' statement is interesting, given that the currently stated position of the US seems to be that any use of a nuclear weapon (defined as against US interests) will see Iran nuked, what interest would there be for Iran to do this? You could just as easily speculatively argue that one or two of the other nuclear powers in the ME, if they wished to harm Iran might arrange for such a transfer.
Given the ~100 year history of "interference" in Iran, you should at least admit that they might have an understandable scepticism of US and British motives.
Given that they are virtually surrounded by nuclear states/powers, can I understand the desire to have the bomb? Yes. Do I want them to have one? No. Is the position of Irans opponents and the assertions made against Iran credible? Given recent performances, not sufficiently.
So when the US says do as we say, not as we do, you can excuse me if I remain sceptical and unconvinced.
Interesting reading at NNPT
Personally I fear uncomparitavely more that terrorist will be able to get access to some biological weapons than nuclear bombs. Potentially much more effective, and uncomparatively easier to do - consider what it takes to steal guarded radioactive material, chemically process it to separate the Plutonium and construct a bomb without poisoning, irradiating or blowing yourself. Shortly said you need special skills and equipment you can hardly buy at the local Lowes.
Its a good thing that most of the plutonium from Chernobyl was within 30 kMs of the plant.
No problems says LevinK.
How much are you paid to say 'no problems'?
It is probably strontium and cesium that should be of the most concern around Chernobyl.
The statement was 'no release' and the discussion has historiclly about fission power for direct civilian use.
Thus the citing of Chernobyl.
Because I don't have access to data aboput other releases that are 'accidental', I used the low hanging fruit to show "no" was wrong.
Actually the problems with U and Pu were fewest with the Chernobyl disaster. Their particles are too heavy to spread further and the Pu concentration was miniscule (the reactor was not designed to enrich Pu). The radioactive isotops like strontium-90 and caesium-137 are the main causes of concern because they are also able to go into the food chain.
Shipping industry had Titanic. People are still sailing. Airline industry had thousands of plane crashes due to technical failures. People are still flying, right? You can not stop the progress and the will of people to live better lives just because you want to.
No, but your claim was: Plutonium is being produced and there have been no problems.
I offered up a simple response to why your position was incorrect.
You are welcome for the correction.
LevinK:
Plutonium is being produced and there have been no problems
eric blair:
Its a good thing that most of the plutonium from Chernobyl was within 30 kMs of the plant.
LevinK:
Actually the problems with U and Pu were fewest with the Chernobyl disaster.
Ok, first tell me when I said something was a good thing?... Second my first statement was right even in the Chernobyl context.
Your Chernobyl "kick-in" could be used as textbook example of an airy argument put to engage certain emotions, not a rational discussions. In a rational discussion every side is having its arguments but is having the will to admit when it is wrong. What you do is to make up arguments out of thin air whenever you are proved that you are wrong. This hardly makes any good.
How about if you demonstrate that human beings don't make mistakes? Because thus far, all the 'nuclear safety' plans need the humans involved to not try cutting costs or making mistakes.
Thus far, the human nature of shortcutting and mistake making means the best laid plans of nuclear industry will often go awry.
"As of 2003 one indigenous FBR was planned for India, and another for China using Soviet technology.
South Korea is developing a design for a standardised modular FBR for export, to complement the standardised PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) and CANDU designs they have already developed and built, but has not yet committed to building a prototype.
The FBR program of India includes the concept of using fertile thorium-232 to breed fissile uranium-233. India is also pursuing the thermal breeder reactor again using thorium. A thermal breeder is not possible with purely uranium/plutonium based technology. Thorium fuel is the strategic direction of the power program of India, owing to their large reserves of thorium, but worldwide known reserves of thorium are also some three times those of uranium.
The BN-600 (Beloyarsk NNP in the town of Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Oblast) is still operational. A second reactor (BN-800) is scheduled to be constructed before 2015.
On February 16, 2006 the U.S., France and Japan signed an "arrangement" to research and develop sodium-cooled fast reactors in support of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership."
Assuming breeders these would contain the energy of 30 billion tons of coal or ~6 times the total world coal production.
My question re-stated: At what price does the FBR break-even with mined uranium?
Thanks for any help.
The Saudi's have announced a $100 MM development program for the next two years. It will not be easily apparent whether the program has been successful until the oil comes to market.
But even if they double their recoverable reserves and although new production techniques have added a lot to new reserves, the additional recoverable oil costs a lot more to produce and refine. The number of oil consumers has gone up 500% or more in the last 40 years and the gods haven't been making any more oil. Peak oil is going to occur because the supply is not infinite. And its going to cost a lot more on the way.
The posting, which includes a nice diagram, goes through the essential steps. The link to the actual filing has a long, interesting list of risk factors starting on p 11.
http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/11431
Not to mention the situation in Iran, that could really push us off the cliff
Speaking of Iran.
The thought out there is now an economic blockade (as a 1st step) in lieu of a naval blockade. Smart move.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-29T033004Z_01_N2 8264184_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-SANCTIONS.xml&archived=False
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is pushing Europe and Japan to use broad sanctions to financially pressure Iran's leadership if diplomacy fails to resolve an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities, the Washington Post reported in its Monday editions.
The newspaper said the plan would target every Iranian official the Bush administration sees as linked to nuclear enrichment as well as terrorism, government corruption, suppression of religious or democratic freedom and violence in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories.
It would restrict the Tehran government's access to foreign currency and global markets, shut its overseas accounts and freeze assets held in Europe and Asia, the newspaper reported, citing internal government memos and interviews with three U.S. officials.
The plan was developed by a Treasury Department task force that reports directly to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Washington Post said
P.S. Defense Weekly noted in latest issue that a Pentagon wargame had us bombing Iran, China took advantage of that and hit Taiwan, and Venezuela followed up by cutting off oil and attacking USA merchant ships. It was done while the President of China was visiting the USA!! I am sure he found out about between bars of the Taiwan Chinese national anthem!
I can help in some ways.
This sounds as if it needs it's own thread.
They have presentations for Peak Oil.
Keep these principles in mind when designing the presentation:
- Catch attention at the beginning. People remember the beginning, especially the first 5 minutes. Attention drops after that.
- In the middle of the presentation, put in something else designed to grab attention. If it is incongruous with the body of the talk somehow, visually, thematically, it can stand out from the background.
- Let them know when you are about 10 minutes from the end and attention will perk up again. Then make the last 10 minutes very memorable. People remember the beginning and ends best, but only if they know the end is coming.
- Presentations should be no longer than 40 minutes.
- Have some established means of dialoguing with them at the start and at the end as a formal review. Ask them to write down, personally, responses to some key questions they have perhaps. Then ask them to share these and solicit feedback.
- Use text and bullet points as little as possible, if at all. Have images that make an impact and you need to memorize the narrative. Create acronyms and mneumonics to help you know your points.
- Hand out a fact sheet that everyone can refer to and to help with follow up.
It may be difficult in the situation you will be in, an official, meeting, to get into their emotions. But if this is closed door and not open to the public, you may want to explore the emotional impacts. If your goal is to get them to start internalizing some basic facts and principles, and to act upon these, emotional processing really helps. Memory is assisted by high emotions, and a sense of participation in the learning process also helps build the sense of team cohesion.Draw them out by asking pre-scripted questions. Try to put yourself in their shoes when coming up with these. The questions are designed to get their participation and open exploration of the issues. E.g. "What implication does a near-term peak in oil production have for the projects you are involved in?"
Here's what I found that works:
Have a very fact based presentation, complete with graphs, power point, etc.
Then at the end, admonish your audience to "turn or burn!!! turn or burn!!!" as a 40 foot mechancial fire-breathing Jesus with sword in hand rolls across the front of the room.
Works like a charm.
Best,
Matt
P.S.
If you live in a "politically correct" area, you can also have a 40 foot mechanical fire-breathing Mohammed (sp?) with sword in hand roll from the other side of the room.
All joking aside, a couple notes:
- Regarding copyright, all of the U.S. government reports are in the public domain. Most peak oil authors will be okay with you using their materials in your presnetation (I am), although you should always double check.
- Make sure to check out Stuart's graphs comparing GDP to miles driven. That hits home big time, at least it did for me. The correlation is obvious.
Best,Matt
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01arctic.html
There is room for significant growth of nuclear energy production.. Right after that they said that it was enough for 85 years at current production (they omitted the percentage of nuclear energy today). Further growth should come from marginal ores. They compared it with the availability of 40 years of oil (according to BP).
Of course, they didn't tell us who would mine that low-grade ore with pick and shovel when the oil runs out after 40 years.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
Basicly the situation with uranium is much like with all other metals - if you look at every ore, the current reserves will "run out" in couple decades or so. Meaning that with almost certainty in 30 years we will not have civilisation at all, right? What an utter BS. If we start needing more uranium in the future we would find it. Where is the support of the assertion we will not? U is a common element - much more common than silver and even copper. If it comes to this - just the uranium in the oceans would be enough for millions of years.
In short we will never, ever "run out" of uranium. This is a ridiculous and politically motivated speculation. Just read the article.
True breeding creates a surplus (more than 100%), but this is a good way to extend the uranium supply safely.
(BTW, Thorium does not breed a long lived isotope of Plutonium)
Ecuador was once a member, has refused to come back before and has a presidential election later this year, so no telling how that will turn out.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.htm
it is quite true though when you use it as a analogy to describe a situation. for example, people will balk and complain etc if oil and gas prices jumped overnight, but they will barely notice and rationalize a way to accept the same prices if they are raised slowly.
It would be better to say, "Frogs are smart enough to jump out of a steadily increasing pot before it boils. Are we?"
Thanks for the heads up. I marked it on my calendar. I may send you a handful of trick questions to see how fast he can think on his feet. :)
RR
GM's not going Yellow, they're going into the RED, big time. But that doesn't mean the SUVs are becoming a rare breed:
But there's a kicker. When the hapless sucker finishes burning up the free gas, he now must pay for it - at full price. With the SUV being upside down financially, the car company gets all the money and the sucker takes a big loss as the vehicle loses all its value.
More bizarre is an advertisement for a suburban development using the same tactic. The developer is offering $7,000 cash back and $1,000 in free gas, plus the whackiest no money down mortgage some banker could invent. Talk about a financial time bomb in your basement.
Best,
Matt
Here is a very entertaining window into the world of doom promoters. Are any of the TOD commenters working for Greenpeace?
"[FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14691089.htm
May 31, 2006 | Issue 42*22
From The Onion
http://www.goldensextant.com/commentary32.html#anchor28341