Talk:Mitigation of peak oil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high importance within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Contents |
[edit] NPOV / Propaganda / Balance
This article seems to be shifted pro-nuke and pro-coal development. I question the balance and viewpoint of this article. It must state both sides fairly.
"Newer, generation IV reactors can produce hydrogen directly for vehicles or other chemical processes."
The weasel word here is can. Gen IV reactors don't exist yet. They are completely theoretical. According to the Gen IV page, they won't come on line until 2030. No mention is being made as to their cost competitiveness against current oil prices or costs to the environment. I altered this statement and am leaving it to be properly sourced.
"no commercial nuclear reactor in North America or Western Europe has ever experienced a loss of containment or even a significant leak of radiation."
This is a very narrowly defined propaganda statement that specifically excludes other countries throughout the world, and research reactors. Part of it is an outright lie. We all know about Chernobyl. But no one talks about the Nuclear meltdown at Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA. England, a part of Western Europe suffered a serious nuclear accident and fire at Windscale. Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry certainly had releases (but not significant since they don't define significant). Three Mile Island did have a release of radioactive gas. At Brown's Ferry, both the NRC and TVA state unequivocally that no significant radiation release occurred. So the key words here are "significant". This statement is weasel-written to exclude the accident at SL-1 since it was a research reactor (but you need research reactors to build and license Gen IV). The sentence also avoids all of the re-processing plant and transportation disasters world wide.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. I would like this piece of propaganda removed permanently because it is incorrect.
"In the long term concerns about nuclear power may be largely overcome if fusion power can be developed commercially."
This statement is blatantly wrong. Fusion reactions yield neutrons. Neutrons make things radioactive and as a result, fusion reactors do end up with radioactive waste. I changed the related statement.
"... and many have not yet been able to achieve the economies of scale that would make them commercially competitive against current oil prices or other current energy sources."
This statement lumps all alternatives together with the weasel word "many". There are many deployments of wind, solar and biomass that are cost competitive, in their current scale - Now, at current oil prices. This statement still needs to be crafted correctly. 71.35.170.207 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recovery Factor
An extremly important factor has been ignored in mitigating peak oil and that is the role of the recovery factor from oil reservoirs. There was a very good article in the SPE's JPT last year where the head of Saudi Armco's reserves group discussed this and pointed out that if we are able to increase the recovery factor by 5-10% this would add substantial number of years to peak oil. I'll try and dig the article out next week when i'm back in the office but it hink it would be unwise to ignore the importance of what a few extra percent would mean to recoverable reserves. Cheers Philbentley 11:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mitigation affected by curve
Can someone clarify, "Conversely the shape of the curve also affects mitigation efforts," in the second paragraph? Having read through the cited article, it seems this could mean several things. Plinkit (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jan Lundberg/Implications of an unmitigated world peak
This "source" is a link to an advertisement for a conference.76.168.64.243 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
