Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 19, 2016
A 100% renewable world: is it possible? A poll among the experts
I am reporting here the results of a small survey that I carried out last week among the members of a discussion forum; mainly experts in renewable energy (*). It was a very informal poll; not meant to have statistical value. But some 70 people responded out of a total of 167 members; so I think these results have a certain value in telling us how the experts feel in this field. And I was surprised by the remarkable optimism that resulted from the poll.
This is what I asked the members of the list
The question is about the possibility of a society not too different from ours (**) but based 100% on renewable energy sources, and on the possibility of arriving there before it is too late to avoid the climate disaster. This said, what statement best describes your position?
1. It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of renewable resources, we’ll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)
2. It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.
3. It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.
4. It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.
5. It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.
As I said, it was a very informal poll and these questions could have been phrased differently, and probably in a better way. And, indeed, many people thought that their position was best described by something intermediate, some saying, for instance, “I am between 4 and 5”. Because of this, it was rather difficult to make a precise counting of the results. But the trend was clear anyway.
Out of some 70 answers, the overwhelming majority was for option 4, that is, the transition is not only technologically possible, but within reach at a reasonable cost. The second best choice was option 3 (the transition is possible but very expensive). Only a few respondents say that the transition is technologically impossible without truly radical changes of society. Some opted for option 5, even suggesting an “option 6”, something like “it will be faster than anyone expects”.
I must confess that I was a little surprised by this diffuse optimism, being myself set on option 3. In part, it is because I tend to frequent “doomer” groups, but also on the basis of the quantitative calculations that I performed with some colleagues. But I think that these results are indicative of a trend that’s developing among energy experts. It is an attitude that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, but that’s now common as the results of such events as the explosive growth of the photovoltaic technology.
I understand that this is the opinion of just a tiny group of experts, I understand that experts may well be wrong, I know that there exist such things as the “bandwagon effect” and the “confirmation bias.” I know all this. Yet, I believe that, in the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, we can’t go anywhere if we keep telling people that we are doomed, no matter what we do. What we need in order to keep going and fight the climate crisis is a healthy dose of hope and of optimism. And these results show that there is hope, that there is reason for optimism. Whether the transition will turn out to be very difficult, or not so difficult, it seems to be within reach if we really want it.
(*) Note: the forum mentioned in this post is a private discussion group meant to be a tool for professionals in renewable energy. It is not a place to discuss whether renewable energy is a good thing or not, nor to discuss such thing as near term extinction and the like. Rather, the idea of the forum is to discuss how to make the renewable energy transition happen as fast as possible; hopefully fast enough to avoid a climate disaster. If you are interested in joining this forum, please write me privately at ugo.bardi(zingything)unifi.it telling me in a few lines who you are and why you would like to join. It is not necessary that you are a researcher or a professional. People of good will who think they have something to contribute to the discussion on this subject are welcome.
(**) The concept of a society “not too different from ours” is left purposefully vague, because it is, obviously subjected to many different interpretations.Personally, I would tend to define it in terms of what such a society would NOT be. A non-exhaustive list could be, in no particular order,
- Not a Mayan style theocracy, complete with human sacrifices
- Not a military dictatorship, Roman style, complete with a semi-divine imperial ruler
- Not a proletarian paradise, complete with a secret police sending dissenters to very cold places
- Not a hunting and gathering society, complete with hunting rituals and initiation rites
- Not a society where women are supposed to be the property of men
- Not a society where you are hanged upside down if you say what you think about the dear leader
- Not a society where if you can’t afford health care, you are left to die in the street.
- Not a society where you are worried every day about whether you and your children will have something to eat
- Not a society where you are either a slave or a member of the wealthy elite
- Not a society where most people spend most of their life tilling the fields.
- Not a society where you are burned at the stake if you belong to a different sect than the dominant one
Cassandra’s legacy by Ugo Bardi
78 Comments on "A 100% renewable world: is it possible? A poll among the experts"
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 7:41 pm
Here is a happy and informative 4 min video that sums up enough of the situation to convince anyone of the futility of trying to maintain/save techno industrial civilization with a few more solar panels. The problem is the humans. Period. Humanity is unsustainable. Period.
Mass Extinction Is Closer Than You Know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFff2gYO7qI
Davy on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:18 pm
Yeap, but a carbon tax is not going to do it. It will really require quickly bringing our population down bellow 1BIL. Any volunteers?
Rick Bronson on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:21 pm
If anyone has any doubt on renewable energy, please read this article.
For 1 MW of natgas capacity installed in the 2016-Q1 in USA, 70 MW of renewable capacity is installed.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/renewable-energy-coming-online-record-pace-205636324.html
Renewable energy is capable in every aspect to power the whole World.
Solar panels installed on every home can provide 100% of the home’s electricity and hot water needs.
antaris on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:31 pm
Rick, never forget, that without diesel “renewables” die.
Brian Gomes on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:36 pm
Remember that the sun provides us with enough energy in 1 hour to power the Earth for ONE YEAR!!! We need solar panels covering every rooftop in North America & the World!!!
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:56 pm
“Renewable energy is capable in every aspect to power the whole World.”
The whole world doesn’t need electricity Rick. Only the electronic gadgets mass produced by modern industrial society do, and those gadgets (including solar panels) require the continuation of burning fossil fuels and the further accumulation of CO2 into the environment.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 11:08 pm
Bronson, I do have doubts, that’s why I did my homework on your article which is actually more like an advertisement – not real news, just a company press release disguised as journalism. It’s been the norm for some time. Don’t you chase down the sources. Look up who owns the company? The corporation that put it out – A big for profit “green” capitalist corporation, TakePart a subsidiary of Participant Media, that makes ideological movies. IOW they are good at story telling. Propagandists. Hollywood always was/is. I’m sure that many people who work there feel they are doing good work and all that, but it looks like they are just one more for profit venture looking out for their own interests – money, status, power. I’m not opposed to renewables, but they are still just another product of techno industrial civilization which has triggered the 6th mass extinction and did not even need AGW to do it – too many humans tearing up land and destroying habitat in the oceans. Except for helping reduce some pollution locally renewables are not going to save us and will never scale up to replacement levels, but ya put them on your roof if your among the worlds privileged.
“TakePart is the digital division of Participant Media, a motion picture studio that focuses on issues of social justice. TakePart was founded in 2008 to promote Participant Media’s films as well as make viewers aware of the social advocacy efforts of Participant’s outreach partners.[1]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TakePart
Participant Media
Affiliates
http://www.participantmedia.com/affiliates
makati1 on Fri, 20th May 2016 2:03 am
Ap, some never learn that you have to look at who signs the paycheck with a source. Most are just propaganda outlets for some government or corporation. Or they are selling something related to their article. It’s ALL about money these days.
theedrich on Fri, 20th May 2016 3:30 am
A “renewable” society is a perpetual motion machine. BAU forever, run by ever-lower-IQ ThirdWorlders inventing all kinds of new creations and cellphone apps, always heading off the next crisis just in time — as they miscegenate with blond, blue-eyed White women and extinguish the European race. And, of course, with mud population expansion to infinity and beyond.
What society really wants is magic and mythology. So the politicoes promise renewability to the masses while stealing them blind. Both Marxist “progressivism” and evangelical “conservatism” are variants of this desire. Never mind the exponentially worse wonders of Mohammedanism and its proliferating human sewage.
The reality, of course, is that evolution must — must — go forward or die. But evolution means pain and effort. No pain, no gain. Whenever birds find they can give up flying, they do so: hence ostriches, penguins, the now extinct dodo bird, etc. Likewise for our species: living within biospheric constraints is just too hard. It’s easier to eat the seed corn. Ergo renewability.
Davy on Fri, 20th May 2016 6:28 am
It does not matter how much more solar has been installed and how much less fossil fuels have been installed if you are pointing to a mega transition from fossil fuels to alternatives. Why don’t these people who promote these numbers also post the data that shows what needs to be installed to replace fossil fuels. If you do that then you see we are so far in the hole as to be doomed. The amount of carbon a transition like that would produce would likewise doom us. You might also mention what needs to be built out to replace oil transport. EV are great I am probably getting an EV car like a (used) volt to charge off my solar panels but EV will “NEVER” replace the fossil fuel rolling stock and corresponding support infrastructure. To do that would require more resources and productive capacity than the global world is capable of. Without the car culture we have today complex industry is not possible “PERIOD”. Without complex industry modern life is not possible. I am a solar fan but I believe in them for resilience and sustainable reasons as energy extenders.
There is no great transition coming for modern man. There is only decay and decline. If there is a great transition it will be a spiritual one of what is left of modern man realizing and learning from the mistakes of modern man. A much higher form of humanity could result from the coming bottleneck than techno modern man. We have no hope of scaling up an alternative modern civilization with all the perks of globalism. It is not possible and those that preach it are deceiving themselves. Those in a position of leadership that are proposing it are misleading the masses.
We should now be preparing an economic and social hospice of decline and decay not promoting more of the same that has ruined our species and our earth. Alternatives and EV’s are great and should be promoted. We need them more than we need a new skyscraper or sports stadium but they will not save us. They produce carbon and a waste stream and they should not be called green or clean. It is our lifestyle and attitudes that must change and there is little likelihood of that change. It may be possible with a serious existential crisis a profound change will occur at least in many locations but I doubt a global change is possible because the rebalance is so great. We need to get our global population under 1BIL and that kind of population drop will mean mass social disruption. It is more likely we will kill ourselves as yeast does in the end game of declining resources but I have hope some will make it.
Davy on Fri, 20th May 2016 6:49 am
“India records its hottest day ever”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339523
“A city in India’s Rajasthan state has broken the country’s temperature records after registering 51C, the highest since records began, the weather office says. The new record in Phalodi in the desert state comes amid a heatwave across India. The previous record for the hottest temperature stood at 50.6C in 1956. The heatwave has hit much of northern India, where temperatures have exceeded 40C for weeks. The run-up to the Indian monsoon season is always characterised by weeks of strong sunshine and increasing heat but life-threatening temperature levels topping 50C are unusual.”
shortonoil on Fri, 20th May 2016 6:55 am
As long as the world continues to consume 505 quad BTU per year the world will continue to heat up. It doesn’t make any difference where that energy comes from. We are dumping a quantity of heat into the environment each year which is equivalent to 67% of all the heat absorbed by all the world’s oceans. The world’s oceans are now heating up by 1°F every 32 years.
Whether that heat comes from solar, or coal it is still heat. Using solar means that we would be taking incoming light, that would normally be mostly reflected back into space, and converting into heat – that isn’t. The argument against fossil fuels is mainly that they contribute Green House Gases, which aggravates the warming process. That argument can be contested on many grounds; adding 505 quad BTU to the environment each year can’t be.
The simple fact is that because of depletion there is a time barrier to which any conversion can take place. Ignoring that fact is ignoring the problem. If the world had a few centuries to transition it would probably be possible; it doesn’t. We are looking at the end of the oil age from the collapse of the petroleum industry in less than 20 years.
Renewables are an option for individuals, and possibly some regions to alleviate some of the discomfort that will result from the inevitable collapse of world’s integrated, global economy. Hoping that they can maintain the present system is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Apneaman on Fri, 20th May 2016 8:22 am
Douchy, I’m blond and blue eyed and so are most of my family. We still here. Swedish Viking ancestry. C’mon up to hongcover, I’ll give you a ticket to Valhalla to meet my way-back grandpa.
BTW, how’s all that white man IQ in America working out for ya? Yeah not much of that going on eh? Dumbed downed and you are the perfect example with your never ending pseudo theories.
Just imagine if all the brown folks left the US and went home. First thing to happen would be the crash of silicon valley and the tech industry. Then health care would start to implode because loads of family physicians would be gone and surgeries would be overwhelmed due to all the top rated surgeons now on planes back home. Fruit and vegetables would be rotting in the fields because 3/4 of the farm labors would be back in Mexico and other destinations south. Yep, America would last about a week, then finish it’s collapse into anarchy, once a significant number of the folks who keep America running all went back home.
BTW, evolution don’t give a shit about IQ, (it’s incapable of caring) nor is it directional – forward, backward, sideways, up or down. It just is. Conditions change and it slaps a fix on. Not elegant in the least bit and the notion that evolution “must must go forward or die”; that it’s progressive and has some necessary goal, is wrong and a religiously minded one. The ongoing 6th mass extinction will prove that again just like the other ones did. How about the Permian mass extinction? 95% of all life wiped out. Not very forward looking if you ask me. More like almost back to square one if you want to look at it in those terms.
And the survival of the fittest? Not so much, it’s the species and individuals who are most adaptable that survive longest. Sure fitness counts and intelligence helps, but they are not the only factors. Jellyfish have been around for 500 million years and they can’t even read – so much for IQ eh? How about the humans? 200,000 years in present physical form, but there is much evidence that indicates the human brain made had a cognitive leap/revolution 70,000 years ago to it’s present capabilities. In evolutionary terms 70,000 years is microscopic. So what have all those neuro connections wrought? On the way to self extinction and most likely in less than a century. An evolutionary dead end and humans will be one of the most short lived spices ever.
So the consensuses is that a cognitive revolution took place in the human brain sometime around 70,000 years ago give or take. The archeological record shows plenty of art and complex tools and weapons start to appear wide spread around then. Some theorize that religion was first conjured up around that time too with that newly evolved imagination and advanced communication abilities.
There is something else that starts to happen right around the start of the cognitive revolution and has been snowballing ever since. It’s what the humans do best.
Humans responsible for demise of gigantic ancient mammals
Early humans were the dominant cause of the extinction of a variety of species of giant beasts, new research has revealed.
“Known collectively as megafauna, most of the largest mammals ever to roam the earth were wiped out over the last 80,000 years, and were all extinct by 10,000 years ago.”
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_465673_en.html
10,000 years ago. That’s around the start of the agriculture revolution. No more big easy game to hunt, but plenty of mouths to feed. Necessity is the mother of invention for the big brained ape eh?. Lets see if they can use their high IQ’s to think their way out of a host of predicaments that all fall under the overshoot umbrella.
dave thompson on Fri, 20th May 2016 8:46 am
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2016/05/16/windfall-when-renewable-energy-is-not-sustainable/
GregT on Fri, 20th May 2016 9:20 am
“As long as the world continues to consume 505 quad BTU per year the world will continue to heat up. It doesn’t make any difference where that energy comes from.”
^^^This^^^
“Renewables are an option for individuals, and possibly some regions to alleviate some of the discomfort that will result from the inevitable collapse of world’s integrated, global economy. Hoping that they can maintain the present system is nothing more than an exercise in futility.”
^^^And this^^^
There is so much dis-info in the mainstream these days that it is beyond ridiculous. In order to even come close to solving our energy predicament, people would have to learn to live with much less. The idea that any semblance of BAU could be maintained under such a scenario is pure nonsense. As economies continue to wind down, more and more people will find themselves unemployed. The greatest challenges in the not so distant future will be food production, and climatic instability. The daily commute, and keeping the AC/lights on at night, are going to be of the least of our concerns. People are so addicted to cheap excess energy, that they have completely forgotten about the necessities of life.
makati1 on Fri, 20th May 2016 9:31 am
Well put, Ap. Well put. ^_^
ERRATA on Fri, 20th May 2016 9:46 am
The disadvantage of this forum is the lack of verification of information.
Quoted (quoted) information from other sites (sources of information)
But you have to critically think about whether they are true?
I believe that the information derived from lobbyists advertising PV panels (they want to sell them) should be checked just as critically as information from undertakings (companies) of oil, or “nuclear mafia”.
1. Power PV panels reported in the popular information, you can’t automatically convert to the participation of PV panels in the national or global energy production.
Power PV panels should be determined in [WP] or [MWp] rather than [W] or [MW], since the instantaneous power is almost never reached.
p = peak or potential
This power can’t be compared with the power of continuous coal power plants.
2. As a user of a small PV panel can confirm that it has the following disadvantages:
Full power of solar radiation – about 1000W / m2 (the sun causes sunburn) is unusual rare (at the hard blue sky, but in some years)
On sunny days, but with a steamy sky, I measured the radiation intensity 100-300 W / m2.
It was hard blue sky gives a radiation intensity of 750 W / m2. [This applies to 50 ° width geographer. – Berlin]
“As a result of reflection, absorption and scattering, depending on the time of day and year, and the state of the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface reaches an average of less than 50% of the energy.”
A significant electrical power FIXED PV panel is achieved by only approx. 4-5 hours per day. Any deviation from 90 degrees incidence angle result in noticeable decrease in power. For larger deviations additionally makes matters worse reflexes of light.
The panel located on the roof slant angle is rarely optimal.
With this article strongly I disagree:
https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/another-study-on-the-eroei-of-solar-pv
3. [theoderich on Fri, May 20, 2016 3:30]
legitimate anxiety fear.
ERRATA on Fri, 20th May 2016 9:57 am
With this article strongly I AGREE:
https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/another-study-on-the-eroei-of-solar-pv
In Central Europe this year is a lot of clouds,
PV panels are rarely useful.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 10:19 am
Errata, all the more reason for a home-brew tracker. If there is enough haze to prevent significant light from getting to the ground on some days, I would think being able to capture morning light before the sun starts heating up the pollution and starts blocking out the rays.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 10:20 am
would be helpful
ghung on Fri, 20th May 2016 11:16 am
ERRATA keeps posting the same article and clearly has an anti-PV agenda despite the reality that PV is being successfully deployed all over the world, generally with a positive ERoEI. Methinks he’s a troll since he doesn’t respond directly to challenges. Maybe he’s KENZ’s alter-ego, eh? Thinks his conditions in central Europe apply everywhere I guess, or maybe his problem isn’t that PV doesn’t work with a positive ERoEI, but that he doesn’t have the skills to make it work. I get the same thing about lead-acid batteries. But he is ” a user of a small PV panel”. He should know, right?
As for homebrew trackers, I have 3.5 kW of PV on trackers, 3 built from old ka/c band satellite dish mounts. The tracking electronics can be found on Ebay or from TheAnalogGuy.com in BC. Will run the 24 volt dish actuators directly or from batteries. Tracking is a big help in winter.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 12:55 pm
Nice Ghung, I built a clunky one out of an old car window motor and relay, worked well until the wind got a-hold of it and the wood mount it was on while I was playing with it, good thing it was just a homebrew hot water panel, I would hate to see what that thing tumbling would have done to pv…
ghung on Fri, 20th May 2016 2:24 pm
Thanks, PM. Here are some photos from about 10 years ago. Still working fine today….
http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af140/Ghung/GHungs%20Digs/panels01.jpg
http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af140/Ghung/satpvtracker.jpg
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 2:47 pm
Awesome Ghung! Someone always has an add up in local classifieds buying up satellite mounts and motors, I have always wondered if he was re-purposing them for solar. I will try to put a pic up of my Frankenstein contraption up sometime, its not pretty or capable of 10,000 cycles but good for a survival situation because all the tracking components are easily source-able, first I have to find its permanent home to ground mount it so it stops getting blown over.
Davy on Fri, 20th May 2016 8:09 pm
So much for an EV driven new world we hear so often here on this board
“Tesla Suppliers Warn Musk Expansion Goals Are “Implausible”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-20/telsa-suppliers-warn-musk-expansion-goals-are-implausible
“Tesla suppliers are loudly questioning Musk’s production goals as he moved up the launch of high-volume production of its Model 3 to 2018, two years earlier than planned. Rather shockingly, given the huge demand, automaking consultants and supply executives, who asked not to be identified, admitted that Tesla has still not finalized the Model 3 design and specifications, warning that Musk’s goals were “implausible,” in part because Tesla’s battery factory in Reno, Nevada, was unfinished; and furthermore, aluminum, lithium and other materials – already in short supply – “could be another limiting factor.”
theedrich on Sat, 21st May 2016 4:24 am
Seems like the man-ape fecal matter can’t deal with the yellowing of his family. He likes to pretend that he knows all about evolution and extinction events, and resigns himself to his forthcoming doom, just like all of the other genosuicidsts. Because he wouldn’t want to be racist. The PC mounties might come and get him. The prospect of the end of intelligent life doesn’t worry him, because Mr. Bronfman pays his legislators to tell (actually threaten) him not to.
With the end of White civilization (the only one), this planet will be finished as far as higher evolution is concerned. We live in an age when materialism is all the rage, and the mythology called “science” preaches that there is no higher goal to the cosmos than blind chance. The Big Bang is alleged to have been mere chance; ditto the “inflation” in the first microsecond thereafter. Likewise, we are told, the fine-tuned physical constants are just “accidents.” Similarly the supernova which provided the elements for our solar system about five billion years ago. And the moon crashing into the early earth and then circling it to help its “Goldilocks” setup, along with “fortuitous” situation in the life-enabling zone around our star, and of our solar system around the Milky Way. Then the emergence of life to begin with, and its repeated bounce-backs from many massive extinction events, each time to emerge more complexly and intelligently than before. Yes, all accidents. And to maintain the mythology, one must never, never give any credence to such superstitions as the reports of paranormal happenings, let alone to the findings and theories of Ernst Haeckel, Rupert Sheldrake or Ian Stevenson. Because one’s colleagues might disdain one, and one might be refused government grants.
Ah yes, we must suppress any mention, never mind the indications, of teleology in cosmic evolution, and must go blindly into mass suicide. Let religious idiocy about a “fall” in a Garden of Eden, of “Judeo-Christian compassion” and similar drivel dominate our thinking, policies and politics. Let the Hongcouver PC crowd and their fellow travelers throughout Whiteland commandeer our politics and policies. Because the bowel movements of the super-rich and the sheep-thinking of the masses must determine our actions in the planetary petri dish. Above all, one must never, ever whisper thoughts redolent of racism, because that might lead to survival of the White race and of intelligence on earth.
peakyeast on Sat, 21st May 2016 3:39 pm
@ERRATA: I also have installed solar panels on my roof.
Danish electrical power one of the most expensive in the world.
Our climate is generally cloudy, cold and humid.
Our heating and electrical bill combined for ONE year is now 2000kr (about 300$).
Average Danish heating and electrical bill for a house of my size is about 14000 kr.
I would say that my PVs makes QUITE a difference and very useful.
Now why would this be worse in any other part of Denmark or places with same northern latitude (or any more south)?
peakyeast on Sat, 21st May 2016 3:41 pm
Oh and according to the metering – I would have paid 36000 kr since I installed the solar panels (3 years).
In 2 more years the cost of the PV system has been paid fully.