Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 21, 2013
The future of electricity
At some point, we were going to see an ideological stand-off over electricity, but to put the current Labour/Green vs National stoush into perspective requires a dispassionate examination of everything involved: money, energy, and growth.
As good a place to start as any, would be a lecture given at Otago University a couple of years back by old Labourite David Caygill, wearing his Chair of the Electricity Commission hat.
In answer to the inevitable “why do our power-prices always go up?”, he replied ‘Well, every time new generation is required, the cheapest of the available options is usually chosen. This means that each new one is more expensive than the last, and it has to be paid for”.
I challenged him, that his ‘more expensive’, actually meant ‘takes more energy’, but he didn’t get what I was driving at.
We always pick the lowest-hanging fruit first, a sequence which applies to all activities, and all energy sources; the best dam sites, the best transmission options, the sweetest oil, blackest coal, windiest hill, sunniest site.
It follows that each subsequent choice will be of lesser quality – which has traditionally meant it will ‘cost more’.
With energy, the way we measure this regressive process is by monitoring EROEI; Energy Return on Energy Invested.
It takes a certain level of EROEI to maintain our current level of activity, and as we descend towards (and through) that point, things go from ‘easy’, to ‘harder’, to ‘too hard’.
Given that no work happens without energy being used, this tells us that physical growth – as opposed to piling up digital dollars – is limited.
At some point, the next-best option will be rated ‘not worth doing’. More accurately; not worth doing at any price.
If you are down to needing a kilowatt of power to generate and transmit a kilowatt of power, or a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil – an EROEI of 1:1 = it won’t happen. No amount of investment will alter that fact, although the funding of research may delay it’s arrival. Clearly, at that no-energy-return point, ‘price signals’ cease to have any meaning at all.
The current ‘debate’, being played-out under ideological rules on a historical fiscal field, misses EROEI completely.
Competition, of course, happens physically as well as fiscally. In a zero-sum game, the choice to become a shareholder is the choice to advance yourself at the expense of someone else. The altruistic approach – the Labour-Green one – is to share it around more equitably. Both ideologies blame something other than the cherry-picking, ultimately based on EROEI, for the ‘increasing price’ of energy.
Both are wrong, and until we have leaders who understand this, we will continue to miss the main event.
The real story is that we are competing – Left, Right and globally, by bidding or warfare – for a dwindling supply of good-quality energy.
Money seems to be mentioned in every sentence of this debate, yet remains totally unquestioned. If you could become unlimitedly wealthy without raiding the physical world, we would have no need to water-down the RMA, fish unsustainably, avoid sequestering carbon, intensify dairying, mine Conservation land, frack, deep-sea drill, sprawl urbanly – all of which we are doing.
Accepting, then, that a physical-growth-based (energy-growth-requiring, in other words) system is doomed to stop growing at some point, and that our current growth-based fiscal system requires that physical growth to back it, then we can assume that the fiscal system will be in trouble. For instance; if the ‘money’ you expect to earn in the future requires the future availability of energy, and good-quality energy at that, how will it be earned if the energy is unavailable?
At what point will the absence of ‘investment capital’ actually represent a lack of energy – a lack of grunt – to do anything?
We need to frame this debate, then, in more than monetary terms.
Electricity is a competitor in the energy field, but in our case, it is largely renewable; the existing EROEI of – say- the Clyde dam, doesn’t alter much over time. Fossil energy sources, being non-renewable, will be cherry-picked down to a point where even though it is less convenient to cart around a back-seat full of batteries, we will attempt to do so. Then trucks? Tractors? The returns from going down that road – surprise, surprise – will diminish with time too; we’ll be cherry-picking the best first, as always.
Where to from here?
Firstly, efficiencies. Sure, we’ll initially pick the low-hanging fruit there too, and it will require more and more effort for less and less return over time.
But we haven’t scratched the surface, efficiency-wise, and one of the reasons is that we have been undervaluing the resource. Show me the politician telling you that!
We simply leave the lights on, the heating on, the TV on standby; without equating our actions with the fact that we are lowering the level in a dam somewhere, to no good purpose.
When more-than-averagely enlightened politicians suggest legislating for efficiency, we bleat ‘Nanny State’.
We vote for whoever promises us our electricity cheaper, even as we waste it.
In the ultimate of ironies, if it was more ‘expensive’, we might use it less casually.
Primarily, though, this is neither a fiscal nor an ideological issue, it is an energy one.
How about we have the energy debate first, before we haggle over who gets what?
It matters little where you place the cart, if the horse is missing.
——————————————————————–
16 Comments on "The future of electricity"
rollin on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 2:25 pm
Sounds like the system of government and means of coming to decisions is faulty.
Arthur on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 2:58 pm
In a world without fossil fuels, electricity is going to be the dominant form of energy. Hydro, tidal, wind, solar, nuclear/thorium… all electricity.
Here is a form of energy that has been hardly discussed yet, but has enormous potential for countries with a coast, in this case in particular China, Korea and Britain. The idea: build a narrow dam of 30 km INTO the sea, perpendicular to the coast. Put windturbines on top of the dams and, more important: construct holes in the dam, below water level, and mount turbines in these holes and make use of the tides pushing against these dams, causing several meters of difference on both sides. Result: up to a whopping 15 GW predictable energy per dam. Two of these dams would be enough to provide electricity for the Netherlands.
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dynamic-tidal-power/
BillT on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 3:18 pm
So you need 15 miles of dams for the tiny Netherlands. And what do you tell Germany or, better yet, Switzerland. Sorry, you don’t have any coastline with tides. Bad planning on your part.
Not that this screwy idea will ever happen. And where are the resources coming from to build this engineering miracle? Or the many billions per mile to pay for it? Then there is maintenance, a huge expense in energy, materials and money when you build anything in or near corrosive sea water.
I would file this one in the same folder as fusion energy marked Techie porn. Back when there was literally energy to waste all kinds of techie dreams were proposed. None, I say again, zero ever materialized. Why? Impractical for many reasons. Just because something seems to work in the lab or in a computer simulation does not translate into a practical and possible reality.
Maybe it takes a lifetime to gain the ‘wisdom/experience’ to see beyond the dreams. I would love such a world for my grand kids, if I thought it would be anything near to the dreams we read about. As it is, I see a world at war with each other and with the ecology that supports us, and the possibility that they will not have the chance to experience even 68 years on this earth as I have.
Arthur on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 3:54 pm
Learn to read Bill, the proposed scheme could work for China, Korea and Britain not Holland, as was talking merely about number of GW consumption/production. China has a potential for 80-150GW, that is 3-7 Three Gorges dams.
“None, I say again, zero ever materialized”
Really?
wiki – Three_Gorges_Dam
Meanwhile more than 100 GW wind power is installed globally, last week there was finally some good news from Boston where MIT crushed the famous 34% theoretical upper limit for solar. Innovation is happening everywhere… but you don’t want to have it as you have already decided that the world is for the doomer God and BillT is his prophet.
“I would love such a world for my grand kids”
But you are not going to do anything about it, right, other than predicting doom and gloom and torpedoing any idea that could contribute to the solution of the problem.
“I see a world at war with each other”
Well, that would be Anglosphere against the rest then, or rather your ruling jews. But just like Dracula could not stand the living daylight, these vultures cannot co-exist with the internet and are finished:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/20/299247/us-most-obvious-false-flag-attack-yet/
The Anglo-Soviet intermezzo is over and the rest of the world is moving on, regardless of how much noise Washington intends to make.
Arthur on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 3:57 pm
Here is the future of electricity:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/photon-to-electron-conversion-0418.html
Arthur on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 4:24 pm
Here is (one of the) largest dike(s) in the world, the Afsluitdijk in the Netherlands, 30 km, build in the twenties for land reclamation purposes. Satellite image:
http://www.forten.info/catalogus/afsluitdijk/images/afsluitdijk.jpg
There are no (big) tide differences here, but projects are underway to exploit osmotic differences between river water at the south side and salt seawater on the other side (potential 6 GW).
Recent article in Nature about progress in research about osmotic power / ‘blue energy’:
tinyurl . com / c68d6ek
The energy dikes of the future could be much less robust than the one build nearly one century ago in Holland, since they have no protection purpose. Maintenance of the water turbines is relatively easy, as it suffices to simply lift them from their cavities.
poaecdotcom on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 4:28 pm
It is important to acknowledge that even if we could harness ‘infinite’ electrical energy, the growth paradigm is over.
As we mature as a species, our money system, population, economics and waste into the environment must acknowledge, respect and live within the LAWs of mathematics and physics. A finite biosphere subject to the Laws of thermodynamics.
Whilst I resonate with the excitement of new energy technologies I caution exuberance in light of our ongoing failure to understand the exponential function.
shortonoil on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 4:42 pm
When an author starts talking about an ERoEI of 1:1, it gives you a discernible clue: they don’t have the foggest of notions as to what they are talking about. The Second Law requires that any process must give up some of its energy as waste heat to make the process go forward. For light sweet crude (API 35.7 deg) that is 29% of its energy. The lowest theoretical ERoEI that can be attained is 1.41:1.
Here is the “ERoEI vs Time” graph for world petroleum:
http://s1321.photobucket.com/user/TheHillsGroup/media/graph13_zps6ed1a0bd.png.html?sort=3&o=0
The ERoEI determination for 2012 was 9.6:1. However, it is not too far until we hit a critical point on that graph. But he is correct on one point, the future world will be electric – and it will look one heck of a lot different than the world we know today.
Arthur on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 4:47 pm
I agree with poaecdotcom that old school growth is over, at least for a century or so. That is growth defined in terms of barrels, tons, miles driven, kwh consumed, etc.
Obviously we could redefine growth in terms of:
– number of square mile desert turned into green lands
– the number of trees on the planet
– number of kwh produced from clean energy sources
– or even number of lines of code produced, an immaterial growth wealth measure
LT on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 6:20 pm
Although electricity is a very convenient source of energy, it still IS a man-made COMMODITY, a product created by men.
To be precise, it must be “MANUFACTURED” from other source of energy via complicated, expensive articial means such as generators, turbines, electronic inverters/converters, transformers, transmission lines, etc…
And these complicated expensive artificial means themselves requires energy and raw materials to put them into existence. They just don’t come out of thin air.
Therefore, clinging to the notion of “growth” is still under halucination.
At best, all we can wish for is to have enough to eat, enough to wear, and a place to sleep at night, since all resources will be eventually used up. Water buffalos and horses will be needed to till the land again.
energy investor on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 8:34 pm
In New Zealand the debate is framed around the desirability of selling off the family silver. Should state owned assets be partially privatised. The first to be sold is Mighty River Power, which has about 94% renewable generation (hydro and geothermal) and 6% gas fired.
I tend to ignore the party political rubbish in expressing my opinion on this. Simply put New Zealand’s second largest city – Christchurch – was destroyed in earthquakes. The cost of rebuild will be north of NZD 30 billion of which the insurance industry will likely pay 50%. The government carries the can for the rest.
So what the government is trying to do is to avoid borring the whole $15bn and thereby avoid a credit downgrade.
This sale is therefore IMHO a desirable act – despite my feelings of missgiving.
In NZ most electricity generation is hydro, supported by geothermal, wind etc. But there is plenty more geothermal generating capacity available and also opportunities for wind, solar, tidal etc.
So while I subscribe to the generalisations as to EROEI, in this case I don’t think the subject is applicable to the NZ energy equation …. yet.
DC on Sun, 21st Apr 2013 9:36 pm
I fail to see how the future is going to be electric when the entire gird system is built-maintained and extended solely by, well,oil. This is not to suggest there wont be electricity after the peak really starts to hurt. Oil for private gas-burning mobile trash bins will no longer be a priority, and remaining oil will have to be diverted to maintain the grid. The end of private gas-transporation will definately help prolong the grids life. But if ‘we’ instist on gas-cars(IoW the current policy) AND a grid-were going to crash a lot sooner. Or, if you happen to feel grids are dinosaurs, then you have have to use oil to the production, maintenance and distribution of solar, or wind. Either way, you cant get away from an expensive slow, and depleting commodity is still the base for your clean(er) energy system. So-called ‘innovation’ and better planning might make the situation a little more bearable, but only to a limited degree.
BillT on Mon, 22nd Apr 2013 1:04 am
Give it up Arthur. You are obviously techie trained and brainwashed. The world you grew up in is over. The way ahead is down, not up. You can put me down for just stating the obvious to us older types who grew up in a much less tech world. And, do you know what? It was great! You actually had peace, privacy and some money left on payday.
Others on Mon, 22nd Apr 2013 3:47 am
While the cost of fossil fuels goes up, the cost of Solar & Wind are going down.
Already Wind is challenging Natgas in many countries.
More than 80% of the power plants started in 2013-Q1 in USA are renewable. So renewables will start taking over the place of fossil fuels.
BillT on Mon, 22nd Apr 2013 4:03 am
No, Others, they will not. ALL forms of ‘renewables’, outside of muscle power, come from things made with huge amounts of energy from oil, coal and natgas. Renewables will NEVER be available in the quantity to replace even 50% of today’s energy needs. Not even close.
Arthur on Mon, 22nd Apr 2013 11:35 am
“Give it up Arthur. You are obviously techie trained and brainwashed. The world you grew up in is over. The way ahead is down, not up.”
Giving up, on what? Do you really think that I give one iota about how many miles jan modaal/joe sixpack will drive in 2025? I know all too well that the world I grew up in is over, the materialistic world of Pax Americana/Pax Sovietica, the progressive world. And for Americans like you, that means the end of the world. But not for ‘fundamentalist Europeans’ like me. I am not a progressive, never have been. I love what I see happening. Now that the days of the USA and USSR are numbered, we can get serious again about European civilization.
“You can put me down for just stating the obvious to us older types who grew up in a much less tech world.”
Bill, you are not my enemy. I have no intention of putting you down, but the battle of visions trumps coalition building.lol Yes I am a techie, but not a nerd. My attitude towards technology is a ‘just enough’ attitude, to use technology to provide for a sufficient material basis, to the extent that our lives will not be reduced to spending all the time with scratching potatoes from the dirt with our bare hands. Cars, highways, trucks, aviation, noisy combustion engines will be largely gone, but not individuals/workgroups building digital content or craftmenship using lightweight tools.