[Jaymax]

This was triggered by the National Geographic Cover thread.

Firstly, I'm of the opinion (and firming) that Peak Oil will be primarily an economic problem (of massive magnitude) rather than an energy availability issue per se.

Notwithstanding an awful lot of very important side issues, like transportability and energy density, here are some figures - I'd appreciate it if, in the first instance at least, responders either (a) point out where the math is significantly wrong, or (b) acknowledge the figures before pointing out all the other problems with what's presented.

OK, here goes.

1) ASPO predictions are for a loss of some 27 million barrels of oil per day between 2005 and 2030, following a fairly straight trend line. source

2) 1 barrel of oil provides 1.6 MWh raw, or typically about 0.6 MWh of generated electrical power. Someone can probably state what the factor is for typical transport use, but I've used 1 MWh in my calculations as being close to reasonable and easy. source 1.6MWh 600kWh equivalent

3) I've assumed that half the lost oil energy 'could' be provided by wind, and half by other sources, be they nuclear, increased efficiency, coal, whatever.

4) 27M bbl / 2 / 25 years * 365 = 195 million bbl to be replaced by wind each year = 195 million MWh / annum

5) Big offshore turbines can produce 5 MW thread

6) Assuming average six hours generation per day per turbine - not sure of my facts here, but supported by souce bottom page 2

7) 5MW x 6 x 365 = 10,900 MWh per turbine per annum

8] 197,000,000 MWh / 10,900 MWh per turbine = 18,000 new massive turbines (or equivalent) per year deployed required

Alternativly

9) 2003 additional global additional wind generating capacity deployed 8133 MW source

10) 8133 MW x 6 h x 365 = 17,800,000 MWh wind power per annum deployed 2003

11) 197,000,000 MWh required / 17,800,000 MWh extra 2003 = 11.07

To hold steady for the next 25 years, replacing half of lost oil energy with wind, and half by other means, each year post peak, requires deployment of wind energy at a rate only eleven times what was achieved in 2003.

Difficult, very.

Impossible, hardly.

Again, a plea - If i've gone wrong with the math, please show me where - I won't be that surprised to find I've dropped a zero or three and gone out by an order of magnitude somewhere. If you want to attack the thesis on other grounds (like, we've got to transport the energy somehow, and fuel cells are no where near ready), then please at least acknowledge the figures first.

Finally, I totally accept there is just no way that wind will eventually replace all our cheap fossil fuel energy. We will never deploy three million 5 MW monster turbines... But I feel like if we can get through the first 25 years following peak, humanity is plenty innovative enough to come up with more answers, incremental or revolutionary, technical or perhaps societal.

--J

[FireJack]

Right now the problem seems to be more psychological rather that mathematical. I'm sure it would be rather easy to make a smooth transition if everyone cooperated and did their best. As it stands now though I see chaos and a huge loss in the standards of living, at least for those who are unprepaired.

[julianj]

Thanks for posting these figures Jaymax. I'm virtually innumerate, but i'm sure the boffins on this site will engage with your analysis.

My feeling is the same as Firejack's. Our fellow monkeys are going eff up badly.

[Andy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight now the problem seems to be more psychological rather that mathematical. I'm sure it would be rather easy to make a smooth transition if everyone cooperated and did their best. As it stands now though I see chaos and a huge loss in the standards of living, at least for those who are unprepaired.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '.').........

5) Big offshore turbines can produce 5 MW thread

--J

[jtmorgan61]

Cube said a lot of what I would say about windfarms.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3')) I've assumed that half the lost oil energy 'could' be provided by wind, and half by other sources, be they nuclear, increased efficiency, coal, whatever.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '.')..........
Additionally, you need some way to store the energy, because wind is intermittent. If you store it as hydrogen, pumped water, whatever, you're losing efficiency.
...........

[Jaymax]

The latest ASPO newsletter has incorporated gas into the depletion model. With the new figures its 22 million barrels of oil equivalent over 30 years.

We only need to deploy wind generation at 7.5 times the 2003 global rate to replace 50% of the entire global energy loss predicted from peak oil. Approx additional 135 million bbl or MWh to replace each year.

---

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')hen these subsides will have to end

[Caoimhan]

The problems that Denmark has with it's wind power have little bearing on a theoretical mass installation of wind power in the U.S., Canada, or other large nation. Denmark is about 42,000 sq.km. That's about the same size as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island put together. If there are high winds in one part of Denmark, there's likely to be high winds everywhere in Denmark. Weather systems are simply that big.

OTOH, the U.S. and Canada, for instance, are large enough that energy distribution between the regions can mitigate regional weather patterns. If the wind isn't blowing in Dallas, it could very well be blowing in Kansas City, or in New Orleans.

[Andy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever in a post carbon society we wouldn't have coal fired or natural gas plants. So we'd need to have windmills make up more then 20% of our electricity production. In this case that storage capacity dilemma rears it's ugly head again. Or we can just be like France and use the nuclear option. BTW I hear they have some of the cheapest electricity rates in Europe. Looking into my cyrstal ball I see nuclear power dominating the later half of the 21st. century.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he vast major of the world’s population use little or no energy. It’s far more sensible to look at the energy intensive activities of people in the west, and I’m afraid that comes down to personal transport and aviation as well as trading blocks, globalisation and so on. As for the third world, they should start by using renewable energy and not make the mistakes the west has.

[Jaymax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')lectricity storage .... Pump Hydro Storage: one can use underwater lakes, reservoirs (if the hypsometric difference is there) or even depleted oil fields.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')lectricity storage .... Pump Hydro Storage: one can use underwater lakes, reservoirs (if the hypsometric difference is there) or even depleted oil fields.

[Optimist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') stopped being optimist when I realised that technical solutions are available but will never be built due to a myopic focus on profit and I'm waiting for the Olduvai regression

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ICH! Remember, even a technical solution has to be profitable, thanks to the "myopic focus on profit". Could the "myopic focus on profit" be part of the solution?