PeakOil is You
JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II
Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II
by TonyPrep » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 14:26:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'W')arning: Failure to provide proof will constitute scale issue avoidance.
I don't respond to threats, JD. If you wish to address the issue of scale, that's fine. If you don't then you cannot claim that alternatives can, and will, cope with declines in fossil fuels. As I've said, you are well aware of the scale of fossil fuels (86% of all energy consumed, globally), so you must realise that alternatives (including conservation) must be able to grow to that scale and, to enable continued economic growth, continue growing. If, knowing that scale is an issue, you don't wish to address the issue, then it would be clear that you have no idea of whether your proposed alternatives will scale, in which case, we would be back to the usual ingredient of "solutions", wishful thinking.-
TonyPrep - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II
by Pixie » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 14:42:02
Haven't read this entire thread, so perhaps what I am about to say has already been thrashed by both sides.
Liquid fuels provide almost all transportation fuels, as well as fuels for food production. Therefore, this is where the first difficulties will lie, and it does not matter that electricity is provided by other sources.
We will have several challenges as liquid fuels shrink back. These will include:
1) Producing food with less (eventually with no) diesel;
2) Getting to work, especially if you don't live in the city;
3) Transporting coal and nuclear fuels from the mines to the power plants;
4) Maintaining our power plants;
5) Transporting food and industrial products.
The issue of scalability of alternatives therefore needs to focus mostly on farm equipment and transportation.
The Amish manage to farm nicely without petroleum, however their yields are lower. Thus, when farmers have conserved fuel to the greatest extent possible, we can expect them to begin adopting methods that look like the Amish, and we can expect their yields to go down.
We can make more efficient cars, and we can bicycle and motorcycle more and telecommute, and this will, for a while, maintain functionality. In order to maintain functionality all the way to the point of zero petroleum will require us to do things we just don't have the technology to do. I doubt we can do it. Thus, I expect us in the industrialized world to have to scale back.
I also expect death rates to go up due to that lower harvest already mentioned.
Liquid fuels provide almost all transportation fuels, as well as fuels for food production. Therefore, this is where the first difficulties will lie, and it does not matter that electricity is provided by other sources.
We will have several challenges as liquid fuels shrink back. These will include:
1) Producing food with less (eventually with no) diesel;
2) Getting to work, especially if you don't live in the city;
3) Transporting coal and nuclear fuels from the mines to the power plants;
4) Maintaining our power plants;
5) Transporting food and industrial products.
The issue of scalability of alternatives therefore needs to focus mostly on farm equipment and transportation.
The Amish manage to farm nicely without petroleum, however their yields are lower. Thus, when farmers have conserved fuel to the greatest extent possible, we can expect them to begin adopting methods that look like the Amish, and we can expect their yields to go down.
We can make more efficient cars, and we can bicycle and motorcycle more and telecommute, and this will, for a while, maintain functionality. In order to maintain functionality all the way to the point of zero petroleum will require us to do things we just don't have the technology to do. I doubt we can do it. Thus, I expect us in the industrialized world to have to scale back.
I also expect death rates to go up due to that lower harvest already mentioned.
Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
-
Pixie - Lignite
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II
by Pixie » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 15:08:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '[')img]http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/7518/afvsinusefl2.jpg[/img]
.
.
We can discount the E85 vehicles from this chart, as the cast majority are running on gasoline, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Stuart Staniford at The Oil Drum recently did an analysis that shows we could easily be converting 90% our corn crop to ethanol by 2014, and it would be no more than about 3 times the amount of ethanol that is currently on the market.
Cellulosic, as a commercial product, is at least 25 years out, even if it is demonstrated this year, just because of the timelag it takes for industries to develop. Thus, E85 vehicles should not be considered alternative fueled vehicles. They run on gasoline.
Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
-
Pixie - Lignite
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II
by TonyPrep » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 15:18:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')f we replace X acres of plants with X acres of modern solar panels, we increase the energy absorption of that area of land by an order of magnitude.
And what lifeform or system must then want for that energy we "takeover?"
There is no "extra" energy out there not being used. When we move from ancient sunlight (fossil fuels) to the current solar flux, something must give up the energy we then appropriate to human use.
And what lifeform or system must then want for that energy we "takeover?"
There is no "extra" energy out there not being used. When we move from ancient sunlight (fossil fuels) to the current solar flux, something must give up the energy we then appropriate to human use.
I cannot agree with assertion that harnessing some solar energy for human use would imply either taking it from other species or reducing amount of heat available to Earth.
I do not see significant impact on ecosystem should we build solar arrays on uninhabited desert to produce electricity.
Relatively small areas (in terms of percentage of total available) would be enough to cover up our current electricity needs.
As illustrations, in my own country, certain animals were introduced to try to control other non-native pests but it just made the problem worse, as they didn't act in the way expected, and Albert Bartlett used the Aswan dam as one of his examples, where the farmland stopped receiving the annual boosts from floods.
It seems intuitively obvious that with all of the sunlight we get, diverting such a small amount for our own use would be no problem but has there ever been any study on this? Would more sunlight be captured, thus warming the planet even more, for example? And Monte suggests other side-effects.
And the notion that only "our current electricity needs" need be considered is a false one. Is anyone here proposing an end to economic growth? If not, then it is not only current energy needs that are under consideration, but our energy needs indefinitely.
-
TonyPrep - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
