by lakeweb » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:04:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'T')he problem with solar is cost. And because of the cost it will not be a viable option concerning our present condition.
That red / magenta square may not look like much up here but if you were a construction worker standing there with your "boots on the ground" that would be the biggest project you'd ever see in your life. You could spin around 360 degrees with a set of binoculars and see solar panels for as far as the eye can see.
My gut says that one square would be "bigger" then the entire freeway interstate system and I doubt we have the money to do that a 2nd time around.
Hi Cube,
I posted the map as a visual aid for the environmental impact. I also posted that cost is the crux. But cost should not be evaluated by what the eye can see. This is 2.5E12 watts of solar. At $2/watt, 5 trillion dollars. At a buck a watt, 2.5 trillion. You would need redux and pumped storage at some 50%, so another trillion.
Best, Dan.
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:52:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Electric vehicles* are the solution, so we won't need liquid fuels in the future.
In the
future is the key here. Tomorrow we still need liquid fuel. Peak oil is tomorrow in planning terms.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot that the "switchover" will take place immediately, of course. It will take place gradually, over decades, like how PCs replaced old IBM mainframes.
And you insist that oil depletion will follow suit and decline gradually over decades?
Hell, we can't meet future demand if oil doesn't peak. The US couldn't when we were the #1 producer. We had to start importing. And don't give me any BS that it was because it was cheaper.
There are limits to growth.
Hanging your clothes out the window to dry will not close the gap on the lack of scalability we face.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 18:58:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')There's no problem of scaling because the electrical grid is already in place. Everybody already has a filling station in their garage. It's called an "outlet".
The electric grid cannot handle the
current load.
Do some homework, JD. I am surprised you make such a spurious claim.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 19:08:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', 'I') advocate changing our behavioral patterns so that we reproduce at a rate that is less than the current mortality rate.
Biological suicide. You must have a balance between the death rate and the birth rate for a stable gene pool.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his would give a reduction over time of overall population, and could be stabilized when an optimum sustainable human biota is reached. Technically speaking, I think this would be die-off.
Couldn't happen fast enough to avoid a die-off by nature.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen you say "Mimic nature and start the die-off first." what do you mean?
I'll let Dr. Bartlett answer that one with this caveat; the least obtrusive and coercive measure that would accomplish the task.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Bartlett', 'T')he lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen. Now, we can debate whether we like zero population growth or don't like it, it’s going to happen. Whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s absolutely certain. People could never live at that density on the dry land surface of the earth. Therefore, today’s high birth rates will drop; today’s low death rates will rise till they have exactly the same numerical value. That will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years. So maybe you're wondering then, what options are available if we wanted to address the problem.
In the left hand column, I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing, make the problem worse. Just look at the list. Everything in the list is as sacred as motherhood. There's immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation. These are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me, if it’s my death they’re lowering. But then I’ve got to realise that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse.
There’s peace, law and order; scientific agriculture has lowered the death rate due to famine—that just makes the population problem worse. It’s widely reported that the 55 mph speed limit saved thousands of lives—that just makes the population problem worse. Clean air makes it worse.
Now, in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well, there’s abstention, contraception, abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents. Now, smoking clearly raises the death rate; well, that helps solve the problem.
Remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter; we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms and say it’s obvious nature is going to choose from the right hand list and we don't have to do anything—except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right hand list.
Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us, and that option is to choose first from the right hand list. We gotta find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? (audience laughter)
We now have the capability of incredible war; would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents? Well, here we can see the human dilemma—everything we regard as good makes the population problem worse, everything we regard as bad helps solve the problem. There is a dilemma if ever there was one.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 19:16:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')s for solar, here I don't agree with Monte unless he can provide a study that shows the balance of solar energy on the planet would suffer some detrimental effect from it.
I did. Look in the initial post.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by lakeweb » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 20:07:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')s for solar, here I don't agree with Monte unless he can provide a study that shows the balance of solar energy on the planet would suffer some detrimental effect from it.
I did. Look in the initial post.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paper:', '"')However, if the current U.S. energy demand
would have to be supplied solely from solar sources, a wide
range of serious and unavoidable negative environmental
impacts are likely to result."
Not a study, a claim.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paper:', 'W')hile this assumption may be correct, it must
be realized that the capture and conversion of solar energy
will have significant negative environmental impacts,
especially if they are employed on such a large scale as
to supply nearly 100% of the U.S. energy demand (Abbasi
et al. 1995, Trainer 1995a)
by BigTex » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 20:26:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')There's no problem of scaling because the electrical grid is already in place. Everybody already has a filling station in their garage. It's called an "outlet".
The electric grid cannot handle the
current load.
Do some homework, JD. I am surprised you make such a spurious claim.
Isn't there off peak grid capacity in virtually all locations?
I thought it was peak and near peak consumption periods that were testing the grid.
I don't think it's a solution by any stretch, but I can imagine there being some economies in permitting EV charging between 10pm and 5am, when there may be some excess capacity in the grid.
by Tyler_JC » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 22:13:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('inculcated', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'G')ive me 5% growth and I can do 12 quads in about 12 years.
The economy currently is struggling to achieve 3% growth, so, no, you can't have 5%. In addition to completely replacing the current transportation paradigm, you will also have to provide for growth, so, again it ain't gonna happen.
He didn't say we have to grow the entire economy at 5% a year, we merely need to increase our electrical generating capacity by 5% a year which is perfectly doable considering that we increased our electrical usage by 8% a year in the 1970s...
As for the inability to build 48,000 windmills...
The United States added 17,552 Megawatts of generating capacity last year.
5,714 of those Megawatts were renewable.
That's a little over 32% (~1/3).
Would it be possible to increase our renewable electricity generating capacity by an order of magnitude in a decade?
Sure, we only need 23%-25% growth. This happens to be the current growth rate in wind power.
In a decade we could be producing 3 times our needed new electricity in renewables. That means not a single new coal or natural gas plant and an abundance of new electricity to transition off of oil-based transportation.
A common misconception is that we must replace all of our existing energy infrastructure to meet our future needs. This is based on the assumption that we will have no coal, natural gas, uranium, hydroplants, etc. in the future. I'm sure we will still have lots of those things for decades to come.
But power plants break down eventually and must be replaced.
I'm interested in what we are building right now to have energy 30 years down the line and currently 32% of that capacity is renewable.
To be fair, the growth rate of wind power will not stay at 25% forever but by the time the growth rate starts declining...we will have a very large base from which to grow.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 22:29:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I')sn't there off peak grid capacity in virtually all locations?
I thought it was peak and near peak consumption periods that were testing the grid.
No, the ability to transmit it. Grid transmision capacity. Here in Arizona, the transmission grid is so stretched that we have had to build small NG fired generators on the perimeters to meet peak load, as the transmission grid cannot handle bringing in available power from outside the state.
This is true all across the west.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 22:33:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')s for solar, here I don't agree with Monte unless he can provide a study that shows the balance of solar energy on the planet would suffer some detrimental effect from it.
The laws of thermodynamics tells you it will. You have to
take that energy from something else.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 22:36:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', ' ')A common misconception is that we must replace all of our existing energy infrastructure to meet our future needs. This is based on the assumption that we will have no coal, natural gas, uranium, hydroplants, etc. in the future. I'm sure we will still have lots of those things for decades to come.
Not a misconception at all. You seem to forget about global climate change. We need to be CO2 free, now.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by DavidFolks » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 22:41:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I')f we have the ability to fight a $1 trillion dollar war in the middle east (estimated cost of Iraq once the dust settles) then I guess technically speaking YES we could do this. But only with our current resources.
After PO in an age of diminishing resources the world economy will go down the toilet. The industrial capability to create large projects will also go down. So the answer is NO.
And thus the need to develop and implement strategies for sustainable energy production now, while we can. To work on population reduction, sustainable food production, and so on. If we start while it's easy, we may soften the crash, and transition with a minimum of pain.
Now if we could just get corporations to think beyond the next quarter, and politicians to think beyond the next election...
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
-
DavidFolks
- Expert
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Ontario, Canada
-
by lakeweb » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 22:58:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')s for solar, here I don't agree with Monte unless he can provide a study that shows the balance of solar energy on the planet would suffer some detrimental effect from it.
The laws of thermodynamics tells you it will. You have to
take that energy from something else.
Hi Monte,
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. How does shading some sand in the desert create havoc? And as far as balance of energy flux goes, it would only lower the albedo somewhat.
Far less damage than CO2 is causing for the equivalent amount of energy by any measure. The ERoEI would be measured in weeks for one of these dishes just as it is with wind.
'Detrimental' has still not been quantified.
Best, Dan.
(Not that any of this really matters as we are not, and will not, doing anything meaningful with it.)
by MonteQuest » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 23:17:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'H')i Monte,
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. How does shading some sand in the desert create havoc?
Makes perfect sense if you grasp loss of biodiversity through the "takeover method".
Key word,
some.
How does taking
some water from a river hurt it?
How does taking
some energy form the wind hurt it?
How does putting
some waste in a river hurt it?
How does putting
some C02 in the atmopshere hurt it?
The desert soil is home to many plants and organisms. Cut off the sun to them and we are using the takeover method to divert more of the NNP to humans use.
How much more energy can we take from other systems to divert to human use? We already take 40% for human use.
All solar energy is already being used by other systems to maintain ecological balance.
On the scale we need to divert solar energy from other systems and organisms, it will have a huge impact.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by JohnDenver » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 23:24:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I')sn't there off peak grid capacity in virtually all locations?
I thought it was peak and near peak consumption periods that were testing the grid.
No, the ability to transmit it. Grid transmision capacity. Here in Arizona, the transmission grid is so stretched that we have had to build small NG fired generators on the perimeters to meet peak load, as the transmission grid cannot handle bringing in available power from outside the state.
This is true all across the west.
You're not responding to the issue. Generally speaking, the load on the grid is about 50% less at night than during the day. So we already have the capacity to charge large numbers of EVs at night. This charging won't harm the grid, and in fact will allow it to operate more efficiently by leveling the load.
by Tyler_JC » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 23:58:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', ' ')A common misconception is that we must replace all of our existing energy infrastructure to meet our future needs. This is based on the assumption that we will have no coal, natural gas, uranium, hydroplants, etc. in the future. I'm sure we will still have lots of those things for decades to come.
Not a misconception at all. You seem to forget about global climate change. We need to be CO2 free, now.
We can probably keep our carbon footprint stable or even reduce it somewhat over the next 50 years.
Unfortunately, many scientists argue that we need 80% less by 2050 and I don't think we can accomplish that.
That is, unless we can significantly reduce the number of people enjoying a first world standard of living.
Any further development by India, China, Brazil, and the rest of the developing world (as well as the current lifestyles of the First World) will make it impossible to reduce our carbon footprint in time to save the Arctic ice cap.
On the plus side, land in Northern Canada might be a great investment opportunity.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
by lakeweb » Fri 30 Nov 2007, 23:59:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'H')i Monte,
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. How does shading some sand in the desert create havoc?
Makes perfect sense if you grasp loss of biodiversity through the "takeover method".
You are still doing it. Claiming a detriment without quantifying the damage. You have yet to address the 'paper' post and now you are snipping.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'K')ey word,
some.
How does taking
some water from a river hurt it?
How does taking
some energy form the wind hurt it?
How does putting
some waste in a river hurt it?
How does putting
some C02 in the atmopshere hurt it?
The desert soil is home to many plants and organisms. Cut off the sun to them and we are using the takeover method to divert more of the NNP to humans use.
So, where do we draw the line? A Luddite will carry a banner against the use of tools. But they ignore that it is our nature to use tools. They are just as well rally against Dolphins swimming. Do you shower, wear clothing, us a computer? Is hunting and cultivating plants with a stick too much? Even the use of a stick will have its effect on the environment. So, where is this line?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ow much more energy can we take from other systems to divert to human use? We already take 40% for human use.
All solar energy is already being used by other systems to maintain ecological balance.
