PeakOil is You
Economics vs. ETP
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by asg70 » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 17:32:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') am an ecological doomer.
Who just happens to deny/downplay climate change. Forgive me if I don't pin a medal on you. You and Plant should go fly to Greece together for all your false-piety.
BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)
HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
- asg70
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 4289
- Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by kublikhan » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 18:13:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'o')nlooker, that's an important link that everyone needs to read. The various papers on "Energy Payback Time" show that alternative energies are ultimately not useful because they require too much fossil fuels, more than otherwise.
The build-out and replacement of oil power with solar power is impossible. We would need to use 2x oil energy during build-out. Twice as much fossil fuels would be burned up. 1x to keep the current system running, and 1x to construct the alternative system at the same time.
And right here we see someone made a boo boo with their math. If you want to replace X amount of fossil fuel output with renewables, you do not need X amount of ffs to use as input to make the renewables. You need to invest only X/18 of the energy to get the same output:The build-out and replacement of oil power with solar power is impossible. We would need to use 2x oil energy during build-out. Twice as much fossil fuels would be burned up. 1x to keep the current system running, and 1x to construct the alternative system at the same time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')roadly speaking, we therefore have two options:
1) keep using all the oil (and other fossil fuels) directly as FEEDSTOCK fuel in conventional power plants. In so doing, we would get out roughly 1/3 of the INPUT energy as electricity (electricity production efficiency in conventional power plants being ~0.33). This would be the "quick and dirty" option, that maximizes the short-term (almost instantaneous, in fact) "bang for the buck".
2) Use the same amount of available oil (and other fossil fuels) as (direct and indirect) INPUT for the production of PV plants.
Building and deploying a modern crystalline silicon PV system requires approximately 3 GJ of primary energy per m2. What this means is that the c-Si PV system would provide an output of electricity roughly equal to 18/3 = 6 times its primary energy input, which corresponds about 6/0.33 = 18 times the amount of electricity that we would have obtained, had we burnt the fuel(s) as FEEDSTOCK in conventional power plants (option 1 above), instead of using them as INPUT for the PV plant.
A planned long-term investment might be advisable, for instance, aimed at bringing about a gradual transition. The latter is in fact what many have been advocating, often only to be met with rather negative ‘gloom and doom’ reactions by others on a number of prominent discussion forums. It seems as if, in the minds of the latter, the desire to show that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ (i.e. that PV and other renewables are not yet, and might never be in full, a real, completely independent and high-EROI alternative to fossil fuels) overrides all other considerations, and prevents them from realizing/admitting that, after all, it may still be reasonable and recommendable to try and push this slow transition forward.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan - Master Prognosticator
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by vtsnowedin » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 22:51:45
Why not use X amount of surplus Canadian hydro power to build your panels and wind mills until you have enough of them installed in West Texas to power a production plant or plants there? Even if the math says you are just transporting Canadian energy to Texas it would save a lot of transmission lines.
-
vtsnowedin - Fusion
- Posts: 14897
- Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by Yoshua » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 03:03:32
Economy vs. Etp
Net profit = Net Energy Gain
The shale oil and gas companies can't make a Net Profit since there is no Net Energy Gain from their operations.
The Cash Flow is coming from the Federal Reserves printing press.
Net profit = Net Energy Gain
The shale oil and gas companies can't make a Net Profit since there is no Net Energy Gain from their operations.
The Cash Flow is coming from the Federal Reserves printing press.
- Yoshua
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1977
- Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42
Re: Economics vs. ETP
by shortonoil » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 08:07:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho just happens to deny/downplay climate change. Forgive me if I don't pin a medal on you. You and Plant should go fly to Greece together for all your false-piety.
You should fly to the nearest reading room for remedial readers. We will have reached the end of the oil age, and our civilization will have collapsed as a result, That will happen before climate change destroys it. The frogs, and tent caterpillars you will eating at that point will be coming ready cooked.
-
shortonoil - False ETP Prophet
- Posts: 7132
- Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: VA USA
