Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
by Raxozanne » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 17:17:11
Oh forget it I've confused myself now.
All I know is that anywhere I've read I've never heard of an energy supply that will be cheaper and more available than what we've ever had in oil. But good luck with that theory.
I find it funny you try and refute my statement:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')arket forces would have developed cheaper energy if it were available out there and within our scientific grasp because greed is bigger than selfishness in this world.
As it embodies your whole theory of why hydrogen is starting to be successfully implemented now.
Last edited by
Raxozanne on Sun 04 Sep 2005, 17:47:18, edited 4 times in total.
-
Raxozanne
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 17:28:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Z', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'B')ecause humans (gene's/biology) are inherently selfish. We seek to provide the best immediate environment for those closest to us, especially our children.
You don't answer my question. If I were to agree with you ( and I am not, it's not selfishness that's inherent, it's the urge to survive - whatever the means ), it doesn't explain why someone/some corporation didn't come with a new source of cheaper energy and reaped huge profits of it. Your current argument seems in total contradiction with your previous one.
Ok, so I'm not expresing myself well. apologies.
The urge to survive is a reflection of the need to ensure the survival of ones genes. The urge to provide the best for onesself and ones family
beyond ensuring survival of oneself, is a continuation of that - a deep seated need to provide the best surroundings / potential future for those who will carry forward ones genes. But that just explains why greed/selfishness/markets/genetics are all the same thing.
However, on the point of why corporations didn't come up with cheaper energy sources if it were possible, is related to the amount of effort, time and risk in doing so. The potential rewards have to outweigh all three of these - of them all, time is usually the biggest problem. Try getting any corporation to fund something that best-case might generate cashflow five years out - hardly impossible, but very difficult, and the risk factor needs to be very very low.
Tell them that probably the returns from invseting in alternative transport energy will be less than for an equivalent investment in oil. Chance of getting funding, about 0%.
Change the figures so that the probable returns from investing in alternative transport energy will be massivly more than for an equivalent investment in oil, and the chances of funding go way up.
For that balance to change, two things need to happen - the retail price of transport energy needs to increase, and the costs of providing more traditional oil based transport energy also need to go up.
Sound familiar? That industry spending on alternatives correlates to the prices for long-dated oil futures over the past several years is no coincidence. What was once possibly profitable, but percieved as too risky, is now percieved to be much less so. What was once probably not profitable, now shows clear profit potential. These changes have occured (or rather, started to) over the past 4 years or so.
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 17:50:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bbadwolf', 'N')ecessity can do a lot but cannot do the impossible. Here are some things we know.
We know the amount of energy available in each chemical bond. We can exhaustively examine the potential for ALL possible chemical reactions.
You do mention it later on, but lets not forget nuclear reactions, 'k.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e've similarly explored the entire surface of the planet. Here, we have found some things and we call them alternative energy sources. None are as abundant as fossil fuels and they are all much expensive and none of them scale very well when compared to fossil fuels.
See, now this is where it breaks down. I 'knew' this too, 'cos I'd been a member here for a while. And then I started crunching some figures. And I found what I 'knew' was actually wrong - especially in the context of the peak-oil decline plateau and curve.
This 'known fact' is pretty much mantra around here, and while it's very close to true, and while you can prepare factual arguments around it by ignoring things like predictable cost-reductions as the industry scales up, or quote accurate 'too expensive' research reports from the days when crude was $30-$40/bbl - this 'thing we know' is far from truth.
What I will happily accept, with regards to altenatives, is that we're nowhere near ready for peak oil, and there will be a period of painful catch up.
I'd also add, that one of the things we DON'T know, is whether the American public will work out over time that they can come very close to keep their 'western' lifestyles, while only consuming half the energy - freeing up 1/8th of global consumption, an buying us maybe another 5-6 years of plateau.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'y')our prediction of greater energy supply at even better prices is physically impossible, it breaks natural law!
Two decades, 20 years - solar(photonic) + wind + tidal + wave + fision + geothermal + solar(thermal) + biomass + (fusion/maybe) with a much wider rage of generation (ie: much more micro generation), and 'solid' hydrogen storage in carbon nanotube containers. You make a bold statement - and I'm convinced an incorrect one...
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by Raxozanne » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 17:57:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Two decades, 20 years - solar(photonic) + wind + tidal + wave + fision + geothermal + solar(thermal) + biomass + (fusion/maybe) with a much wider rage of generation (ie: much more micro generation), and 'solid' hydrogen storage in carbon nanotube containers.
And these alternatives (one of which isn't even proven and may take up to 50 years to develop) according to you are going to supply more energy than 84 million barrels of oil a day at a cheaper price after we have successfully managed to invest in a whole new energy infrastructure whilst going through an economic depression?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou make a bold statement - and I'm convinced an incorrect one...
So do you Jaymax and one I am quite convinced to be incorrect.
Last edited by
Raxozanne on Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:19:34, edited 1 time in total.
-
Raxozanne
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
-
by Jack » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:05:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') certainly wouldn't accept a lower standard of living. I see no reason to do so.
Why should we "make sure there is no die off"? That's the fundamental question.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '
')Oh yeah, you're the guy who would gladly have a million people die so that you can still have an suv.
I don't care for SUVs. I much prefer my car. Sometimes, when I'm going down hill, with a tailwind, I almost get 20 MPG.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '
')I'm afraid you're not going to have much choice - america is in the worst possible position right now because you've all gotten used to wasting oil and cant comprehend doing without.
Au contraire, my dour Scot! There are two ways to be treated well - one is to have lots of money; the other way is to owe a great deal!
And owe we do. If the world pulls the plug on us, the rest of the world will join us and it's bankruptcy all 'round.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '
')Also, because the economy of the world is totally interdependent, any demand destruciton in 'poorer' countries will cause collapse in the usa also. Oh well.
Not really. The poorer countries are slowly sinking into a mire of destruction. But they do supply cheap labor, and thus we can continue to enjoy cheap consumer goods. Ironic, isn't it? Peak Oil may bring a further blossoming of the American economy. 
-
Jack
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4929
- Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:06:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'I') find it funny you try and refute my statement:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')arket forces would have developed cheaper energy if it were available out there and within our scientific grasp because greed is bigger than selfishness in this world.
As it embodies your whole theory of why hydrogen is starting to be successfully implemented now.
Peak-Oil (which is not a 'market' force) has led to a rally in the cost of oil, which has meant that investing in hydrogen is less risky, and so market-forces have now very much come in to play.
My point was: market forces
alone would never have led to the development of a cheaper energy source, while oil was seen as likely to remain absurdly cheap, no-one would spend the money. Some
market-external force was necessary - hello peak oil.
Sorry I'm so wordy - let me try once more concisely.
Market forces would not naturally lead to the development of cheaper replacements for oil,
until oil becomes so expensive as to make the returns meaningful within a timescale relevant to corporate investors. And then they will.
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:14:07
ooops, I meant...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'T')his 'known fact' is pretty much mantra around here, and while it's very close to true [quantatively], and while you can prepare factual arguments around it by ignoring things like predictable cost-reductions as the industry scales up, or quote accurate 'too expensive' research reports from the days when crude was $30-$40/bbl - this 'thing we know' is far from truth[qualitatively].
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by bbadwolf » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:25:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '
')This 'known fact' is pretty much mantra around here, and while it's very close to true, and while you can prepare factual arguments around it by ignoring things like predictable cost-reductions as the industry scales up, or quote accurate 'too expensive' research reports from the days when crude was $30-$40/bbl - this 'thing we know' is far from truth.
skip..
Two decades, 20 years - solar(photonic) + wind + tidal + wave + fision + geothermal + solar(thermal) + biomass + (fusion/maybe) with a much wider rage of generation (ie: much more micro generation), and 'solid' hydrogen storage in carbon nanotube containers. You make a bold statement - and I'm convinced an incorrect one...
--J
Sorry dude, still not possible. You're still trying to break the laws of nature. Toss out the money argument. Money is simply a representation for 'stuff', much of which is energy. Some asshole will always find a way to make a $ profit but what matters is the 'stuff' being represented.
I don't care what the $ price of a barrel of oil is. Oil is extremely effective. You get a lot of energy for little effort (energy) spent. Now I can't in this short note deal with all alternative forms individually and show the problems with each but then, it's all been done before. Between poor energy profit and feedstock scarcity, none of the alternatives (with the unlikely exception of fusion) are going to give us more than a much reduced quantity of available energy and standard of living.
20 years of progress will not get us to the point where we get more out the back end than we put in the front end. We can store energy in nanotubes or any other fancy medium you like, micro or otherwise, we still won't get more out than we put in. Technology can at best find better ways to work WITH the laws of physics. It never breaks them.
-bbad
-
bbadwolf
- Peat
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:30:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Two decades, 20 years - solar(photonic) + wind + tidal + wave + fision + geothermal + solar(thermal) + biomass + (fusion/maybe) with a much wider rage of generation (ie: much more micro generation), and 'solid' hydrogen storage in carbon nanotube containers.
And these alternatives (some of which aren't even proven and may take up to 50 years to develop) according to you are going to supply more energy than 84 million barrels of oil a day at a cheaper price after we have successfully managed to invest in a whole new energy infrastructure whilst going through an economic depression?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou make a bold statement - and I'm convinced an incorrect one...
So do you Jaymax and one I am quite convinced to be incorrect.
Just in the interests of one or other of us being able to go "told-you-so"
20 years post-peak (and I soooo hope peakoil.com is still to be found, but I'm not optimistic) (I also soooo hope I'm around - and you lot for that matter - I'm more optimistic on that front)
I use the ASPO decline curve predictions in my math - so I expect those alternatives (such as are available and deployed by then) to replace in excess of 27 million bbl/d, being the amount of decline by then.
This is another classic around here - whenever alternatives are mentioned, it's suggested we need to construct enough to offset the entire global oil consumption - which might be eventually true, but suggests a future prediction scenario that doesn't consider the timeline and what happens to get us from 'now' to 'then'.
Of course, if there is a global recession, it'll be less than 27mb/d
And cheaper prices, inflation adjusted, relative to the price pre-Katrina, not the price a year ago...
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by Z » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:34:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'T')he urge to survive is a reflection of the need to ensure the survival of ones genes. The urge to provide the best for onesself and ones family beyond ensuring survival of oneself, is a continuation of that - a deep seated need to provide the best surroundings / potential future for those who will carry forward ones genes. But that just explains why greed/selfishness/markets/genetics are all the same thing.
You take your surrounding environment and make it an universal law. If you live in an environment where greed and selfishness are dealt with by death penalty, 99.9% of the people will back from it. Try to be selfish on a battlefield and count the minutes that separate you from the firing squad.
Ever wondered, if selfishness was so 'natural', why there are societies in the first place ? Things are a little more complicated than you think. Something to do with the duality of man.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'H')owever, on the point of why corporations didn't come up with cheaper energy sources if it were possible, is related to the amount of effort, time and risk in doing so. The potential rewards have to outweigh all three of these - of them all, time is usually the biggest problem.
Nothing in your views really indicates the possibility to deliver cheaper transportation energy. If you need the current cost to skyrocket to research alternatives, then to me it means that these alternatives will be more expensive, not less.
And I'd like to point out several things :
- Huge risky projects are usually dealt with by the governments ( like research on fusion for example ). They have a powerful strategic incentive to achieve energy independance. How come then, after all these oil induced recessions, that we don't have backed one bit from oil ?
- There has already been a surge in spending over energy research after the first oil shock. It did not give much results.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'T')hese changes have occured (or rather, started to) over the past 4 years or so.
Maybe you should factor in the fact that the US government is giving subsidies to pursue these researchs. How much of this activity is related to attracting more corporate welfare and how much is related to actual commercial projects ?
It's easy to built prototypes, especially with government subsidies. It a whole different game to make actual commercial profits of it.
Let's put it this way : if you're the first one to buy an hydrogen car, where do you do your refill ? If you're the first hydrogen refilling station, how do you make a living ?
Freedom is up to the length of the chain.
-
Z
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Wed 11 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: France
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 18:52:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bbadwolf', 'N')ow I can't in this short note deal with all alternative forms individually and show the problems with each but then, it's all been done before.
Hasn't it just... And I'm not going to pretend I went into each and every alternative in detail.
What I will say, is when I did some independant research, looking to argue with optimists, I discovered that I was wrong, and that the recieved wisdom I'd been getting at peakoil.com was unbalanced towards a doomer perspective.
This place draws out and highlights all the problems with various alternative technologies, but rarely gives much credence to any research addressing or solving those problems.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')etween poor energy profit and feedstock scarcity, none of the alternatives (with the unlikely exception of fusion) are going to give us more than a much reduced quantity of available energy and standard of living.
Once, I used to have the simplistic 'alternatives will save us' perspective so many start out with - then I learnt more.
After that I used to believe as you do - then I learnt more
Now I believe that alternatives are feasible, but will require huge efforts, and will be 'late'.
You're going to have great difficulty to get me to 'unlearn' things.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')echnology can at best find better ways to work WITH the laws of physics.
The laws of physics say that orders of magnitude more photonic energy (sunlight and heat) falls on this planet everday than we require in bottled energy.
Catching that tiny amount we need to support our exhorbitant lifestyles is purely an engineering and sociological problem, not a physics problem. Natural laws don't come into it (other than some rather tricky materials supply issues).
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 19:42:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Z', 'T')ry to be selfish on a battlefield and count the minutes that separate you from the firing squad.
Semantics - when I say selfish, I mean behaving in the way that most likely ensures the continued survival of you and those closest to you, especially the next generation, disregarding the likelyhood of that affecting the survival of those more remote from you. Let's not argue definitions though - this is the concept that I am saying is ultimatly biologically driven, and is ultimatly responsible for the 'greed' evident in the free-market.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ver wondered, if selfishness was so 'natural', why there are societies in the first place
Frequently, I'm the kind of guy who ponders such things when there's nothing else to do... I also have been following the recent research debating whether there is a selfish basis for altruism.
On societies, quite clearly, belonging to a society increases the likelyhood of survival.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hings are a little more complicated than you think. Something to do with the duality of man.
Trust me, I get the complexity and the subtlty, the nature of the individual as part of and simultaneously in competition with the nature of the collective - but we're getting way off topic here.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')othing in your views really indicates the possibility to deliver cheaper transportation energy. If you need the current cost to skyrocket to research alternatives, then to me it means that these alternatives will be more expensive, not less.
Initially, yes - the price of oil needs to skyrocket to offset the risk, part of which is the time it will take for sufficient infrastructure/volume to be manufactured to bring costs back down. There's a reason I went for twenty years, not five or ten...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-') Huge risky projects are usually dealt with by the governments ( like research on fusion for example ). They have a powerful strategic incentive to achieve energy independance. How come then, after all these oil induced recessions, that we don't have backed one bit from oil ?
Well, we have a little, in percentage terms we clearly use more non-oil energy today than previously. Fusion is heavily encumbered by the classic inability of politicians to actually believe scientists unless they agree with them already, some historic over-hyped expectations, and also by classic bureacracy. But more on government infrastructure investments later.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here has already been a surge in spending over energy research after the first oil shock. It did not give much results.
Yeah it did, it set much of the groundwork for the current realisation of alternatives. However, the earlier shocks subsided reasonably quickly, and with that the oil price, and with that industries interest in bringing product to market.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'T')hese changes have occured (or rather, started to) over the past 4 years or so.
Maybe you should factor in the fact that the US government is giving subsidies to pursue these researchs. How much of this activity is related to attracting more corporate welfare and how much is related to actual commercial projects ?
Pretty much all western governments, in differerent ways.
But this is nothing less that the way modern governments avoid investing directly in (ie: building) the huge infrastructure projects as they would have historically (as you alluded to above). Instead of building a government owned infrastructure, the modern way is to incentivise industry to do it for you. This *IS* the governments backing, slowly, away from oil, as referred above.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's easy to built prototypes, especially with government subsidies. It a whole different game to make actual commercial profits of it.
So true, but what you can sell your product for initially, makes one hell of a difference!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et's put it this way : if you're the first one to buy an hydrogen car, where do you do your refill ? If you're the first hydrogen refilling station, how do you make a living ?
If you're the first one to buy an elecrtric car, where do you refill? Answer - in any one of the hundred or so service stations in London with elecric charging bays - subsidised by the government of course - I believe the subsidies will soon be suspended because the market has kicked in...
More of that governmental infrastructure investment through industry subsidy discussed above. The first garages selling hydrogen will need to be incentivised. (didn't I read about something like this happening in California already?)
On the subject of hydrogen - something similar would be required if we go with high pressure gas or liquid storage. If we end up going solid metal-hydride or nanotube, then there's no reason why you shouldn't fill up at home - there are plenty of companies already making desktop hydrogen plants for labs - low pressure though, not exactly suitable for filling 15000 psi high pressure tanks!
---
However, if we're going to continue, can we stick to energy sources - it's a big enough issue, which needs to be solved before storage comes into play...
--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by bbadwolf » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 20:08:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '
')Catching that tiny amount we need to support our exhorbitant lifestyles is purely an engineering and sociological problem, not a physics problem. Natural laws don't come into it (other than some rather tricky materials supply issues).
I optimistically assume that we can solve the sociological problems and therefore dismiss them for the purposes of this discussion. It's the engineering problems that kill us. Along with those supply issues.
All the alternatives have energy returns well below that of oil. If that were not true, we'd be using them already (big oil might not want YOU to produce alternatives but they'll damn well do it themselves if there's profit in it!). This is simply the result of the laws of physics (like the amount of heat needed to get metals out of rock) which won't be changed by more efficient engineering.
Thus alternatives have less "advantage", to use the terminology of the lever principle. The only solution is obviously to use a larger scale. To get the energy needed for our 'exorbitant lifestyles', more effort and materials are needed to produce the same output. If WE expend that energy, our standard of living is down by definition (and we just don't have enough of some of the materials). Therefore we need to derive our standard of living from the efforts and resources of the poor of the third world! That is, we need them to be more diligent.
BTW, I'm observing your argument with respect to the nature of man. You argue well. I appreciate that. I sure do wish that you could convince me that we aren't in considerable hydrocarbon sh**.
-bbad
-
bbadwolf
- Peat
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
-
by Jaymax » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 22:57:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bbadwolf', 'B')TW, I'm observing your argument with respect to the nature of man. You argue well. I appreciate that. I sure do wish that you could convince me that we aren't in considerable hydrocarbon sh**.
Thanks for that - as do you. I've greatly enjoyed the level of debate on this thread tonight - challenging...
For what it's worth, some background: I'm not
convinced we're not in, well it's more like hydrocarbon depleted sh*t really... I still expect tough times ahead, but the probabilities to me seem to be leaning towards a situation that's ultimatly resolvable. My personal doomerosity probability curve is shifting to the left over time.
I also expect us to develop either hyper-efficient solar conversion or fusion within about 40 years, otherwise things start to look a bit bleak after that. Additionally, wildcard factors like birdflu taking out a 3rd of the population could yet override all and any rational predictions - whatever they predict. Finally, I suspect we might be irrovicably in atmospheric carbon sh*t, and if so, it's all a bit academic really, in the long term.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '
')Catching that tiny amount we need to support our exhorbitant lifestyles is purely an engineering [snip] problem, not a physics problem. Natural laws don't come into it (other than some rather tricky materials supply issues).
[snip]
All the alternatives have energy returns well below that of oil.[/quote]
Assume you mean limited to conventional oil? It's worth remembering that the net EROEI for conventional oil depends on how much effort went into finding it - ie: newer oil discoveries have typically much lower EROEI than older ones (all those years spent drilling dry wells)
And don't forget that governments subsidise oil exploration as well as development of alternatives. I wanted to go back to
Here to look at some Energy Payback Ratio figures, but it's down. Do you have any good sources for info (EPR or EROEI or whatever) making the appropriate comparisons?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f that were not true, we'd be using them already (big oil might not want YOU to produce alternatives but they'll damn well do it themselves if there's profit in it!).
With the exception of the word 'well' in your line above, I effectivly agree. Even if the alternatives had returns 'mildly' below oil, oil would still be hugely dominant.
There is also of course an inertia or legacy effect - even as the returns from new oil go down, the very nature of society, industry, infrastructure, etc will ensure that we don't switch sources the moment the return figures switch positions on the ladder.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is simply the result of the laws of physics (like the amount of heat needed to get metals out of rock) which won't be changed by more efficient engineering.
Accepted.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hus alternatives have less "advantage", to use the terminology of the lever principle. The only solution is obviously to use a larger scale. To get the energy needed for our 'exorbitant lifestyles', more effort and materials are needed to produce the same output.
Than oil from oilfields found years ago - absolutly. The nature of calculating the energy return from oil is such that we correctly, routinely discount all the energy spent over millions of years creating it - which is correct, but goes a long way towards showing why oil is such a 'good' source of energy.
But then this is the very essence of the peak-oil issue.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f WE expend that energy, our standard of living is down by definition
Yup - this is why I'm not short-term optimistic. You can probably map us expending that energy to sustained three digit figures for barrels of oil. But this is where we need some good energy return figures to quote and debate. Wind for example is today not *that* far off oil, and it's getting better (quickly), while oil is getting worse (slowly).
The energy return from alternatives should be able to achieve parity with oil in time - again, we need some figures for today to see how big the gap is. To make my prediction of energy costing less per unit in 20 years come true, the energy return from alternatives has to exceed today's averaged return from oil.
There is a separate issue around what oil price the US economy can sustain, or if the US economy can be sustained at any price for oil... This is the main thing that swings me between doomerosity 2 and 3 - I'm no economist - and even if I was, this is something that economists seem to disagree on.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')and we just don't have enough of some of the materials) Main one here for me is the materials to make the superconductiong magnets for fusion power [credit to MicroHydro for introducing me to that one]. That said, we don't use alot of these materials currently, so perhaps when we need more we'll find more - but then again, perhaps not... Please let me know of other materials constraints so I can go read.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')herefore we need to derive our standard of living from the efforts and resources of the poor of the third world! That is, we need them to be more diligent.
This seems to be a bit of a jump? Perhaps the standard of living will actually just drop for a while? Although, of course, the entire western world and lifestyle is built upon historic exploitation of the thrid world.
Anyway, time for bed...
Thanks for letting me rant repeatidly - keep it up!! 
--J
EDIT: what a ramble was that - should edit for concisness - too late now! One final point when comparing energy returns - it's important to compare net at point of use - so wheras a barrel of gasolene might hold a lot of energy, burning it in a car realises (I think) something lik 18-30% of that energy - not sure how much was lost refining from crude to gas. With Wind->Hydrogen->Electric motive power, the losses are a LOT less, making the energy return figures a lot better...
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)
Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
-
Jaymax
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: England
-
by LadyRuby » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 23:12:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'W')hat I will say, is when I did some independant research, looking to argue with optimists, I discovered that I was wrong, and that the recieved wisdom I'd been getting at peakoil.com was unbalanced towards a doomer perspective.
I agree. People, think for yourselves. Peak oil is a real issue, and will present real problems that will be very challenging, but it is not the end of the world, total collapse of society, etc. It may bring about major changes, but heading for the hills with a pick-up truck full of semi-automatics and five years worth of water and wheat berries isn't required.
-
LadyRuby
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Western US
-
by Macsporan » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 23:23:16
Well done.
These sober but sunny insights are what we need. All is not lost.
Keep up the good work.
Son of the Enlightenment
-
Macsporan
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu 09 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Australia
-
by Raxozanne » Mon 05 Sep 2005, 03:13:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '
')Just in the interests of one or other of us being able to go "told-you-so"
20 years post-peak (and I soooo hope peakoil.com is still to be found, but I'm not optimistic) (I also soooo hope I'm around - and you lot for that matter - I'm more optimistic on that front)
I use the ASPO decline curve predictions in my math - so I expect those alternatives (such as are available and deployed by then) to replace in excess of 27 million bbl/d, being the amount of decline by then.
This is another classic around here - whenever alternatives are mentioned, it's suggested we need to construct enough to offset the entire global oil consumption - which might be eventually true, but suggests a future prediction scenario that doesn't consider the timeline and what happens to get us from 'now' to 'then'.
Of course, if there is a global recession, it'll be less than 27mb/d
And cheaper prices, inflation adjusted, relative to the price pre-Katrina, not the price a year ago...
--J
So you don't take into account any future demand growth in energy consumption? I am of the opinion that even with a global recession the future growth in demand would push prices up past the price today. Do you see the economy standing in a recession for a few decades whilst alternatives are geared up replacing current demand but not actually going past that?
I of of the view that alternatives will soften the fall but won't be able to mitigate economic collapse and won't ever be able to ultimately replace oil and the keep the way of life as we know it going on.
Last edited by
Raxozanne on Mon 05 Sep 2005, 03:34:05, edited 1 time in total.
-
Raxozanne
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
-
by bbadwolf » Mon 05 Sep 2005, 04:00:57
We don't seem to be as far apart as I thought, mostly ideologically actually. You seem to be quite optimistic about fusion. I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about it. Neither of us has a good argument here. My lack of faith is rooted in the current estimates of "decades" before it becomes useful, even by the scientists doing the work. Specifically, I have a hard time seeing how we are going to keep up investment during the energy shortage that makes it so necessary to begin with!
Similar for the "hyper-efficient solar conversion". I have to point out that the engineers don't have anything concrete here, though I will confess that you are at least not breaking the laws of nature. Again, neither of us has a good argument.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '
')newer oil discoveries have typically much lower EROEI than older ones
Exactly, and that's why the stuff is now costing more. Of course you could argue that the other way round...that we didn't start producing the lesser grade stuff 'til the price got high. Only semantics, that.
But note that the lower EROEI is largely due to much more difficult extraction and refining. Have to thin out the crap with with natural gas or something and suck out the sulfur. These are big hits on the energy profit. It's much more than dry holes.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'D')o you have any good sources for info (EPR or EROEI
No, in fact I bookmarked your reference, I'll check when it's back up. But I remember having seen quite a few separate references that have kind of formed an aggregate in my mind.
There are reports of ratios below the break even for alcohol (ie Pimental et al, others) but they are still quite political. But to be sure, the return is not real good even if better than 1. The same is true for most alternatives and also for the tar sands in Alberta. I have lived in Alberta. That stuff is NOT oil. And although there is a $ profit so far, the EROEI may well be <1 and therefore not truly worth doing. The only reason that deplorable garbage is useable at all is your 'legacy effect', the fact that we don't need much new infrastructure for it's use.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '
')Please let me know of other materials constraints
I don't have specific links at hand but you can google it. I've read that there is specialised chemistry used in making photo-voltaics that would become problematic in the large scale. Don't remember the specific details.
For the tar sands mentioned above, we are fast running out of nat gas and water and diluent (the first two being necessarily local). We need our land (and water) for farming food, not biomass crops (at least not enough to reach 'exorbitant'). And fertilizer will become more scarce too.
I believe you're correct with respect to wind being near to recent oil discoveries. I point out that only the "legacy effect" makes the oil do-able if just barely, and adding to our now endemic economic hurt. The inertia makes the conversion to wind difficult.
Alternatives can all pitch in and help make up for declines to an extent. But scarcity of land, water and assorted 'stuff' prevents us from scaling these things up enough to overcome their lack of "mechanical advantage" in the best of times. A recession will worsen things immensely due to an inability to invest. I have noted that you base your argument not on the replacement of oil but on covering declines..a different posting. This may be possible in theory, I can't see how we'll manage it while under economic pressure though. And if Simmons is correct about the imminence of rapid Saudi decline, there will be no way to invest/build quickly enough to cover declines while in the midst of severe economic recession.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'A')lthough, of course, the entire western world and lifestyle is built upon historic exploitation of the thrid world.
Of course. I was being (not entirely) facetious in my suggestion that we might have them go to greater efforts to oblige us.
Atmospheric carbon...yes...could be a problem indeed. In fact, if we continue the just started policy of lowering our environmental standards to try to account for for fuel shortages, we could have difficulties with rather more than carbon, I suspect. Our American neighbors truly do need to lynch their neo-cons.
And then there's the economy. How do we invest in an economic depression. Instead of developing new energy systems, we'll be sticking salient body parts into holes in the dam! Just can't seem to work up a good warm and fuzzy feeling about that either. Although, like you, I am not an economist.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'W')ith the exception of the word 'well' in your line above, I effectivly agree. Even if the alternatives had returns 'mildly' below oil, oil would still be hugely dominant.
For future reference, when a Canadian says "they will damn well do something", you may translate that as "they will most certainly..." I did not mean to imply the majors would do anything properly!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'i')t's important to compare net at point of use
You are correct that the internal combustion engine uses energy much less efficiently than the electric motor. Unfortunately the use of combustion to generate electricity is little if any better so by the time power reaches the wheels, not a lot of difference I'm afraid. Not unless we move massively towards renewables, which I have argued is difficult.
I'm not a complete pessimist. I truly think this is all necessary and for the best in the long run. But I fear it may kill me in a gruesome and perhaps drawn out fashion. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing the bright side of that!
I hope you had a good night's rest.
-bbad
-
bbadwolf
- Peat
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
-
by Antimatter » Mon 05 Sep 2005, 04:53:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xactly, and that's why the stuff is now costing more. Of course you could argue that the other way round...that we didn't start producing the lesser grade stuff 'til the price got high. Only semantics, that.
The high price of oil is a function of high demand growth and supply constraints rather than higher cost of production, as almost all oil production has lifting costs of under $20/bbl. North Sea is apparently around $10/bbl, and small fields were being produced especially in the US even when oil was under $20/bbl.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') believe you're correct with respect to wind being near to recent oil discoveries. I point out that only the "legacy effect" makes the oil do-able if just barely, and adding to our now endemic economic hurt. The inertia makes the conversion to wind difficult.
Vesta reckons their wind turbines have an EROEI of around 30 based on a life cycle analysis, if you believe them. It may be only half that. In any case, I would argue that EROEI is of marginal relevance in this case, as net energy does not increase linearly with the EROEI value, rather it moves towards an asymptote. The difference between an EROEI of 30 and of 15 in terms of net energy produced is marginal, and other factors such as labor intensity will easily swamp that difference in determining the cost. A source with an EROEI of 20 will give you 95 joules net out of 100 joules gross, whereas one with an EROEI of 100 will give 99 net out of 100. Once you get above an EROEI of about 10 the difference becomes quite small. Corn ethanol with an EROEI of ~1 is useless.
-
Antimatter
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Australia
-
Return to Energy Technology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")