[MonteQuest]

As we enter the End of the Age of Oil, a transition to other forms of energy will be required. I think everyone can agree that in the long run they should all be sustainable energies based upon the received solar flux in the form of solar, wind, or other solar driven sources.

Energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels are fast expanding their reach in the market. Can they grow fast enough, given their current miniscule contribution, to fill the gap of oil decline? Over the past 10 years, the installed capacity of solar energy has increased by 700%, while wind energy capacity has expanded more than thirteen-fold. That translates to 10-year annual growth rates of nearly 22% and 30%, respectively, which far exceed the single digit growth rates of many current energy economies.

According to a study done by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, the fastest growing energy technology has been grid-connected solar PV, with total existing capacity increasing from 0.16 gigawatts (GW) at the start of 2000 to 1.8 GW by the end of 2004; a 60 percent average annual growth rate during the five-year period.

During the same period, they cite other renewable energy technologies grew rapidly as well:
• wind power: 28 percent
• biodiesel: 25 percent
• solar hot water/heating: 17 percent
• off-grid solar PV: 17 percent
• geothermal heat capacity: 13 percent
• ethanol: 11 percent

Renewables 2005:Global Status Report
However, even with these massive growth rates, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geo thermal and biofuels contribute just 2% of our primary energy with wind/solar less than 1%. An almost inconsequential contribution, given the twilight of the oil age on the near horizon.





Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.

2005 Financial and Operating Review

The EIA projects the renewable share of world installed electrical capacity falls from 23 percent in 2003 to 22 percent in 2030.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html

The IEA states that in 2001, wind (onshore and offshore), solar and tidal energy represented only 0.5% of the renewable supply, which is equivalent to less than 0.1% of world’s primary energy.

The World Offshore Renewable Energy Report 2004-2008


U.S. Energy Consumption by Fuel (1980-2030)

Not only must renewable substitutes be created at a rate equal to the rate of depletion of nonrenewable resources, they must overtake them to allow for growth, and, they must rapidly scale up to reduce global greenhouse gases. Projects based on exploitation of nonrenewable resources should be paired with projects that develop renewable substitutes.

It may very well be that the global energy choices in the future will be driven more by environmental constraints than a deficiency of supply sources. A large amount of fossil fuels may just remain where they are because the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere and biosphere may be exceeded long before the fossil resource limits are exhausted. Few seem to grasp this possibility. I have studied it for years.

While there is an urgent need to develop alternative means of energy production and consumption in order to mitigate the impending effects of climate change, I believe that a large time scale (up to several decades) will be required until these alternatives can have a significant impact on the existing energy system. Especially in light of the fact that renewables are not considered a viable option in the Hirsch Report which focuses on mitigation wedges of EOR (enhanced oil recovery) coal to liquids, gas to liquids, heavy oil, and efficiency increases. They believe we need to develop more unconventional fossil fuels 10 to 20 years pre-peak to mitigate the decline of conventional oil. If these sources become untenable due to climatic conditions, we will have to rely on a transition to C02 free renewable sources of energy.

How long will it take to ramp up renewables to the point where they can provide a significant amount of our primary energy?

Remember, we are starting at an overall number of 2%, with wind and solar less than 1%.

How long can we wait to start a Manhattan Project for renewable energy?

Depends upon the date of peak and the decline rate, doesn’t it?

What if we are already here?

Let this be a discussion of the ramifications of developing renewables to replace the possible decline rates in hydrocarbons and renewables possible and realistic growth rates. This can also include nuclear. Remember liquid fuels are of primary importance.

The debate over various energies viability and development is for the Energy Technology forum.

Can we fill the gap of oil decline with renewables in time?

Is it too late?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')an we fill the gap of oil decline with renewables in time?

[MonteQuest]

A dandy little 12 minute video on Peak oil and if we can transition quick enough.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat would happen if the world were to start running out of oil? Conventional wisdom says we’ve got 30 years, but there’s a growing fear amongst petroleum experts it’s happening much sooner than we thought – that we are hitting the beginning of the end of oil now. So how soon will the oil run out, and can we stop our economy collapsing when it does? How prepared are we for the real oil crisis?

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Can we fill the gap of oil decline with renewables in time?

Is it too late?

[Graeme]

Monte, A very nice, well researched and written intro. If you look at the 12-minute video and accept the ABC conclusion that a "crisis" is just 3 years away, and compare that with your assessment that it will take decades to develop renewables, then doomers win. It's too late.

However, IMHO I still wonder when peak oil will occur (will it signaled by >$100 oil prices?), and whether renewables and other measures can be ramped up very rapidly (say within 1 year in a Manhattan-type project) in response to this when world governments and businesses finally realise that we're in trouble and make further changes to their policies.

[MC2]

Too late.

Different scales - oil can't be replaced by anything in the current system. We need a "new model." One that has far fewer people...

That said, agree we need more alternative energy. One key will be decentralizing energy production. When every house can generate most of its own electricity needs, we'll have accomplished a big part of the mission.

[captain_planet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ow long will it take to ramp up renewables to the point where they can provide a significant amount of our primary energy?

[Ludi]

No, if you look at total percentages, it's clear renewables won't make up the difference, they are growing too slowly too late.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but so far, we're just not seeing rapid enough growth. If renewables suddenly leap ahead to make up 25% or more of our energy needs in the next five years, then I'll believe it's possible. Otherwise, just hopeful thinking.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')
That translates to 10-year annual growth rates of nearly 22% and 30%, respectively, which far exceed the single digit growth rates of many current energy economies.


However, even with these massive growth rates, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geo thermal and biofuels contribute just 2% of our primary energy with wind/solar less than 1%.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Energy Spin,

You had given some interesting projections, suggesting that renewables may replace FF within quite short period of time.

However I have some problem with accepting say 60% growth p.a. over next ten years.
As we all know preformance of the past is not neceserely a guideline to performance of the future.

Lets look for example on solar.
PV as we know are working well in California, Texas, Florida etc.
I cannot see a way how they could perform so well in northern states (or Canada) for example.
OK, you can still get warm water using solar there, but PV generated electricity is rather not economical on this lattitudes.
Needless to say you will not get any electricity of them overnight.

Now wind.
Great for certain areas where suitable wether conditions persist.
You cannot put them to work everywhere.
Complementary to solar (work overnight).

Wave/Tidal.
Coastal areas only. Lack of properly developed technology.

Biofuels.
Problematic.

Taking into account restrictions placed above (and many other) it is very likely, that gap to be filled by renevables will soon be closed and demand will no longer grow strongly.
New technogies will be applied where possible (Californian roofs, windy coastal areas etc) and other unlucky regions will still be short of power.
You may see 60% usage growth for say 2-3 years more with following drop in growth level in future years.
You may get average growth of say 10-15% annually in coming 10 years and even smaller in future decades.
Lack of availability of cheap FF may also significantly increase production expenses of renevable system and slow down their "uptaking" even further.

I believe, that renevables will play significant role in the future, but it is likely that your view is overoptimistic.

[Pops]

I’ll make another of my infallible predictions :

In 30 years, nukes and renewables will provide the majority of our primary energy.


Of course our total supply may only be 25% of that available today…

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I')’ll make another of my infallible predictions :

In 30 years, nukes and renewables will provide the majority of our primary energy.


Of course our total supply may only be 25% of that available today…

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'E')nergy Spin,

You had given some interesting projections, suggesting that renewables may replace FF within quite short period of time.

[Graeme]

Here's some news about President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative:

Secretary Bodman Opens New Science and Technology Facility at NREL & Touts 121,000 Jobs Created Nationwide in June

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U').S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today cut the ribbon to officially open the DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Science & Technology Facility (S&TF), in Golden, Colorado. This 71,000-squarefoot, $22.6-million, state-of-the-art facility is designed to help accelerate the development and commercialization of promising new energy technologies, particularly in solar and hydrogen and building-related energy technologies.

The advanced research that will be conducted at S&FT will directly contribute to achieving the goals outlined in President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), which provides a 22-percent increase in clean energy research at DOE and seeks to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources by changing the way we power our cars, homes and businesses.

A major component of the facility is the 11,500-sq-ft Process Development and Integration Laboratory, which will allow NREL researchers, working in coordination with industry, to develop new manufacturing processes. This will allow industry representatives and researchers to work side-by-side to reduce the time it takes to move new technologies from the laboratory bench to commercial manufacturing.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')
Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'E')nergy Spin,

You had given some interesting projections, suggesting that renewables may replace FF within quite short period of time.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')V is a bad energy investment (for now).

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')V is a bad energy investment (for now).

[captain_planet]

The United States is the most inefficient user of electricity in the world. The United States provides 13.04 MWh per person, European Union provides 6.40 MWh per person, Japan provides 7.97 MWh per person. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html Nuclear power already provides 20% of our electricity which will doubled if we are able to conserve like the europeans and japanese.

[MonteQuest]

Here's where the EIA sees renewables going to 2020.

Right in line with Exxon's 1%