Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 00:32:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')There is a projected shortfall of uranium as well causing the price to rise to $75.00/lb.


Checked the price today. Make that $85.00/lb. Up $10.00/lb.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby jbeckton » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 09:13:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')
Besides, have you any idea what fuel costs are for a nuclear power plant?


Mimimal. Not my point. Availability was. The price spike reflects that availability.


That was addressed as well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou will see 3 retired units at almost all of them just sitting there becasue its not cost effective to remove them. There IS enough raw material in old FF plants across the country to build hundreds of nuclear plants I assure you.


Bailing wire and used parts to build nukes? No investor would touch it.


?????????? How about a 8-10 story boiler filled with thousands of water pipes, condensers, fans, pumps, wires, turbines, miles of ducts and 24"-36" pipes.......on each unit.

No investor would touch it if there was a shortage and they cannot meet demmand ?????

This is the problem that I have repeadly expressed with your argument. You always base your argument as if the future problems don't exist (i.e. FF and material shortages), but counter mine as if they do ( FF and raw materials running out).....what gives?

What investor is not going to use steel from an old power plant once its recycling and refab costs are passed by raw material prices? Oh yeah, there is that whole the companies that want the material, the power companies, already own it! I hope that you don't think that old steel isn't as good as "new" steel right? Its the exact same thing. Its just melted down and refabed.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby jbeckton » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 09:59:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')There is a projected shortfall of uranium as well causing the price to rise to $75.00/lb.


Checked the price today. Make that $85.00/lb. Up $10.00/lb.


Thats because many are now seeing a nuclear power "explosion" on the horizion. With the world seeing a hike in their energy bills, public opinion is rapidly changing.

After the 2 acccidents the production of nuclear fuel declined. As the pricepicks up, so will production now that it has become profitable again.

So what you say is a sign of a shortage, I ask why is there a shortage in the first place?

Becuase many reactors will be built over the next 2 decades and investors know it.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby ClubOfRomeII » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 10:50:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'D')on't worry, the effects of peak oil will be showing up soon enough. It's been 18 months. Just about right on schedule. Don't count Hubbert out yet.


I don't count out Hubberts idea, I'm just cheesed off that ever since Peak hit I've had to keep switching out my gasoline horde, and it keeps getting cheaper to do so. So whats the point of hording if every time I rotate the supply it costs less?!
1874, State Geologist of Pennsylvania
"Only enough US oil to keep kerosene lamps burning for 4 more years"

Boy, I bet great-great grandpa was worried!
User avatar
ClubOfRomeII
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby ClubOfRomeII » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 10:56:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Trust me, we will notice when it comes.

To call a post-peak oil world prematurely and claim no effects is a strawman.


Well I'm still trustin ya Monte, and I'm not doing anything with strawmen, I am simply demanding the doom which I have been told should BE here already.

I mean holy cow! Ruppert documents the US government taking down the towers YEARS prior to Peak to keep everyone from noticing or asking questions during the reserve takeovers in the Middle East and now we OWN Iraq and people are saying "just give it a few years, don't worry, we'll get to Doom sooner or later". I want my Doom already!
1874, State Geologist of Pennsylvania
"Only enough US oil to keep kerosene lamps burning for 4 more years"

Boy, I bet great-great grandpa was worried!
User avatar
ClubOfRomeII
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 10:59:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')
?????????? How about a 8-10 story boiler filled with thousands of water pipes, condensers, fans, pumps, wires, turbines, miles of ducts and 24"-36" pipes.......on each unit.

No investor would touch it if there was a shortage and they cannot meet demmand ?????


Investors are looking for an assured return on their money. Find me an investor who is willing to risk his money just so a product can be produced with no guarantee or return. If we wait until the SHTF, their will be no money for investment of anything kind in anything.

We may find such an economic downturn that we won't need new capacity. The standard of living will just fall. Wages will be cut to survive and keep people employed...just like Ford is getting ready to do by asking UAW to take a 20% cut in pay. The airlines have already done this by cutting wages and pensions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the problem that I have repeatedly expressed with your argument. You always base your argument as if the future problems don't exist (i.e. FF and material shortages), but counter mine as if they do ( FF and raw materials running out).....what gives?


Because that is the "plan" by those in charge of making these decisions. It has nothing to do with "my' arguments. That is economic reality. We are not planing to do anything like you envision, not now, and not in the foreseeable future.

If you think we can just wait until TSHTF, you are dreaming.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat investor is not going to use steel from an old power plant once its recycling and refab costs are passed by raw material prices? Oh yeah, there is that whole the companies that want the material, the power companies, already own it! I hope that you don't think that old steel isn't as good as "new" steel right? Its the exact same thing. Its just melted down and refabed.


Strawman argument. We use recycled steel for everything everyday. You seemed to be saying we could use the "old parts" on new reactors. That is the impression you gave. If I mis interpreted it to mean we could recycled the parts, the same argument holds...takes energy....energy we won't have...energy that is in decline. Not enough to go around.

Who and what does without while we use that energy to take 6 years minimum, not 3 years, to permit and build a nuke plant?

That is why we must do these type of things 20 years before the peak just avoid a really bad economic correction.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 11:10:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')So what you say is a sign of a shortage, I ask why is there a shortage in the first place? Becuase many reactors will be built over the next 2 decades and investors know it.


A few new reactors are going to be built, not many. There are no plans for many.

There is a shortage because supply cannot meet existing demand between now and 2015, not the next two decades. 50% of our uranium comes from depleting stockplies and deconed Russian warheads. Mine production makes up the rest.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 11:14:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')After the 2 acccidents the production of nuclear fuel declined. As the pricepicks up, so will production now that it has become profitable again.


You can't have it both ways.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'B')esides, have you any idea what fuel costs are for a nuclear power plant?

The fuel cost for a nuclear plant is nowhere near as important as it is for a FF plant. Most all of the money is spent on regulations.


Fuel costs are minimal considerations for whether or not to build a nuke plant. This is not what drives investors in nuclear power.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 11:16:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', 'W')ell I'm still trustin ya Monte, and I'm not doing anything with strawmen, I am simply demanding the doom which I have been told should BE here already.


I suggest you wait until the markets say we have peaked. Or OPEC, in mass, says they cannot increase production.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby jbeckton » Thu 22 Feb 2007, 12:34:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Fuel costs are minimal considerations for whether or not to build a nuke plant. This is not what drives investors in nuclear power.


Nope, but its what drives the uranium market.

If uranium prices fall its not a big deal to the power company, but its huge to the investors.

You can't lump their fates togather.

Do you deny that FF prices (and forecasts) drive nuclear investors?

The whole equation will not change until the force that drives the whole industry changes............................coal.

So how long do you suppose it will be inbetween noticeable effects of peak, and economic collapse?
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby Revi » Fri 23 Feb 2007, 00:15:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClubOfRomeII', 'I') mean holy cow! Ruppert documents the US government taking down the towers YEARS prior to Peak to keep everyone from noticing or asking questions during the reserve takeovers in the Middle East and now we OWN Iraq and people are saying "just give it a few years, don't worry, we'll get to Doom sooner or later". I want my Doom already!



Careful what you wish for. Doom could be just around the corner. The economy isn't as rosy as they depict it. I have been talking to real estate people, car dealers and furniture salesmen. Nobody's buying any of it. The housing market took everything else with it. As energy prices creep up they are eating people's income. There's no extra money for that trip, or even to eat out. It may not be eat your shoes doom that's coming right away, but it won't be pretty. Some say it's coming around April. We'll see...
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 23 Feb 2007, 00:42:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')So how long do you suppose it will be inbetween noticeable effects of peak, and economic collapse?


Depends upon the rate and magnitude. For my take, read:

Post Peak Oil: The Slow Decline? in PO discussion.

To elaborate a bit and clarify my position with regard to nuclear power and it's potential, let's look at some criteria:

First, nuclear power will generate electricty not liquid fuel, which is going to be the crux of the matter.

One can say, ok, we will switch to electric cars.

Easier said than done. Scalability. Cost.

We will make hydrogen and burn in the ICE's.

Easier said than done. Scalability. Cost. No transport infrastructure. Energy "carrier" not a source of energy. New energy consumer.

Not to mention, lack of grid transmission capacity with economies of scale in that over.

Second, waste disposal issues. Some states have moratoriums on new plants until the waste issue is resolved. Even if Yucca Mt is finalized as the "place" there isn't enough capacity there to handle the waste from the existing 104 plants, much less any new ones.

Third, limited sites to construct new plants. And as long as we have access to the courts, there will be opposition to new nuclear plants, which will cause permitting and construction delays, pushing the 6 year permit/build time to who knows how many years.

Fourth, access to fuel. Many claim we can extract it from seawater. We can extract gold form seawater, but we don't. Not economicaly feasible. No large scale facility has yet been built to prove the viability of this process. The World Nuclear Association says future nuclear development is predicated upon breeder reactors, period.

Fifth, high capital costs. If we hit an economic freight train, cost considerations will be paramount. We will choose to go the route of the cheapest, fastest way to get more liquid fuels: drilling off-shore, ANWR, CTL., GTL, EOR, tar sands and oil shale...before we ever go near nuclear power in a BIG WAY.

Sixth, and most likely the biggest one: no long-term proven track record for the new advanced reactor technology. This is key for investors. Wall Street will not fund unproven nuclear technology. They are watching closely the new plants that have been funded.

For example, had we switched our transportation system decades ago to electric cars, buses, trains, etc, ramped up our transmission capacity... and we had been using oil as a fuel to generate that electricity, then a massive switch to nuclear might be in the cards 20 years before we peaked in oil.

But oil only is used in 1% of electrical generation, but 70% of oil use is for transportation; private autos, commercial and freight trucks, and aircraft. and we don't have but a few electric cars, buses or trains and a poor grid system to transmit what we now produce.

Image

We cannot scale a nuclear power system to offset oil decline and fuel these existing systems, period.

While we need more electrical capacity, we need more liquid fuel first and foremost. And as long as coal is cheaper than nuclear...coal it is.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 24 Feb 2007, 03:21:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')So what you say is a sign of a shortage, I ask why is there a shortage in the first place? Becuase many reactors will be built over the next 2 decades and investors know it.


A few new reactors are going to be built, not many. There are no plans for many.

There is a shortage because supply cannot meet existing demand between now and 2015, not the next two decades. 50% of our uranium comes from depleting stockplies and deconed Russian warheads. Mine production makes up the rest.


To back up my contention with the facts:

Record Increase in Uranium Price

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his US$85 spot price marks a new record for uranium confirming research analysts' predictions that mine production continues to fall short of demand, and that inventories being sold into the market reflect the supply-demand deficit.

Today's increase in the spot price is a reflection of the uranium shortfall and provides investors with added confidence in the uranium sector," says Mr. Gomez.


Link
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 24 Feb 2007, 21:09:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'F')irst, nuclear power will generate electricty not liquid fuel, which is going to be the crux of the matter.

One can say, ok, we will switch to electric cars.

Easier said than done. Scalability. Cost.

Not to mention, lack of grid transmission capacity with economies of scale in that over.


Today, I received a letter from APS (Arizona Public Service) my utility company. An excerpt:

"Arizona faces significant challenges from our rapidly growing population. To meet the challenge, we have added nearly 7,000 miles of distribution lines in Arizona -- enough to travel from Phoenix to San Francisco 10 times. By 2015, APS will serve 40% more customers than it does today. The bottom line is we need more infrastructure."

The Problem: Not Enough New Transmission Is Being Built

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he basic energy problem in the West is a fundamental imbalance between increasing growth in the demand for electricity, and limited investment in the transmission needed to support this growth. Electricity demand in the Desert Southwest has been growing at an annual average rate of 7.9 percent over the past 17 years. In California, the annual average increase in demand for electricity is 3.2 percent, while in the other sub-regions of
the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC),2 excluding California, demand has increased between 2.4 percent and 2.8 percent annually over the same period.

There has not been a commensurate increase in transmission infrastructure to support the growth in demand for electricity. Between 2000 and 2009 only 2,604 circuit miles are planned to be added to the WSCC transmission grid, an increase of only 2.3 percent over the entire period.3 In California only 145 circuit miles are planned to be built, or less than a one percent increase through 2009.

The lack of investment in upgrades and new transmission lines has exacerbated bottlenecks on key transmission lines. Figure 1 (see page 29) depicts the major transmission paths both into and within California that are often significantly congested (i.e., do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the power
that market participants would like to transfer over the system
).


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he West’s long transmission lines — and relatively limited number of alternative transmission paths that result from that configuration — put the region at particular risk for this kind of widespread, high-cost blackout. Given the expected high
utilization of the lines, any major transmission equipment failure could trigger another outage of the same or greater magnitude as was experienced in 1996. This potential for transmission outages in the West is a critical problem.

One way or another, political leaders, regulators, and the public need to recognize that the West’s unique transmission network is as much a part of assuring affordable and reliable electricity as are new power plants. Unless new investment flows into that network quickly, the West may get an unfortunate further dose of electricity
reality from an unexpected direction.


Olduvia Gorge anyone?

I don't see moving to electricity from any source, unless it is local and decentralized, as a viable option or solution to peak oil mitigation in the foreseeable future...unless we powerdown everything we do.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby Revi » Sun 25 Feb 2007, 21:56:54

Micro grids may be the only way to keep the lights on. People have called the grid the world's most complicated machine. Without lots of cheap energy it goes off instantly. Look at what happened in Queens, NY last summer. There were substations blowing up, and lines got so hot that fires started. Lots of people were out of power for weeks. Not fun at 100 degrees.

I don't know what the plan is for the electric grid. It could play out like Duncan's olduvai gorge hypothesis. Lights start to fail around 2010, and go out for good soon after.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby jbeckton » Mon 26 Feb 2007, 09:01:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'F')irst, nuclear power will generate electricty not liquid fuel, which is going to be the crux of the matter.

One can say, ok, we will switch to electric cars.

Easier said than done. Scalability. Cost.

Not to mention, lack of grid transmission capacity with economies of scale in that over.


Today, I received a letter from APS (Arizona Public Service) my utility company. An excerpt:

"Arizona faces significant challenges from our rapidly growing population. To meet the challenge, we have added nearly 7,000 miles of distribution lines in Arizona -- enough to travel from Phoenix to San Francisco 10 times. By 2015, APS will serve 40% more customers than it does today. The bottom line is we need more infrastructure."

The Problem: Not Enough New Transmission Is Being Built

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he basic energy problem in the West is a fundamental imbalance between increasing growth in the demand for electricity, and limited investment in the transmission needed to support this growth. Electricity demand in the Desert Southwest has been growing at an annual average rate of 7.9 percent over the past 17 years. In California, the annual average increase in demand for electricity is 3.2 percent, while in the other sub-regions of
the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC),2 excluding California, demand has increased between 2.4 percent and 2.8 percent annually over the same period.

There has not been a commensurate increase in transmission infrastructure to support the growth in demand for electricity. Between 2000 and 2009 only 2,604 circuit miles are planned to be added to the WSCC transmission grid, an increase of only 2.3 percent over the entire period.3 In California only 145 circuit miles are planned to be built, or less than a one percent increase through 2009.

The lack of investment in upgrades and new transmission lines has exacerbated bottlenecks on key transmission lines. Figure 1 (see page 29) depicts the major transmission paths both into and within California that are often significantly congested (i.e., do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the power
that market participants would like to transfer over the system
).


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he West’s long transmission lines — and relatively limited number of alternative transmission paths that result from that configuration — put the region at particular risk for this kind of widespread, high-cost blackout. Given the expected high
utilization of the lines, any major transmission equipment failure could trigger another outage of the same or greater magnitude as was experienced in 1996. This potential for transmission outages in the West is a critical problem.

One way or another, political leaders, regulators, and the public need to recognize that the West’s unique transmission network is as much a part of assuring affordable and reliable electricity as are new power plants. Unless new investment flows into that network quickly, the West may get an unfortunate further dose of electricity
reality from an unexpected direction.


Olduvia Gorge anyone?

I don't see moving to electricity from any source, unless it is local and decentralized, as a viable option or solution to peak oil mitigation in the foreseeable future...unless we powerdown everything we do.


Arizona is growing much faster than most of the US, and its not population growth, its relocation growth.

You have already hinted at the solution, where else would it be better suited to cut its teeth than in sunny arizona?

I hope your shortage comes as fast as possible, I hope your rates get outrageous, and I hope that the people demand a solution that cannot involve increacing the infastructure because of shortages; and solar power is put into action out of necessity instead of out of preferibility.

Its only then, when there is no cheaper fiesable competition, that it will begin to thrive.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Mon 26 Feb 2007, 10:47:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')
You have already hinted at the solution, where else would it be better suited to cut its teeth than in sunny arizona?

I hope your shortage comes as fast as possible, I hope your rates get outrageous, and I hope that the people demand a solution that cannot involve increacing the infastructure because of shortages; and solar power is put into action out of necessity instead of out of preferibility.

Its only then, when there is no cheaper fiesable competition, that it will begin to thrive.


We already have a law that demands 15% of our power to come from renewables in the future. Solar cannot scale to meet this demand; it is not a solution.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'T')he diffuse nature of incoming solar radiation requires a significant investment of energy and materials to capture, collect, and concentrate sunlight. This means that many solar technologies deliver a lower energy surplus than fossil fuels. Equally important, the huge infrastructure required to collect solar energy is made from fossil fuels. Solar technologies, therefore, currently are “parasites” on fossil fuel systems because they cannot “reproduce” themselves.

So, to make the transition to renewable energies, we must “powerdown” our civilization and learn to live in a world of modest, bio-regionally organized communities living on received solar energy. For the next half-century there will be just enough energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime. Technological change is shaped in part by the physical attributes of the energies available from the environment, so a world based upon renewable solar technologies is going to be different than the one we now live in.
And notice my caveat......unless we powerdown everything we do.

And the transmission infrastructure problem is nation-wide, not just in Arizona or 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."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby jbeckton » Mon 26 Feb 2007, 10:52:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')
You have already hinted at the solution, where else would it be better suited to cut its teeth than in sunny arizona?

I hope your shortage comes as fast as possible, I hope your rates get outrageous, and I hope that the people demand a solution that cannot involve increacing the infastructure because of shortages; and solar power is put into action out of necessity instead of out of preferibility.

Its only then, when there is no cheaper fiesable competition, that it will begin to thrive.


We already have a law that demands 15% of our power to come from renewables in the future. Solar cannot scale to meet this demand; it is not a solution.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'T')he diffuse nature of incoming solar radiation requires a significant investment of energy and materials to capture, collect, and concentrate sunlight. This means that many solar technologies deliver a lower energy surplus than fossil fuels. Equally important, the huge infrastructure required to collect solar energy is made from fossil fuels. Solar technologies, therefore, currently are “parasites” on fossil fuel systems because they cannot “reproduce” themselves.

So, to make the transition to renewable energies, we must “powerdown” our civilization and learn to live in a world of modest, bio-regionally organized communities living on received solar energy. For the next half-century there will be just enough energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime. Technological change is shaped in part by the physical attributes of the energies available from the environment, so a world based upon renewable solar technologies is going to be different than the one we now live in.
And notice my caveat......unless we powerdown everything we do.


Opinions.......

Not facts.

The first steam engine or electric motor could not produce the power to reproduce itself, it now easily can. Solar will as well with time.

I hope these boards are still around in 5-10 years.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby MonteQuest » Mon 26 Feb 2007, 11:05:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'O')pinions.......

Not facts.

The first steam engine or electric motor could not produce the power to reproduce itself, it now easily can. Solar will as well with time.


Hand-waving dismissal. You want the facts, read a few of the threads on solar scalability, EROEI, energy density, etc.

As to your last...I said as much.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')olar technologies, therefore, currently are “parasites” on fossil fuel systems because they cannot “reproduce” themselves.


Time is what we do not have on our side.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Hubbert was wrong? Big deal!

Postby Ludi » Mon 26 Feb 2007, 20:52:06

jbeckton, are you saying solar will account for over 2 - 5% of the total production of energy in 5 years, or, what exactly are you saying? What exact claim are you making for solar?
Ludi
 

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron