Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 03 May 2007, 23:32:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'E')lectricity aint the problem, remember?
We could build 635 GW of nuclear power just like that, but that won't help much.


Oil is used for many purposes now that will be done with electricity in the future.

Oil has been the fuel of choice because its been cheap and convenient. As oil gets more expensive and inconvenient, other energy sources will become economically competitive, and oil will progressively be replaced everywhere possible by wind, solar, bio, geothermal, nuclear power etc.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Thu 03 May 2007, 23:50:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'E')lectricity aint the problem, remember?
We could build 635 GW of nuclear power just like that, but that won't help much.


Oil is used for many purposes now that will be done with electricity in the future.

Oil has been the fuel of choice because its been cheap and convenient. As oil gets more expensive and inconvenient, other energy sources will become economically competitive, and oil will progressively be replaced everywhere possible by wind, solar, bio, geothermal, nuclear power etc.


The overwhelming majority of oil use is in the form of transportation. The rest is chemical.

Very little oil is used to produce electricity (at least not in most of the energy-consuming world).

"As oil gets more expensive and inconvenient, other energy sources will become economically competitive"

That sentence ignores logic.

Pepsi Cola got too expensive, now I can switch to Cristal Champagne. :roll:

Unfortunately, my tab at the cafe just went up dramatically. I won't be able to afford the extra side of fries with my sandwich or the ice cream sundae desert. I'll survive and still probably enjoy my lunch, but I'm not going to be able to buy all of the same food I used to be able to enjoy. Why? I'm spending more of my money on drinks.

Sure, the new source is economically competitive but if your entire civilization is based on converting one resource into EVERYTHING else...you can't just sub out the old resource for a new, more expensive one. At least not without losing some of your total output.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby joewp » Fri 04 May 2007, 01:18:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')Oil has been the fuel of choice because its been cheap and convenient. As oil gets more expensive and inconvenient, other energy sources will become economically competitive,


This completely ignores that all these "other energy sources" are more or less completely dependent on a cheap oil economy for them to be viable. How do you get the raw materials and workers to the solar panel factory without oil, how to do get the solar panels to the site without oil?

People just seem to assume a cheap oil infrastructure when they dream up these alternatives.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 04 May 2007, 06:23:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')Oil has been the fuel of choice because its been cheap and convenient. As oil gets more expensive and inconvenient, other energy sources will become economically competitive,


This completely ignores that all these "other energy sources" are more or less completely dependent on a cheap oil economy for them to be viable. How do you get the raw materials and workers to the solar panel factory without oil, how to do get the solar panels to the site without oil?

People just seem to assume a cheap oil infrastructure when they dream up these alternatives.


The oil supply ois going to contract, not dissapear overnight. With proper incentive the government can ensure that a new energy infrastructure, or rather most likely a set of infrastructures, will be built. It will be inconvenient, costly and a royal pain in the behind and we will probably still have a global major depression as it is built. That is, unless we collapse into barbarianism first, but I have never been a mad max kind of guy. TPTB don't mind of the useless eater starve to death, and they don't much care if half the worker class starves either, all they really care about is staying TPTB. Right now it is pollitically expedient to have this hugh federal and state social safety net in place to care for the lazy, sick and injured. When times get tough all that stuff goes right out the window.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby bshirt » Fri 04 May 2007, 08:29:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', '
')I'd suggest cutting money from somewhere else in the US budget, but frankly I'd sooner see the US embracing socialism than cut down on, say, military spending.


Oh yeah, socialism, that's just what we need. As if we're not heading for complete and total financial ruin fast enough. :-(

Otoh, it would even further greatly expedite the demise of the bloated federal govn. So there's an upside to anything, I suppose.
User avatar
bshirt
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat 23 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby joewp » Fri 04 May 2007, 12:28:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')The oil supply ois going to contract, not dissapear overnight. With proper incentive the government can ensure that a new energy infrastructure, or rather most likely a set of infrastructures, will be built. It will be inconvenient, costly and a royal pain in the behind and we will probably still have a global major depression as it is built. That is, unless we collapse into barbarianism first, but I have never been a mad max kind of guy. TPTB don't mind of the useless eater starve to death, and they don't much care if half the worker class starves either, all they really care about is staying TPTB. Right now it is pollitically expedient to have this hugh federal and state social safety net in place to care for the lazy, sick and injured. When times get tough all that stuff goes right out the window.


If this was 1977, I'd agree with you that there was a chance to replace a lot of our energy supply with those renewables and stretch out the oil to service those renewable installations without a good chance of collapse. It's 30 years and 2.5 billion people later, time has run out.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 04 May 2007, 19:24:04

635 GW is equivalent to 8.5 mb of oil a day. We now use 21 mb per day.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby ECM » Fri 04 May 2007, 21:51:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '6')35 GW is equivalent to 8.5 mb of oil a day. We now use 21 mb per day.


This would be accurate IF the average output was 635 GW. When dealing with wind and solar numbers it is often the installed capacity that is quoted which is vastly higher than actual average output.
User avatar
ECM
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby aahala » Mon 07 May 2007, 15:22:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '6')35 GW is equivalent to 8.5 mb of oil a day. We now use 21 mb per day.


When I saw your post Friday, I almost posted a flame. I KNEW
you were way off on your conversion, but decided to do the
conversion myself. Lordy, lordy, I got the same amount.

The reason I KNEW(!) the figures were wrong was that I
knew the btu inputs from oil and from the total US electric
grid were nearly the same and that the grid is presently
at about 462GWH, rather than 635.

My reason for posting is your first sentence is one of those
unusual things that is both true and misleading at the same
time. We are comparing lemons and lemonade--the btu input
from one(oil) and btu output of the other.

The btu conversion of fossil fuels into electricity is pretty low,
about 3 units to produce one unit. If we were just burning
oil to reproduce today's grid at present fossil to electricity
ratios, it would take roughly 21 mbd of oil.


I don't know the approximate conversion for a car and truck
oil fuel/btu to useful power but that needs to be considered for a
fair comparison.
User avatar
aahala
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby joe1347 » Mon 07 May 2007, 21:41:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cobra_Strike', 'O')nce again, its a real shame all that money was sunk into the pit that is Iraq. We could have had a bundle of clean power if the money was better spent.


Spot on.

420 billion at $1 million per megawatt of installed capacity for wind is 420 GW of "free" clean electricity.

The reason wind is only .6% of power is that it has to compete with coal and nuclear on price. If the oil subsidy gets switched to a wind subsidy, I dont see any reason why it cant scale up much more than it has.



Some of the more recent estimates put the total cost of the Iraq war (to the US economy) closer to $2 Trillion US Dollars. If we're in Iraq to secure access to 'cheap' oil, I suspect that $2 Trillion would have been enough to have made the USA energy independent.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
User avatar
joe1347
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby pea-jay » Tue 08 May 2007, 04:25:26

So, the next question is, will we abandon our middle eastern adventure and set out investing that money in loads of sustainable energy solutions? I dont expect W to lead the charge on this, but I still think the occupant at 1600 Pennslyvania ave January 2009 may choose differently.
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
User avatar
pea-jay
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: NorCal

Re: 635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

Unread postby Omnitir » Tue 08 May 2007, 05:45:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joe1347', '
')Some of the more recent estimates put the total cost of the Iraq war (to the US economy) closer to $2 Trillion US Dollars. If we're in Iraq to secure access to 'cheap' oil, I suspect that $2 Trillion would have been enough to have made the USA energy independent.

Probably, but it would also have moved the wealth away from those with power.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron