by Fredrik » Mon 14 May 2007, 09:09:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'O')f course, alternatives are scalable and hence feasible. It doesn't follow that if you say that they are not scalable that this is so. It depends on the time scale you are using, and how quickly our society responds to ramping up alternatives.
I'm not going to play the expert beyond my current knowledge; you are probably more experienced with PO affairs than I am, and I do respect your educated views. However, I can't seem to wrap my head around some of your ideas that look like unfounded over-optimism.
Of course, time scale is essential. Since until now, only a tiny percentage of electricity in the world is produced with wind/solar/geothermal etc. (with some noble exceptions, like 20% wind in Denmark), I believe you'll agree that we need "a fairly long time" (I'd say at least 10-15 years, would you say earlier?)
and huge financial investments into renewables before they could attain a significant role in the energy mix.
So the timescale is a problem. Although not certain yet, most evidence points to a global oil production peak around now - 2010. If we are going to establish an alternative energy infrastructure, I venture to say it must be ready before PO hits. The reason is obvious: with an energy supply diminishing by maybe 5% a year, and world fuel prices (NG, coal and uranium close behind oil) shooting through the roof, the energy scarcity and economic depression will make the long-scale buildup of new expensive power-plants very unlikely.
When all of the world's countries are struggling with energy shortages and economic and social turmoil (likely results of PO, or do you disagree?), I'm not expecting to see very many billion-dollar projects that could offer a profit only after years of expensive investment. Some projects of that magnitude could materialize, maybe with government funding (remember, governments are going to lose a lot of their tax revenues after recession kicks in!), but they would still be a far cry from the scale on which we will need alternatives to make a change.
It takes large amounts of energy to extract and transport the raw materials for alternatives, then process those, and maintain them. With oil in depletion, and natural gas approaching the cliff in North America, where is that energy going to come from?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'W')e haven't stopped using ff yet. They are not going to suddenly disappear or stop being used.
Of course they won't disappear overnight, except for the poorest people. The question is, if a country has 95% of its pre-peak oil supply at its disposal, will the government confiscate, say, 30% of the remaining supply to invest it in renewables? Such a measure would be an immediate death blow to the economy and probably cause massive civil unrest. More probably the government will only let demand destruction take its toll and try to mitigate the effects the best it can, with ever-diminishing tax incomes.
Next year, it'll be maybe 90% of previous oil supply, then 85%... And with oil, all other energy sources are getting increasingly expensive...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'N')o government in the world has asked its citizens to ration gasoline. They are fully aware of the problem and are making gradual changes. I would like the changes to be made faster but bureaucracies are notorious for being slow to act. Some countries are aiming to be carbon free by certain dates.
