[MonteQuest]

There is a crisis of thinking going on. Too many people are trying to bail the Titanic with buckets, while ignoring the scale and scope required to make any discernible difference.

JohnDenver recently wrote: “Oil will peak, and it will be no big deal because we will smoothly switchover to alternatives.”

Scalability refers to being able to add capacity easily. Currently, we do not have ready-to-scale alternatives with oil's energy density, portability and high EROEI.

Matt Savinar covers this well here

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Savinar', 'U')nder these sort of conditions, a large scale switchover to alternative sources of energy will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

[KillTheHumans]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')JohnDenver recently wrote: “Oil will peak, and it will be no big deal because we will smoothly switchover to alternatives.”

Scalability refers to being able to add capacity easily. Currently, we do not have ready-to-scale alternatives with oil's energy density, portability and high EROEI.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', ' ')Why worry about adding capacity "easily"? We'll be producing millions of barrels a day decades from now, transition hardly requires replacement of crude TODAY.

[Opies]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '
')Why worry about adding capacity "easily"? We'll be producing millions of barrels a day decades from now, transition hardly requires replacement of crude TODAY.

Go read Bartlett's calculations with the exponential function, a 4% year over year increases should cover it within our lifetimes. It doesn't even matter where the 4% comes from, or if it comes from one alternative or many, just as long as it follows Bartletts exponential growth. Its all the math, you see.

[TheDude]

Smalley Testimony before Congress. It should be noted that he's a technoptomist (his word):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')lectricity is the key. As we leave oil as our dominant energy technology, we will not only evolve away from a wonderful primary energy source, but we will also leave behind our principal means of transporting energy over vast distances. By 2050 we will do best if we do this transportation of energy not as oil, or coal, or natural gas, or even hydrogen. We should not be transmitting energy as mass at all. Instead we should transport energy as pure energy itself.

[SILENTTODD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'J')ohnDenver recently wrote: “Oil will peak, and it will be no big deal because we will smoothly switchover to alternatives.”

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')calability refers to being able to add capacity easily. Currently, we do not have ready-to-scale alternatives with oil's energy density, portability and high EROEI.

[FreakOil]

I'm not sure it makes sense to discuss scalability in a vacuum. Scalability of what? First, we would have to establish the viability of alternatives based on ERoEI and feedstock, wood or plant material for biofools for example. There's enough argument on that already, and we'd never come to any sort of conclusion that everyone could agree on, it would just all boil down to some ontological disagreement and recrimination.

If the solution does pass muster in terms of ERoEI and feedstock, as in the case of wind and solar - which both have very favorable ERoEI, because the amount of energy that goes into building and maintaining them would be a small fraction of the energy that comes out of them if done correctly, and require no feedstock - than scalability is the main question, in my opinion.

We should be talking about wind and solar only. In that sense, energy density would refer to the amount elecricity that can be stored in a battery, since the amount of energy stored in a given volume of liquid simply doesn't apply. So, have we developed or can we develop a battery that stores the same amount of energy in the same volume as in the equivalent volume of oil?

Regading scalability, I've read that it would take a field of solar panels the size of France to supply all of Europe's energy needs. I've also read that the most efficient solar panels can transform 35% of sulight energy into electricity. Can that be dramatically improved to reduce the area that would be dedicated to solar panels and the amount of materials needed to build them? Even if it is possible, can we harness the political will to get it done? Can we raise the financing to get it done? Can we do that before we hit some sort of social/political/economic crisis that derails the whole thing?

IMHO, wind and solar could be useful, but only assuming a radical reduction in the amount of energy used by society. That precludes a radical reduction in transportation and relocalization. Hence, wind and solar, and their scalability, becomes a local issue.

[FreedomSlave]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')JohnDenver recently wrote: “Oil will peak, and it will be no big deal because we will smoothly switchover to alternatives.”

Scalability refers to being able to add capacity easily. Currently, we do not have ready-to-scale alternatives with oil's energy density, portability and high EROEI.

[Opies]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')take exception to the mistaken belief that oil has a high EROEI.

In any other "sustainable" system, this is measured by adding all the inputs and losses to inefficiency, heat, etc.

With oil, we seem to disregard the original production of organic matter, and eons of high pressure energy inputs required to produce oil. We only look at the costs of the infrastructure to extract, process, and deliver. We're only getting a fraction of the true energy investment.

I will, however, grant that oils energy density and portability make it a very attractive way to store energy until needed.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')With oil, we seem to disregard the original production of organic matter, and eons of high pressure energy inputs required to produce oil. We only look at the costs of the infrastructure to extract, process, and deliver. We're only getting a fraction of the true energy investment.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he thing is, there are a lot of solutions. Including mass renewable, mass nuclear, cut down every forest etc. It doesn't matter though. Even if we come up with some ingenious solution it does. not. matter. Growth MUST stop. A Dieoff MUST ensue. Without sustainability, there is no hope. Maybe our generation will be fine, but what about our kids? our grand kids? great grand kids? what happens when the world is completely pillaged? Desert Earth?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Opies', ' ')Energy is not created out of nothing. For every joule of energy, for every volt of electricity, that energy is now GONE from whatever thing//system it was created by. The electricity generated by wind power has to take energy from something otherwise it wouldn't work.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', ' ')Somebody had to say it. I'm just surprised MQ didn't say it first. Even if we did come up with an unlimited renewable energy source, we'd still have to deal with depleting water stocks, depleting foodstocks, topsoil erosion, desertification, general environmental degradation, Global Warming, Global Dimming and Peak Everything. We need population reduction and an end to exponential economic growth.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Opies', ' ')Maybe our generation will be fine, but what about our kids? our grand kids? great grand kids?

[IslandCrow]

I agree with Monte on the idea that alternative energies are not scalable to the place where they can replace the current level of oil input (they are starting from a very tiny % of energy-provided)

However, I still have the question of "are they scalable enough if combined with conservation?"

This question means that the would not have to provide as much energy as oil currently does, so there is more hope that they could get to the level required. It also asks the question of whether a program of conservation can be effective (or whether it will take more energy in the short term), and whether enough people have the foresight to do it.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, I still have the question of "are they scalable enough if combined with conservation?"

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Opies', 'T')here is of course many options, many of which are very sensible as you point out. They will work for the relatively small amount of people who are lucky enough to have access to them, but they will never work on the scale of the entire planet.

[JJ]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'J')ohnDenver recently wrote: “Oil will peak, and it will be no big deal because we will smoothly switchover to alternatives.”