[Gandalf_the_White]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 051605.php

Anyone seen this report?

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he study also estimated the amount of global wind power that could be harvested at locations with suitably strong winds. The authors found that the locations with sustainable Class 3 winds could produce approximately 72 terawatts and that capturing even a fraction of that energy could provide the 1.6-1.8 terawatts that made up the world's electricity usage in the year 2000. A terawatt is 1 trillion watts, a quantity of energy that would otherwise require more than 500 nuclear reactors or thousands of coal-burning plants. Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands, but the researchers caution that there are considerable practical barriers to reaping the wind's potential energy.

[FreakOil]

If we could run the world on wind, we'd keep on doing what we're doing: Using energy to turn natural resources into disposable commodities until the entire planet turns into a fetid heap of waste.

"Solutions" that don't bring exponential economic and population growth to a halt scare me more than Peak Oil.

[Last_Laff]

I don't understand. Its dated 3 years old. Whats the difference now?

[mkwin]

This just highlights the fact peak oil is not really an energy problem it is a liquid fuel problem.

I see many alternatives in the medium to long term for low carbon energy such as 3rd and 4th generation nuclear, fusion, solar film, CSP, wind, tidal turbines. Wind kites, geothermal and hot rock. Plus, in general, gas and coal are plentiful.

The problem is not really energy. The problem is the reliance of transport on oil. If oil goes into decline soon (next 10 years or so) the potential discontinuities make plenty of doom scenarios plausible. I believe, however, that Campbell et al are overly pessimistic and URR is more likely to be around 2600 billion barrels so the decline will be more of a, gradually declining, bumpy plateau. High oil prices, economic problems but not the end of the world. Not yet anyway.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Last_Laff', 'I') don't understand. Its dated 3 years old. Whats the difference now?

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')f we could run the world on wind, we'd keep on doing what we're doing: Using energy to turn natural resources into disposable commodities until the entire planet turns into a fetid heap of waste.

"Solutions" that don't bring exponential economic and population growth to a halt scare me more than Peak Oil.

[Roy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he only solution that would de-doomerize me immediate powerdown, electrification of transport, re-localization of industry, re-ruralization of communities--then depopulation. And it must have started yesterday.

[TheDude]

Our moderator TylerJC seemed to suddenly stop worrying because of alternative energy coming to the rescue. I still don't see it - for the US anyway, it's 17 million cars sold/year, in a healthy economy. You could snap your fingers and make every one of those a PHEV, there are still so many obstacles in the way, the need for qualified mechanics, space for disposal of dud batteries, the increased strain on the grid, etc. And that's purely academic since the oil companies will fight the changeover from liquid fuels to the end, even though to do so is patently insane.

So I don't take heart knowing there are terawatts of potential wind power in the South Atlantic. There are enormous sources of natural gas that remain stranded, too, since it's uneconomical to build pipelines to them. Alternative will only grow as fast as economics dictate, barring government mandates - and all current POTUS candidates are quite beholden to the conventional energy industry, don't see them upsetting the apple cart too much frankly.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gandalf_the_White', 'h')ttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/agu-gwm051605.php

Anyone seen this report?

[Tyler_JC]

Did somebody call my name?

I was at the British Industry and Trade consulate in Boston this morning for a presentation by a few scientists, engineers, "policy wonks", and economists to discuss the energy situation in the UK and the potential for renewables.

They said that without new nuclear power, there is no way Britain will be able to both meet its coal use reduction target that was set forth by the EU.

They estimated that by 2020 using very favorable conditions for the renewable energy industry. The UK could be getting as much as 19% of its electricity from renewable sources. This is great. But without new nuclear power stations, the share of power from nuclear will drop from around 20% to around 6%. Virtually of that gap can be made up with renewable energy.

But what about coal? The share of power from coal fired power plants MUST fall according to EU regulation, this means that the gap must be made up by new natural gas fired power plants, eliminating any chance of seriously reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

If nuclear is increased or at least stays at the same level as before, we can build new renewables fast enough to reduce coal use to acceptable levels and even make a slight dent in the natural gas demand.

But you can't have a fully renewable grid in the next 20 years. Nuclear power must be a part of any transition.

Or so was the opinion of the panel.

As for a maximum capacity for wind, Denmark is a tiny country. It's possible to have no wind over most of Denmark on a given day. It's extremely unlikely that the entire European Union would be wind free for a day.

If you spread out the risk, wind becomes a much more favorable option. But this requires the construction of a true European Super Grid (another opinion of the panel).

It's possible but we need to start increasing investment right now.

By the way, global investment in non-fossil fuel energy development and deployment was $150 billion last year. This isn't a niche industry anymore, I'm tempted to drop the title "alternative energy" altogether because it is no longer "alternative".

That $150 billion is equal to a little more than 1% of global investment in fixed capital assets and adds up to about 20% of all investment in the energy sector.

Numbers like that should reduce the doom and gloom, no?

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')his just highlights the fact peak oil is not really an energy problem it is a liquid fuel problem.

I see many alternatives in the medium to long term for low carbon energy such as 3rd and 4th generation nuclear, fusion, solar film, CSP, wind, tidal turbines. Wind kites, geothermal and hot rock. Plus, in general, gas and coal are plentiful.

The problem is not really energy. The problem is the reliance of transport on oil. If oil goes into decline soon (next 10 years or so) the potential discontinuities make plenty of doom scenarios plausible. I believe, however, that Campbell et al are overly pessimistic and URR is more likely to be around 2600 billion barrels so the decline will be more of a, gradually declining, bumpy plateau. High oil prices, economic problems but not the end of the world. Not yet anyway.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')umbers like that should reduce the doom and gloom, no?

[Tyler_JC]

I'm not sure if I understand your point.

Are you saying that $150 billion a year (and growing rapidly) in investment is insufficient to produce any kind of positive outcome?

In 2004, the world only invested $33 billion into the renewable energy sector. In 2007, we spent more than that on solar power alone.

$33 billion in 2004.
$59 billion in 2005.
$93 billion in 2006.
$148 billion in 2007.

I'd say that's an acceptable growth rate.

Mind you, only 19 billion of that is biofuels so if you think biofuels are a wate of time, feel free to consider that money a waste.

Now we're "only" spending $130 billion a year on renewable energy. That's still well over twice the level of spending on commercial aviation investment. (just for comparison purposes)

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')As for a maximum capacity for wind, Denmark is a tiny country. It's possible to have no wind over most of Denmark on a given day. It's extremely unlikely that the entire European Union would be wind free for a day.

If you spread out the risk, wind becomes a much more favorable option. But this requires the construction of a true European Super Grid (another opinion of the panel).

[wisconsin_cur]

I don't want to spend a lot of time on it but I am merely trying to make the point that just because something works on paper does not mean that it will work in the real world. There are plenty of things that could undermine our transition to renewables. The drying up of the credit market is one. The necon argument that man made global warming is just a scheme of self interested climate researchers is another. Depending upon how quickly certain fields drop off is a third.

I am very pessimistic that we will transition to a electric based system before people turn on the system and start to tear it apart (as we are already seeing with the looting of foreclosed homes. There is a strong emotional investment in liquid fuel, there are a lot of people that you have to turn to enlightenment of renewables... I know a couple of people that are not even willing to give up incandescents.

So maybe it works on paper, maybe we have made the first moves in that direction. I compare it to one set of economic data, it is not a trend, even if it is a trend than it is not a promise of what the future holds.

I hope I'm wrong... Perhaps people are more rationale than I give them credit for. I just don't know too many of those rationale people.

[americandream]

People in crowds behave just like sheep, scientists claim, by blindly following one or two people who seem to know where they are going.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... eep114.xml

[thylacine]

That statement can also be applied to scientists by people.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')f we could run the world on wind, we'd keep on doing what we're doing: Using energy to turn natural resources into disposable commodities until the entire planet turns into a fetid heap of waste.