Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Resurrection: Peak Oil doesn’t equal energy scarcity

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

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 15:06:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nce that is no longer true, there's no longer any incentive to invest wealth. I think investors and corporations will retrench, rather than risking huge new investments that could go down in flames. If people are only going to get poorer and poorer, what's the point of upgrading your facilities? They won't be able to afford your products anyway.

Exactly why do you think oil was cheap enough to facilitate economic growth but nuclear power isn't? You seem to be presupposing some magic energy price that we cross that makes economic growth impossible.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 16:30:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xactly why do you think oil was cheap enough to facilitate economic growth but nuclear power isn't?


EROEI, basically. Some people claim nuclear power plants are not even energy positive over their entire lifetimes. I don't believe that myself, but they are certainly nowhere near oil, or more people would be using them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou seem to be presupposing some magic energy price that we cross that makes economic growth impossible.


No, not a price. EROEI. Price is misleading. Petroleum invisibly subsidizes all the other the other methods of energy generation. If oil gets more expensive, so does nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, coal, biomass, and all the others. So comparing prices is pointless.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby DriveElectric » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 16:37:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou seem to be presupposing some magic energy price that we cross that makes economic growth impossible.


No, not a price. EROEI. Price is misleading. Petroleum invisibly subsidizes all the other the other methods of energy generation. If oil gets more expensive, so does nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, coal, biomass, and all the others. So comparing prices is pointless.


Until someone defines EROEI in a useful manner, or even manages to prove it's relevance at all, EROEI is pointless.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby DriveElectric » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 16:45:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')If oil gets more expensive, so does nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, coal, biomass, and all the others.


What is your proof of that? Many could argue that as they are used in large scale, the capital costs are spread over a more wide base, thus making many of those energy sources cheaper.

An example:
The typical power plant for electricity has large capital costs. Most are not used efficiently because of peak demand during the day and a major drop in demand at night. As a result, these electric power plants, with huge capital costs of construction, are not fully generating revenue 24 hours per day to service the capital costs (Bonds, interest, etc)

But with Peak Oil and the likely increase of electric transportation charging at night, those power plants would be more efficiently utilized and produce more revenue at night, thus covering the capital costs of power plants.

The end result could be cheaper electricity after Peak Oil.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 16:48:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ntil someone defines EROEI in a useful manner, or even manages to prove it's relevance at all, EROEI is pointless.


Agree that there are some issues there, but I think it's useful for comparisons. That is, the same person using the same technique to compare different energy sources, or to compare the same energy source over time.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby tita » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 17:42:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')So most of my energy is already 3 times higher than the energy you're buying at the pump. It isn't bothering me much. It's a miniscule fraction of my entire budget.
Maybe you guys in the States are just using too much energy. :lol:


Maybe you pay 3 times higher, but the difference goes in our standard of living anyway. The difference is tax, and tax goes to the state, which use it in different ways (health care, road building, social help, etc.).

As you said, the price you pay is a tiny fraction of your budget. That's why higher prices doesn't mean less demand... for you. But not for everybody. Who will have to do without oil? Who will have to shut down their factories or activities? Then, the prices goes down. And then, less oil again, high prices again, other activities down.

And after a while, investors will begin to understand... and worry.

I don't know what will happen. But I don't think that our world will continue to grow so joyfully and irrationnaly as it is now.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 19:58:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ROEI, basically. Some people claim nuclear power plants are not even energy positive over their entire lifetimes. I don't believe that myself, but they are certainly nowhere near oil, or more people would be using them.


Oh thats ridiculous. Nuclear power demonstrably has an 'EROEI' well above oil today if measured by the same yardstick, in the neighborhood of 50 or so using centrifuge enrichment with light water reactors. Naturally, CANDU's are even higher, and models for molten salt breeder reactors can easily climb into the hundreds... when measured by the same flawed yardstick.

EROEI is essentially worthless for economics. If you have an energy technology that has EROEI in the thousands but it costs thousands of man hours per watt, its still going to be vastly more expensive.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 20:04:50

I did some more investigation about the potentials for expanding rail, I went to some other forums dedicated to rail discussion. I posed a general question about what it would take to massively expand the rail infrastructure (say in the face of an oil crisis :P ) Here are some of the responses I received:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')All major rr's are buying locomotives at this time by the hundred, but they can only be deliverd so fast. I think the demand exceeds the supply?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Well this isn't the 1800's anymore where you can just lay track nowadays they have contracts and such. Another thing is that communties are so in a funk about what pair of rails gets built amongst them it is almost stupid to mention. Double tracking or triple tracking can only be done if there aren't any obstructions in the way like what Russian said, Tunnels, mountains, rock cuts ect.

Dave is right about the motive power issue because the railroads are power hungry these days and now turn to lease companies for their locomotive needs. As much money as railroads spend on buying new locomotives they are still hurting because a lot of them inherrited older more malfunction prone stuff from the railroad they merged with.

You aren't gonna be able to eliminate all truck traffic from highways because you'll need quite a huge fleet of flat cars, doublestack wells, and specialty cars to even catch up.

The other problem is the length of trains.. CN runs 10,000 feet or better intermodels as it is. The longest intermodel trains I can remember were Conrail's 9000 foot ones.

The price of gas is very expensive these days and it will unfortunately stay that way until something changes either in source of fuel or fuel provider. If you think we have to crappy gas prices you can imagine what the railroads are paying these days.

As for an alternative locomotive, that one I don't know yet.. so far GEVO is about as enviromentally friendly as you can get now. I think the future locomotive is still in its infancy stages it still has a long way to go.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')One thing you need to keep in mind: you're obviously talking about a HUGE amount of capital to build this expansion. Who's gonna pay? The individual railroads? They can't. It's too much money, and too much financial risk; if the market goes sour, and oil prices suddenly drop through the floor, then they're left holding the bill for thousands of miles of trackage and signaling that are now excess. Plus, even if the prices and demand held constant, the RR's profit margins are in general very small. So to make back their investment money, they would have to be assured of an exponential increase in traffic flow. Since there's no guarantee of that, the stockholders (and lending institutions) are going to be very wary of such a huge spending spree, no matter how well intentioned it is.

No, the only answer would be for the Feds to step up and foot the bill. And in this country, that's not gonna happen any time soon. Sure, they pay for the roads the trucks use, and the airports and electronic airways the airlines use, but they want no part of paying for one cross-tie (unless it's the Alaska Railroad, but don't get me started on that...). And what if they did pay? Would that mean that they now have a hand in the decision making at the railroads? Would the Fed set freight prices? Would they mandate the use of rail wherever feasible? No, all of that would take an actual National Policy on rail, in more than just name. And that's something that this country simply does not have. These trains run for profit, and any decisions about capital investment have to pass the benefit vs risk test. I don't think such a huge, all-at-once expansion of capacity could ever pass such a test.


Of course, it's quite likely that none of the people who replied are thinking in terms of what peak oil means and what kind of pressure there would be to make it work. But even so, it's just another long laundry list of problems that have to be overcome. Sigh. :cry: Definitely feeling doom-y today.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Resurrection: Peak Oil doesn’t equal energy scarcity

Unread postby spot5050 » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 21:27:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', 'L')et me start this off with a ‘WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!” :evil:..

[...]

...Any takers?



Please provide an executive summary for my small brain thanks.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 13:16:24

Executive Summary:
Current US annual coal mining and shipping requires somewhere on the order of 40million barrels of diesel, or about 2 days of US consumption (but 12 true days of supply since diesel makes up only a portion of a barrel of oil).

The implication is that it isn’t radically oil intensive and could be scaled up. Additionally, electricity fed miners are already in use and electricity fed locomotives are possible, which would further reduce dependence on diesel. Of course, this would require an electrification of the rail system, which is a major infrastructure change, and this uncovers the big problem that is expanding the rail infrastructure. It’ll take some pretty acute pain and aggressive policies by the government to nullify the objections that I list above from rail savy people.

This is sort of similar to the nuclear problem… availability of uranium isn’t a problem, getting all of the other materials (eg. 65000 tonnes of steel and 450000 tonnes of concrete per 1GW reactor) along with the approvals and money, can’t to be ignored.

A lot has to go right.

I still think peak oil doesn’t equal energy scarcity. I do think peak oil means at a minimum, a short term drop in total available energy. To ensure it is only a short term drop and not a permanent downward spiral depends on how we will react to the short term drops in total available energy. Will we dedicate the remaining energy to producing other forms of energy? Or will we dedicate it to the military machine or a forced continuation of the waste of modern consumption?
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby spot5050 » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 19:42:24

Thanks for the summary.

Yes coal is pretty groovy stuff, but it's not nearly as groovy as oil.

Coal doesn't flow out of the ground it has to be mined, it can't be pumped along pipes it has to be carried, it's not as versatile as oil, and I assume it's not nearly as energy dense?

btw do you think peak-oil will mean peak-coal too, or could coal production increase to take up some of the slack after PO?
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Unread postby DriveElectric » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 20:32:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', '
')
btw do you think peak-oil will mean peak-coal too, or could coal production increase to take up some of the slack after PO?


That would require a major shift in the electric grid away from coal to nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. Then perhaps coal could be shifted to other purposes as a chemical feedstock.

Sasol Ltd in South Africa has some of the best existing technology on this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=SSL

Sasol Limited, a holding company, engages in the production and marketing of chemicals and liquid fuels world wide. The company manufactures syngas from natural gas and low-grade coal, as well as converts syngas into a range of products, including synfuels, chemical feedstock, and industrial pipeline gas; and a range of surfactants; surfactant intermediates, including alcohols and alkylates; monomers; and inorganic specialty chemicals derived mostly from coal and chemical feedstocks.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 12:37:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', 'T')hanks for the summary.

Yes coal is pretty groovy stuff, but it's not nearly as groovy as oil.

Coal doesn't flow out of the ground it has to be mined, it can't be pumped along pipes it has to be carried, it's not as versatile as oil, and I assume it's not nearly as energy dense?

btw do you think peak-oil will mean peak-coal too, or could coal production increase to take up some of the slack after PO?


Actually there is a pipeline in the US that ships coal. The coal is mixed with water into a slurry and shipped 275 miles...

By ramping up our coal use we're essentially sliding back down the energy density ladder.. but what choice do we have?
This will cause the peak in coal to happen sooner rather than later. All it buys us is some time and it won't make up all of the slack of depleting oil (of course this depends on exactly what the depletion rate is). Also, if there are too many problems in expanding rail infrastructure, it may not get ramped up much at all. Canada is better off than the US in this aspect because $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')anada has been characterized by a two transcontinental railway industry model (one of them state-owned for nearly all its existence): the United States has had a multiplicity of railroads, none transcontinental and only one Class I carrier (briefly) state-owned. The United States has had stronger intermodal competition from water carriers and a more built-up interstate highway system.
source

PS
Sorry, don't know what the rail situation is in the UK.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 13:51:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', ' ')Also, if there are too many problems in expanding rail infrastructure, it may not get ramped up much at all. .


I'm seeing this as a concession by FOT that rail may not be our saviour after all. I can't ask him for clarification because he's ignoring me. Maybe someone else can clarify for him? I wish he hadn't felt the need for all that screaming at me over my comments about the rail situation in my region, I still don't know what that was all about.... :cry:
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 14:37:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', ' ')Also, if there are too many problems in expanding rail infrastructure, it may not get ramped up much at all. .


I'm seeing this as a concession by FOT that rail may not be our saviour after all. I can't ask him for clarification because he's ignoring me. Maybe someone else can clarify for him? I wish he hadn't felt the need for all that screaming at me over my comments about the rail situation in my region, I still don't know what that was all about.... :cry:


Obviously I still haven't learnt, because you’re off my ignore list again ... and to be honest I probably overreacted. However, I find it frustrating to the nth degree when doomers are unable to let go of their bias. Many doomers are no different than cornucopians and Republicans, spewing crap when the evidence shows the exact opposite (sorry for the pot shot to republicans, couldn’t resist) In an effort to support their doom they (either consciously or not) selectively choose what data they repeat, ignore information that is contrary to their position and often simply have the facts wrong because they haven’t done the research for themselves. eg. Nuclear can’t be ramped up because there isn’t enough uranium. Bull-doodoo. But scaling nuclear won’t be a piece of cake either, for a multitude of reasons.

Back to the topic… lots of things may or may not happen. I try to look at the real world factors that impact whether something can or cannot be done. How much uranium really is available? How much steel and concrete is necessary to build a reactor? These basics give us a good understanding of whether it is achievable even with human ingenuity and sweat applied full tilt. But then you have to add the human element. For scaling railroads, especially in the US, there are probably more human related problems then basic problems such as how many locomotives can you build and how many tracks can you lay down. That’s why I’m not stating that expanding rail is a piece of cake, I throw the disclaimers out. Of course many will say that is the human factor in everything that means we are doomed. Maybe, but I agree with Ibon. Major pain can cause major changes. We are notorious for not making changes until we’re slapped in the face. That’s why I continue to cling to the soft-landing camp. I think there are too many essential facts which can’t be changed which will initiate major kick us in the ass problems. But I also think a major awakening will occur. We’ll fix what we can.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 20:37:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')
Obviously I still haven't learnt, because you’re off my ignore list again ... and to be honest I probably overreacted. However, I find it frustrating to the nth degree when doomers are unable to let go of their bias. Many doomers are no different than cornucopians and Republicans, spewing crap when the evidence shows the exact opposite (sorry for the pot shot to republicans, couldn’t resist) In an effort to support their doom they (either consciously or not) selectively choose what data they repeat, ignore information that is contrary to their position and often simply have the facts wrong because they haven’t done the research for themselves. eg. Nuclear can’t be ramped up because there isn’t enough uranium. Bull-doodoo. But scaling nuclear won’t be a piece of cake either, for a multitude of reasons.


I guess I'll accept that as some kind of an apology. Thing is, your examples don't apply to me; I've never posted about uranium. I wasn't giving crap examples indicating bias, I was giving the example from my own region, an agricultural region which currently has no rail, which did have rail through all the towns and into the city. If someone presents information which will supposedly save the day, and it doesn't apply to my own local situation, which, I admit, I selfishly think about first, it doesn't look like that much of a solution to me. Things might be great in Canada, but I don't live in Canada. So, I'm hoping you understand what I'm saying here. You seem to have an idea I have some kind of bias, and maybe I do, but it's no reason to scream at me and say false things about me. I don't want people to go back to the stone age and I have never once said so. I have continually, repeatedly, said we should not go back to the past but find a new way to live based on successful models. The thing that makes me screamingly, irrationally angry is when people refuse to try to understand what I'm saying and leap to false conclusions about what I think or what I'm trying to say. So I hope there will be a little more patience from your end. I'm not very good at communicating, so if you don't understand what I'm saying, please don't get angry , just ask for clarification, and when I clarify, please don't tell me "bullcrap." You aren't a mind reader. :)
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Mon 18 Jul 2005, 17:01:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')o I hope there will be a little more patience from your end.


Hmmm, might try practicing what you preach.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'L')ook, you rude jerk… [snip]and, just for good measure, you can shove your "next" up your hinder.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 19 Jul 2005, 10:51:50

Right back at ya:

feudin'
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby waegari » Tue 19 Jul 2005, 13:26:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or scaling railroads, especially in the US, there are probably more human related problems then basic problems such as how many locomotives can you build and how many tracks can you lay down.


I hope you don't overlook the fact that the steel you'd be using for laying down new rail, you couldn't use for building nuclear reactors. More generally: the steel and concrete you're saying is available for building nuclear reactors at that point is not available for anything else. But this 'anything else' might be just as important, to say the least, like housing for instance.
waegari
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 19 Jul 2005, 13:35:36

I predict that steel will be put into LNG terminals and tankers.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron