World’s Oil Cushion Could Be Stretched To The Limit, IEA Warns

50 Comments on "World’s Oil Cushion Could Be Stretched To The Limit, IEA Warns"

MASTERMIND on Fri, 13th Jul 2018 8:36 pm 



They need to push it to the limit! Scareface style!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT8OU5WtfkQ

Roger on Fri, 13th Jul 2018 9:55 pm 



“Higher prices are prolonging the fears of consumers everywhere that their economies will be damaged. In turn, this could have a marked impact on oil demand growth.”

Yea, right. Only $5/gal gas will have an impact.
Happy motoring!

Go Speed Racer on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 1:03 am 



They can take away my 1978 Lincoln Continental,
when they pry my cold dead fingers off
the 8-track player….

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2017/04/09/hemmings-find-of-the-day-1978-lincoln-continental-mk-v-diamond-jubilee-edition/

Davy on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 6:11 am 



A recession will change the math. China is losing steam. Europe has a banking crisis bubbling. The EM’s are in turmoil. The US and Japan economies will follow these down. When and how far down is an unknown but it has started.

JuanP on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 8:47 am 



What a fascinating situation! Expected annual global oil demand growth of 1.4 mbpd, supposed Middle East spare capacity of 1.6 mbpd, potential decline of exports from Iran of 1.2 mbpd, US instigated chaos in Lybia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Underinvestment in exploration and insignificant discoveries. And all this while oil production has peaked essentially everywhere outside of Russia and the USA. What could go wrong? Grab the popcorn, guys, these are indeed interesting times! Carpe diem! Seize the day, people, while you still can. The time to go on a road trip or fly abroad is now!

Duncan Idaho on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 9:32 am 



Well, it looks like things may possibly be a bit tight in the near future—-
Welcome, fellow homo sapiens!
We will see how 7.6 billion of us cope.

Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 9:54 am 



The price will go up some. Marginal consumers (or those unwilling to pay more for gas and diesel) will drive somewhat less.

Same as it ever was.

Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 9:55 am 



More random calls for a recession. And of course, its already started per Davy. The Cassandras have called about 15 recessions in the last 8 years or so – always wrong.

And Davy, the doomers have proclaimed China is in trouble, what, 20 times in the past 10 years?

Yeah, it’s very gradually slowing down over time, as any large economy does. So what?

Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 9:56 am 



Maybe if this gets a bit inconvenient (much higher fuel prices and some gas lines) people will buy more HEV’s and PHEV’s. It would be about time!

Davy on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 10:20 am 



OS, instead of doing your usual corny whine show some data all is fine and dandy. You are another extremist that is emotionally tied to a position. Show some facts or shut up.

shoal on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 1:26 pm 



“Iraq Protesters Storm Airport, Oil Offices Amidst Energy Crisis; Foreign Companies Begin Evacuations”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-14/iraq-protesters-storm-airport-oil-offices-amidst-energy-crisis-foreign-companies

“Widespread protests have gripped multiple Iraqi cities for a week in response to government corruption, rising unemployment, and an electricity shortage which has left residents suffocating in soaring summer temperatures. What began as anger over a continued failing infrastructure, however, has increasingly turned into political protests and clashes with police after May 12th parliamentary elections tainted by broad allegations of fraud failed to produce a new government. And now Iraq’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has weighed in publicly on the side of the protesters, stating they are facing an “extreme lack of public services”.”

“Significantly, demonstrators have begun targeting oil companies located in the city, where according to Al-Monitor counter-terror units have deployed: Dozens of demonstrators stormed the offices of South Oil Company in Basra on July 12 before security forces regained control of the site the same evening. Protesters have now blocked the routes to local oil refineries, setting up tents on the main streets near the oil fields. On July 13, special forces from the counterterrorism unit arrived in Basra to protect the oil companies and oil fields in the province. Foreign oil companies have further begun evacuations, according to the same report: With protests continuing, foreign oil companies have begun operations to transfer their international employees from Basra province in efforts to avert any possible attacks on them. Local media reported July 12 that helicopters evacuated staff from the Lukoil headquarters in Qurna’s second oil field, as security forces stepped up their presence in the area after a checkpoint was burned by demonstrators. But the Ministry of Oil denied the news.”

Duncan Idaho on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 1:37 pm 



Happy Bastille Day Comrades!
We got rid of the Kings and Queens (kept a few symbolically ), but were captured by Capitalism, which is failing as our ecosystem is in collapse.

Cloggie on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 1:44 pm 



14 July bloopers:

https://youtu.be/zAPnl0U3DRw

Cloggie on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:10 pm 



The Netherlands competing with Japan who will have the first hydrogen economy:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2018/07/14/the-netherlands-is-placing-its-bets-on-the-hydrogen-economy/

Bob321 on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:16 pm 



Rising oil prices are by design ahead of the Saudi Arabia armaco ipo so they Americans and Saudis can maximize their take and so governments everywhere can collect more tax to spend on useless jobs creation and votes…

peakyeast on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:31 pm 



The humanity expands their system is inherently unstable. Even a little too much is an enourmeous amount and vice versa.

It is better to have many small systems than a huge spastic behemoth system. Even though there may be a slight efficiency loss.

peakyeast on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:31 pm 



Edit: The way

JuanP on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:38 pm 



OS “And Davy, the doomers have proclaimed China is in trouble, what, 20 times in the past 10 years?”
What would that make Davy? A hyper doomer? LOL! He has been screaming and ranting about China’s imminent economic collapse every single day for as long as he’s been here. It is not hard to understand that that is a defense mechanism caused by China’s rise and the USA’s decline, and the fear and insecurity he feels as a consequence.

JuanP on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:41 pm 



If there is one thing I don’t see before the next global recession it’s low oil prices. This sucker is going up until it pops once more. Boom and bust, rinse and repeat!

JuanP on Sat, 14th Jul 2018 5:46 pm 



Cloggie “The Netherlands competing with Japan who will have the first hydrogen economy:”
I’d say both first and second place are both excellent. Your country is really unique and quite impressive. I really enjoy learning about it through your comments and links.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 2:50 am 



You are welcome, Juan 😉

Recent detailed report blueprint Dutch hydrogen economy (in English, pdf 51p)

http://verslag.noordelijkeinnovationboard.nl/uploads/bestanden/dbf7757e-cabc-5dd6-9e97-16165b653dad/3008272975/NIB-Hydrogen-Full_report.pdf

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 3:09 am 



The report contains significant financial analysis on how green hydrogen can be produced at industrial scale, either from biomass gasification or water electrolysis, at a cost of EUR 2.20 to 2.30 per kg.

https://ammoniaindustry.com/a-roadmap-for-the-green-hydrogen-economy-in-the-northern-netherlands/

For a list of several fuels with energy density per kg:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/cost-hydrogen-from-renewable-energy/

…you see that hydrogen can be perfectly cost-competitive with traditional hydro-carbons.

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/cost-hydrogen-from-renewable-energy/

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2018/05/13/price-of-hydrogen-production-via-electrolysis/

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/electrolysis-of-water/

Antius on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 4:04 am 



“The Netherlands competing with Japan who will have the first hydrogen economy:”

Hmmm. This has been discussed as the next big thing since at least the 1990s. Then, quick as a flash: nothing happened!

There are good reasons why. If I have biomass as a fuel source, what economic benefit is there converting it to hydrogen? Why not simply burn the biomass in a super-critical boiler and generate electricity?

H2 is a diffuse gas that is energy intensive to compress, difficult to store safely and has materials issues, given its small molecular radius and its ability to seep through metal grain boundaries and cause embrittlement. It also has poor volumetric energy density: about 11KJ per litre under standard conditions. This is one of the reasons why hydrogen fuel cells tend to be expensive – they are bulky for the amount of power they produce.

So far as providing an electricity storage fuel, we have been through it many times before. There are insurmountable problems. The first being poor efficiency. After electrolysis, compression, transport, storage and recombustion: total efficiency is 25% at best. When you are starting with expensive electricity, that sort of inefficiency is unlikely to be acceptable, unless the system is part of a niche application in why energy costs are not the big cost driver. That might the case for example, if you were using the hydrogen to produce chemical feedstock like fertiliser, which is valuable energy to permit higher upfront cost. But as a generic energy carrier for transport and load balancing, hydrogen is a very poor choice.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 4:28 am 



Australia to become major hydrogen supplier for Japan:

https://www.aboutenergy.com/en_IT/topics/Australia-Hydrogen-en.shtml

Kawasaki will build a liquid hydrogen bulk carrier to ship the hydrogen from Australia to Japan by 2020

Hmmm. This has been discussed as the next big thing since at least the 1990s. Then, quick as a flash: nothing happened!

That’s because conditions in 2018 are vastly different from 1990. The idea of hydrogen economy is experiencing a revival because of:

– improvements electrolysis technology
– dramatic downfall prices renewable energy

total efficiency is 25% at best

Source? Too pessimistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

Conventional alkaline electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%. Accounting for the accepted use of the higher heat value (because inefficiency via heat can be redirected back into the system to create the steam required by the catalyst), average working efficiencies for PEM electrolysis are around 80%. This is expected to increase to between 82-86% before 2030. Theoretical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%.

With high-temperature electrolysis you can achieve efficiencies of over 100%:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/high-temperature-electrolysis/

Once you have hydrogen, you have a combustible fuel, on par with hydro-carbons. So I have no idea where you get your “25% at best” from.

Japanese Olympics of 2020 btw will run entirely on hydrogen (obviously as a demonstration project to promote their industry).

H2 is a diffuse gas that is energy intensive to compress, difficult to store safely and has materials issues, given its small molecular radius and its ability to seep through metal grain boundaries and cause embrittlement.

You can always convert hydrogen into ammonia that is easier to handle. But up until 20% you can mix hydrogen with natural gas in existing pipelines. Pipelines can be retrofitted for 100% hydrogen.

It is no coincidence why Japan and Holland are competing for the first hydrogen economy:

– Japan: Fukushim trauma
– Holland: the only country with a large natural gas industry, that is now dying and urgently needs a follow-up. On top of that Holland is flat, so no pumped-hydro storage possibility. And the Dutch part of the North Sea has an electricity generating potential that far exceeds Dutch needs, so we can become a major electricity/hydrogen exporter.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 4:31 am 



Holland: the only country with a large natural gas industry… in Europe, the only place with an explicit 100% renewable energy strategy.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 4:36 am 



Australia –> Kawasaki –> hydrogen –> Japan

https://fairplay.ihs.com/commerce/article/4280511/australia-and-japan-prepare-for-world%E2%80%99s-first-bulk-hydrogen-shipment

http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,kawasaki-ship-designs-support-japans-hydrogensociety-plans_46421.htm

http://global.kawasaki.com/en/hydrogen/

Antius on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 4:50 am 



“Conventional alkaline electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%. Accounting for the accepted use of the higher heat value (because inefficiency via heat can be redirected back into the system to create the steam required by the catalyst), average working efficiencies for PEM electrolysis are around 80%. This is expected to increase to between 82-86% before 2030. Theoretical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%”

Cloggie, the efficiency of an electrolysis cell is basically an economic trade-off between capital cost and operational cost. The higher the current density, the lower the efficiency, but also, the lower the capital cost. Typically, capital cost is more important than power cost. That will change as electricity gets more expensive, but there is no free lunch, so to speak. If you are using intermittent power and the electrolysis cell is running only part time, then you need to aim for a high-current density, low capital cost option in order to keep aggregate costs as low as possible.

Assuming best case scenario, in which you can use a high efficiency electrolysis cell:

Electrolysis efficiency: 0.7
Compression efficiency: 0.9
Storage / transport efficiency: 0.95?
Fuel cell efficiency: 0.4-0.6
Total: 24-36%

If the situation is capital cost constrained and electrolysis cell efficiency if 60%, then perhaps a more realistic efficiency range is 20-31%. We can play around with the numbers for various fictional scenarios, but a real application needs to balance all of the costs to work out a realistic efficiency.

For stationary fuel cells, like solid oxide, you can expect to hit the upper end. For a large power plant using gas turbines, end use efficiency will be ~50%, so perhaps 25-30% efficiency overall. That is probably the option that gives the best overall cost structure. For smaller automotive applications, it will be the lower end of the range.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 5:15 am 



“Electrolysis efficiency: 0.7”

You ignore the potential for innovation. A hydrogen economy will not work now, but can begin to work in 2030.

“Compression efficiency: 0.9”

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

Consequently, it has been demonstrated that a high driving range could be achieved with a cryo-compressed tank : more than 650 miles (1,050 km) were driven with a full tank mounted on an hydrogen-fueled engine of Toyota Prius.

Hmmm, 1050 km… doesn’t sound like they have an efficiency problem at all with mobile hydrogen.

“Storage / transport efficiency: 0.95?”

OK.

“Fuel cell efficiency: 0.4-0.6”

You realize that burning hydro-carbons in cars have lower efficiencies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency

Diesel engines generally achieve greater fuel efficiency than petrol (gasoline) engines. Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30%, and petrol engines of up to 37.3%, but more typically 20%. That is one of the reasons why diesels have better fuel efficiency than equivalent petrol cars.

Sounds like fuel cells beating diesel/petrol with a street length.

Look Antius, I don’t know what is your point of your juggling with efficiency numbers. We must always compare competing technologies.

So, what is your proposed alternative for a hydrogen economy?

Forget it, rhetorical, I already know. A plutonium economy. And how do you intend to bring nuclear electricity to mobile applications (car, ship, truck, plane)?

Davy on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 5:21 am 



I remember the hydrogen hype too Antius. I read Jeremy Rifkin’s book “The Hydrogen economy” back around 2000. If the nederlander’s comment had substance this hydrogen hype would have materialized. It has not because it does not pencil out with economics. This is especially true if you add to its drawbacks renewable energy’s drawbacks of being less energy dense than fossil fuels. This alternative energy effort is not what the techno optimist have hyped. It is important and gaining ground but only as a niche. Maybe Japan and Holland can do something with hydrogen but this effort will likely impact their competitiveness and not matter in the end. If the rest of the world cannot transition to a new energy source they will not make it alone in a collapsing world.

Davy on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 5:30 am 



“You ignore the potential for innovation. A hydrogen economy will not work now, but can begin to work in 2030.”
You are doing your usual mindless predictions based on yet to be realized innovation that is surely subject to diminishing returns and economic constraints.

“So, what is your proposed alternative for a hydrogen economy?”
What we have with some renewables and other technologies to extend out the status quo. That is it neder. Your hype is not real. You live in a fantasy future and constantly have to be educated back to reality. You throw out numbers like confetti saying “here look at this” but it is not real. You get stuck in that place between theoretical and real world applications. You fail to acknowledge we have to support what we have to make what you fantasize about. Your hype just makes your points less believable.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 5:52 am 



I read Jeremy Rifkin’s book “The Hydrogen economy” back around 2000. If the nederlander’s comment had substance this hydrogen hype would have materialized. It has not because it does not pencil out with economics.

This typically illustrates the inability to think in the long term, If it doesn’t work now, it will never work. That’s the attitude.

Antius wants nuclear, Davy wants a planetary die-off/reset, neither of which is going to happen, but explains their negative attitude to all things renewable and hence hydrogen.

What Davy ignores is that currently a kWh from solar and certainly from offshore wind is the cheapest kWh around, ignoring storage and transport. Think 3 cent in optimal conditions.

Furthermore, the conversion of electricity in hydrogen is making rapid progress. And fossil fuel is about to rise in price again soon, to probably over $100, perhaps (hopefully) even over $150.

These factors combined will enable the hydrogen economy to finally materialize.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/2/16/16926950/hydrogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

https://impact4all.org/the-hydrogen-revival/

https://turbofuture.com/industrial/Towards-a-Hydrogen-Economy

Renewable and hydrogen are going to win for the simple reason they already have won the global PR-battle. Every country on earth minus America has signed the Paris Accords. Fukushima was the death blow from which it will not recover.

Renewable and hydrogen it is going to be.

Davy on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 6:10 am 



“This typically illustrates the inability to think in the long term, If it doesn’t work now, it will never work. That’s the attitude.”
Ah, for things to happen long term they need to show promise. Hydrogen is not showing promise as a transition energy vector. As a niche effort it will work in some places. You can hype it all you like. Renewables are not materializing at the speed and market penetration you have been hyping. In fact in China the market penetration has dropped.

“Antius wants nuclear, Davy wants a planetary die-off/reset, neither of which is going to happen, but explains their negative attitude to all things renewable and hence hydrogen.”
Antius want nuclear to remain an option. He is also for renewables. I want the same. You just want to discredit our moderate and realist stance because your stance is so extreme. You constantly label me as wanting planetary die off. Show where I said I want die off please. This is just more of your standard extremist reactions by attacking the messenger.

“What Davy ignores is that currently a kWh from solar and certainly from offshore wind is the cheapest kWh around, ignoring storage and transport. Think 3 cent in optimal conditions.”
No it isn’t when you try to make it stand alone. It isn’t when you consider the ultimate cost of a 100% renewables. This is why you don’t have 100% renewable primary power anywhere in the world and there has been ample amount of time to get there if it was so cheap.

“Furthermore, the conversion of electricity in hydrogen is making rapid progress. And fossil fuel is about to rise in price again soon, to probably over $100, perhaps (hopefully) even over $150.”
Hydrogen is not making progress. Give me some numbers cheerleader. Fossil fuels have not jumped much in price and who knows where they will go certainly not you.

“Renewable and hydrogen are going to win for the simple reason they already have won the global PR-battle. Every country on earth minus America has signed the Paris Accords. Fukushima was the death blow from which it will not recover.”
They have won the hype battle and are now showing how much hype they are. They Paris accord is a sick joke by allowing Asia to build out a huge amount of coal capacity and look at you promoting coal!!

“Renewable and hydrogen it is going to be.”
In your dreams

MASTERMIND on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 6:39 am 



Clogg

Stop spamming this board with your schizophrenia..Hydrogen is a pipe dream that will never work..you fucking moron.

Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jul 2018 12:46 pm 



For you it is a pipe-dream, not for us. You concentrate on your neo-bolshevik revolution and raping Taylor Swift.

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/700-mw-renewable-hydrogen-plant-to-be-built-in-france/

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/?s=hydrogen

Makati1 on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 3:26 am 



$100 oil by Thanksgiving? $150 by Xmas? Collapse by New Years 2019? We shall see.

Antius on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 6:35 am 



Cloggie, Davy, et al: Apologies for the late reply. I have been preoccupied. I will try to respond to as many comments as I can.

“Look Antius, I don’t know what is your point of your juggling with efficiency numbers. We must always compare competing technologies.”

Numbers are what ultimately allow us to gauge the relative practicality of concepts. Many concepts are appealing at a qualitative level, but fall apart when subject to arithmetic. It is desperately important that we do so at this stage, as we no longer have the time and resources to screw up. Peak energy is here now: Oil is over $70/barrel.

My specific problem with hydrogen is its appalling inefficiency as a storage mechanism for energy that is already expensive. For example: Let us assume that we are using hydrogen to store intermittent electricity from an offshore wind farm which is selling to the grid at 100 Euro per MWh. If a hydrogen energy storage system is 30% efficient, we need 3.33 units of wind electricity to make 1 unit of dispatchable electrical power output when we combust the hydrogen. If we then factor in the cost of the equipment needed, we are presumably looking at a cost upwards of 400 Euro per MWh. That is extremely pricey compared to say a French PWR, which produces power for 50 Euro per MWh.

Another way of looking at it is to compare to other fossil fuels. Steam coal typically sells at the mine head for $100/tonne and has energy content of 30MJ/kg. That gives a cost of $0.0033/MJ. If we make hydrogen from wind electricity, then we need ~1.5 units of electricity per unit of hydrogen energy. If we are buying electricity at $100/MWh say, the energy cost of making a MWh of hydrogen gas at the electrode of the electrolysis cell is $150/MWh or $0.042/MJ. That is 12.6 times more expensive than coal per MJ. Add in the cost of the electrolysis cell, power systems, compression and storage etc. and hydrogen will be even more expensive. Consider that coal power plants are right now struggling to compete against natural gas CCGTs in the US. How competitive would you expect a hydrogen power plant to be?

If hydrogen is being used to manufacture a product with high value per unit energy input, i.e. a fertiliser or polymer, or if it is used directly to reduce a metal ore say, then it becomes easier to swallow the cost of manufacturing it, because it will represent a smaller proportion of the net value of the end-use material. But hydrogen clearly does not make a good electricity fuel.

I am labouring the point because I believe that it is very important to avoid inappropriate investments. The global economy is facing systematic stresses because energy costs are too high relative to GDP. Adopting technologies that push it even higher is not a good use of resources.

Davy on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 7:37 am 



“Numbers are what ultimately allow us to gauge the relative practicality of concepts. Many concepts are appealing at a qualitative level, but fall apart when subject to arithmetic. It is desperately important that we do so at this stage, as we no longer have the time and resources to screw up.”
Well said Antius! I have also put forth this idea many times to the cornucopian techno optimist in regards to 100% renewable transition and the dangers of taking civilization beyond a point. That point is undetermined and this mean cautioned should be exercised once difficult choices are presenting themselves. I am not saying don’t go there what I am saying is enough of the cheerleading that everything will fall into place if we just try to do it. Let’s recognize we no longer have the luxury of time, economy, and resources. We are closing in on boundaries of failure. We are in overshoot territory. Options are compressing and time is speeding up in the race to a sustainable future.

“My specific problem with hydrogen is its appalling inefficiency as a storage mechanism for energy that is already expensive.”
Wonderful point!

“Consider that coal power plants are right now struggling to compete against natural gas CCGTs in the US. How competitive would you expect a hydrogen power plant to be?”
What we see with the cornucopian techno optimist is an economic habituation to the idea the money will be there because it has been. We are now in an economic period characterized by growth and economic activity. Yes there are all kinds of economic problems but we still have the continuity of global growth. Tell me what happens when we have aggregate contraction? Then the economics of these exotic energy systems are going to become even worse because fossil fuel demand will drop and along with it fossil fuel price. You know supply and demand knocking on to demand destruction. We may see stranded assets when some of these pricy energy systems are taken offline because of costs.

“If hydrogen is being used to manufacture a product with high value per unit energy input, i.e. a fertilizer or polymer, or if it is used directly to reduce a metal ore say, then it becomes easier to swallow the cost of manufacturing it”
Exactly and why I have been saying for a long time now renewables and exotic energy vectors like hydrogen will have niche applications. They will be extenders. They will take pressure off existing resources. They may create new energy systems in regional locations where the economics make sense. They likely do not represent a transition.

Where the transition needs to occur in the long run is behavior and the way of life of our civilization. We need to address overshoot issues related to sustainability and resilience of overpopulation and overconsumption. It is likely we are not going to solve our long term problems with technology. This is what the cornucopian techno optimist want us to believe. They discredit and dismiss doomish worry as unwarranted. They try to tell us how many times we have failed and nothing has happened. They want us to believe we can have our cake and eat it. They try to tell us there are free lunches. I don’t know how many times I have heard that wind power is free and solar panels are dropping so fast in price.

We are at a point where we can do many things with technology but some of these many things might actually be the wrong things. We need to accept the fact that there might not be a solution for civilization. We may need to accept the fact that collapse of what we have now is inevitable. In the same breath we should acknowledge it is possible to succeed but maybe not with what we have now. A much different world might succeed. This means very tough behavioral issues must be addressed. We cannot do as we please as a people and expect behavioral changes to coalesce. People are not going to change unless force to change by preemptive policy or the force of crisis. Technology should not be used as the beacon of hope. That is a false hope and a dangerous one. Behavioral changes must be that beacon. Since it appears unlikely we can come to agreement on anything these days then we can except that technology will be the tool to try to save civilization. This then should tell those of us who are honest and understand the science and math that failure could be inevitable. It still is possible localized changes will matter. It is also possible a crisis that causes profound changes will allow behavioral changes. Technology likely will not save us and anyone preaching this is selling snake oil

JuanP on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 8:13 am 



“Russia to invest $50 billion in Iran’s oil and gas”
https://www.rt.com/business/433316-russia-iran-oil-investments/

JuanP on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 8:19 am 



“Chinese refiner dumps US crude in favor of dollarless imports of Iranian oil”
https://www.rt.com/business/433317-china-iran-crude-dedollarization/
I expect Iran to be able to resist the USA’s illegal actions against it. Today’s Axis of Good is formed by Iran, China, and Russia. The new Axis of Evil is composed of the USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Davy on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 8:33 am 



Boney Juan, your Russian investment reference is old news. If you would read the threads you would have seen it has already been posted. More sloppiness on your part.

Davy on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 8:36 am 



Oil is a fungible global market. The amount of oil China is getting from Iran instead of the US is irrelevant in the bigger picture. The sanction have done their damage even before they started.

JuanP on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 8:41 am 



It is still valid, exceptionalist! The sanctions are weakening the USA and strengthening its enemies. Was that the goal or was it regime change in Iran? Do you know more about US policy than the US government now, too? ROFLMFAO! God, you are insane!

Davy on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 8:45 am 



Valid yes a huge story no but for a extremist bent on a competitive agenda this is a big deal. Grow up intellectually please.

JuanP on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 9:12 am 



Delusional Davy “Valid yes a huge story no but for a extremist bent on a competitive agenda this is a big deal. Grow up intellectually please.”

I never claimed it was a huge story? Are you hallucinating and moving goalposts again because you lost the argument, Exceptionalist? Why don’t you just ignore it if it bothers you so much? Why are you so easily bothered?

Antius on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 10:10 am 



Davy wrote: “We are at a point where we can do many things with technology but some of these many things might actually be the wrong things. We need to accept the fact that there might not be a solution for civilization. We may need to accept the fact that collapse of what we have now is inevitable. In the same breath we should acknowledge it is possible to succeed but maybe not with what we have now.”

Agreed. I won’t pretend to know exactly what is coming. Sometimes it is easier to point out what won’t work, rather than exactly what will. It was easy for me to pick up on the obvious follies of a hydrogen economy, although like you, I suspect that electrolytic hydrogen will have niche uses. These will occur where its intrinsic properties justify the expense of making it. In particular, applications that allows it to be used instantly in the manufacture of something more valuable, rather than being stored as a future electricity source.
There is no solution that will allow both high rates of population growth and continued increasing rates of resource use. The good news is that in most parts of the world, population is stabilising or declining. In the longer term, our systems need to be able to provide a good standard of living for a smaller population. That makes it much easier to foresee a more sustainable future, as resource lifetimes need to meet the demands of a smaller and shrinking population rather than a larger and growing one. Then again, a sufficiently disruptive crisis could affect birth-rates in unpredictable ways. But I digress.

Cloggie wrote: “You realize that burning hydro-carbons in cars have lower efficiencies?”

One big difference is that we don’t have to make hydrocarbons out of electricity. With some minimal additional processing, they are essentially free from an energy point of view. Nature has already undertaken the difficult step of converting solar energy into stored fuels and leaving them in the ground in concentrated seams that we can harvest. It was enormously inefficient, but we don’t pick up the bill. They are literally, a gift from God. This allows us to use them in less than optimal ways. As soon as we start trying to make such fuels from high grade energy that we have had to pay to harvest, we face a lot of expense.

Cloggie wrote: “So, what is your proposed alternative for a hydrogen economy? Forget it, rhetorical, I already know. A plutonium economy. And how do you intend to bring nuclear electricity to mobile applications (car, ship, truck, plane)?”

Glad you asked. Here are my thoughts.

We will use a combination of many different technologies and I think the exact answer will depend on exactly what our dominant energy sources are going to be in the years to come. But generally, my answer would be an ‘Electron Economy’. Take a look at this:

https://terraverde.wordpress.com/ree/

When you look at all of the alternatives cited for fossil fuels: various renewable energies, fission, fusion, etc. one thing they all tend to be best suited to is the bulk production of electricity. Nuclear power produces baseload electricity in very large units. Both wind and solar power plants produce intermittent electricity and EROI (and therefore economic performance) is greatest when they are built in large sizes, both in terms of the number of machines and their physical size. The grid is by far the most economical way of distributing power to customers. It is something like 97% efficient for large HV consumers and 94% efficient for small consumers and adds about 10% to the end use cost of electric power. What’s more, it allows the instantaneous distribution of energy from a single power plant to literally millions of customers. So I think ultimately, it makes sense to build the largest power plants we can: big nuclear reactors; big (10+ MW) wind turbines in farms that extend to hundreds of units; and solar power plants covering several square kilometres each. Unless you are a long way from the grid, house scale wind and solar power systems make little sense in my opinion.

Most consumers in the future will be powered by grid based electricity. Electricity is most efficient when we draw it directly from the grid for immediate use in things like electric motors. Storing it is very expensive and also inefficient and I think in the future, large scale storage for grid electricity will be only a niche application.

However, it does make more sense to store energy at end-use applications, because we can often do so without significant energy losses and only modest increase in capital cost. For example, if we are using intermittent grid-electricity to produce heat, we should fashion the end load to store heat, such that it can receive an intermittent supply, but produce a more dependable output. Large-scale district heating systems with heat storage tanks are a good idea if you intend to go down a renewable energy route in cold places. Likewise, if we are using grid power to produce cold, then we want a cold store with a lot of thermal inertia, so that intermittent electric power can produce the same end-use benefit. To use energy efficiently, one must minimise the number of energy transitions. Hence it is better to have a bulkier and more expensive freezer that can run on intermittent power, than it is to have a smaller one whilst having to build a flow-battery to produce baseload power, if the power source is inherently intermittent. In a wind/solar energy system, we must convert our end-uses to work on intermittent power, rather than attempt to turn intermittent power into baseload power. Modest amounts of hydrogen will be produced when power is abundant. Generally, it will not be stored, but used immediately as a manufacturing feedstock, in metals reduction, fertiliser and ammonia production, polymer production, biomass refining, etc. It will be chemically fixed into raw materials for later use.

Generally, the most likely long-term solutions are the ones that tend to be most energy efficient. For each kWh of energy we produce, we want the most value in terms of GDP earned from goods and services produced. So I think in most cases, it will make sense to alter our demand pattern to match supply and not the other way round. If electricity supply is intermittent, then we will deal with that by finding ways to use the power when it is available and curtailing use when it is not. If our dominant energy sources are wind and solar, many of our end uses will need to be configured in this way. Some examples: Milling and grinding will be carried out when power is abundant and will store feedstock and products accordingly. Heating and cooling will be carried out intermittently. Pumping will be carried out when power is available. Many applications will be automated such that they start when power is available and stop when it isn’t. Cookers, washing machines, water heaters, fridges, freezers, etc. In factories, as many processes as possible will need to be scheduled to respond to changes in electricity abundance. For the most part, we will store energy in products and end-uses.

Transport will be increasingly grid connected using cables and third rails. Transport may run slightly more quickly when power levels are greater. Transport as a power use will be prioritised over others and is best suited to base-load power profiles. Because this is more expensive, there is a strong tendency to make it more efficient by opting more for mass-transit, rather than personalised transport.

How to power ships is an interesting question. For large transport ships, nuclear power may be an option. So are direct wind and solar power (for ships of all sizes). This is one application where stored energy may be practical, because ships are nowhere near as weight limited as planes or land transport and they need ballast mass. Stored heat in crushed rock or phase change materials is an interesting option for large ships, as it can be stored in insulated containers and converted back into mechanical power using an S-CO2 power generation cycle. Biofuels (and biochar) is also an option. Charcoal could be loaded into a long ceramic tube and burned with limited oxygen to produce carbon monoxide, which can be burned in gas turbines to power the ships propellers. Coke or coal could be used in the same way.

Davy on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 11:05 am 



“So I think ultimately, it makes sense to build the largest power plants we can: big nuclear reactors; big (10+ MW) wind turbines in farms that extend to hundreds of units; and solar power plants covering several square kilometers each. Unless you are a long way from the grid, house scale wind and solar power systems make little sense in my opinion.”
Well, this assumes systematically we can maintain a civilization capable of large industrial activity. This means a commitment to success of such a civilization and the risk it might fail. I would advise that consideration be made for dispersed standalone energy systems for certain applications and regions as a safety measure and added resilience. Big or small there are many different reasons to choose one or the other but limited resources for both. This points to a mission statement. What are our future goals? Currently it is more related to return than to sustainability. Proper applications need to scale both economically with performance/cost and abstract considerations of resilience and sustainability.

“To use energy efficiently, one must minimize the number of energy transitions. Hence it is better to have a bulkier and more expensive freezer that can run on intermittent power, than it is to have a smaller one whilst having to build a flow-battery to produce baseload power, if the power source is inherently intermittent. In a wind/solar energy system, we must convert our end-uses to work on intermittent power, rather than attempt to turn intermittent power into baseload power.”
This is a great point and a starting point for a phase change in human behavior. I would add to that seasonality and permaculture with food. Localism with transport and activity. This does not have to be a complete change. Let’s face it our way of life cannot change drastically without the danger of collapse. We see how fragile our civilization is by looking back to the 08 financial crisis. Vital activity can stop and stop suddenly. What we need is a recognition of the need for change for some of us. This could be voluntary and promoted. If we are going to backtrack from individual wants that are on demand and consumption driven by individual discretionary satisfaction then it will have to be in increments. We cannot maintain high consumption that is on demand and at the whim of the individual with growing populations. These changes will not be cheap and it must include a motivated populous. Morale is vital because this is not going to be easy or cheap. This effort is vital because this is the only way the math and science works as time goes on and we see how limited our options are. The reason it will not be cheap is the transition costs. We are building something new and taking existing people out of the current system. We know there are people who would be willing to change if given the chance. Technology alone is not going to save us despite what the optimist say. A combination of enlightened behavior and properly applied capable technology will go a long way to getting us through a possible bottleneck ahead.

Antius on Mon, 16th Jul 2018 12:32 pm 



I think there are pros and cons to a smaller, more local energy grid. On the one hand, smaller generators are inherently less efficient EROI wise. That would mean higher unit power costs.

On the other hand, in a smaller grid it would be easier for a grid manager to directly control demand, by switching off power to individual applications. This is much more difficult in a larger grid and the so called ‘internet of things’ would be vulnerable to hacking. In a small, town-sized grid, the controls can be hardwired and need not even be internet connected.

A town-grid can also be more efficient in other ways. Waste heat from biomass boilers is much closer to consumers, making combined heat and power easier. Also, solar and wind turbines can be built close to town, so the capital cost of trabsmission would be lower and no high voltage transmission would be needed.

Small towns have better social fabric. They may find it easier to use and maintain common infrastructure. Laundrettes, swimming pool and common showers / bathing facilities can be built into a community hot water store which would absorb waste heat from generators and slew current from wind and solar power systems. Small towns may also find it easier to develop social arrangements and traditions that allow them to cope with intermittency.

Dooma on Tue, 17th Jul 2018 5:42 am 



Cloggie, I would love to agree with you about a Hydrogen economy, but there are still some significant issues.

I live in Latrobe Valley. The area sits on a vast amount of brown coal. As you are aware, it has become a foul word. Amongst the commissioned and decommissioned power station lies redundant a coal to oil plant that was a joint venture between the Japanese and us.

Round two. Bring on the pilot plant to convert Lignite to Hydrogen.

Except the pilot plant is leaving out a MAJOR detail in the fact that it emits the CO2 from combustion of the fuel to the atmosphere. No ‘clean’ fuel here. Of course, the experts have informed the people that the CO2 will be captured and injected into the empty pockets of spent gas wells off the coast of Victoria.

I wish for a clean fuel as much as you do but I truly believe that ‘clean coal’ is something unachievable. The amount of money spent on the technology already is mind-boggling.

Sadly, nothing comes close to oil when it comes to its energy content. And many of us are alive because of this fact.

Cloggie on Tue, 17th Jul 2018 6:24 am 



Clean coal is rubbish indeed but you need to start the hydrogen economy somewhere. It is ok to temporarily use lignite to produce hydrogen as a kickoff, so long as the renewable electricity share remains under the magical 40%, where it always can and should used immeriately.

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/dont-worry-about-intermittency-under-30-40-renewable-energy-share/

Cloggie on Tue, 17th Jul 2018 6:55 am 



https://twitter.com/railtecheurope/status/1019114450631184384

Germany gets first hydrogen train