 | Just a Note...Jim Kunstler--author of World Made by Hand--to be on Glenn Beck on CNN-HN tonight, 7 & 9 EDT | The Oil Drum |
109 comments on Richard Heinberg (via the ABC): "Nothing governments can do about rising oil prices"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Hi Big Gav,
Thanks for posting this.
re: "I don't think it is the right way to solve the problem even if all necessary countries could be persuaded to adopt it."
How come?
What is the downside it? (Are you saying there is one?)
re: "its better to work out how to fix the supply side (ie alternative energy) as quickly as possible and let rising prices take care of demand..."
Can you possibly elaborate?
Can the supply side really be "fixed", given the finiteness of the planet?
How do you/(we) move resources to alternative energy without also employing some conservation measure?
Or do you see conservation as unnecessary?
From whence comes the money/energy to introduce large-scale use of alternatives and how to do this?
In answer to your questions :
1. Why isn't it the right way / what is the downside ? Because it focuses on trying to get countries to agree to ration a depleting resource in a fair and equitable manner. For many countries it won't be in their interest to do so, so they will be motivated to subvert the system. Either it will fail, or it will need to be enforced in a heavy handed way. In the latter case, this means that you are focusing more attention and resources on the problem (decreasing oil availability) instead of the solution (finding efficiencies and substitutes).
2. How can the supply side be fixed given a finite planet ? The amount of energy available from renewable sources is more than 10,000 times our current consumption. There is also a lot of scope for making our use of energy much more efficient. Thus I don't see that there is any meaningful supply constraint, though there may be challenges ramping up replacements as fast as fossil fuels dwindle, depending on the peak date and decline rate.
3. Do I see conservation as unnecessary ? No - conservation is a very cost effective way of dealing with less energy. However it isn't the only way and there are limits to how much more efficient we can become in energy use or in "doing without" things we want or need.
As a broad brush description of how to solve our problems I'd say these are the important ones :
1. Adjusting building codes to make new buildings highly energy efficient.
2. In appropriate areas, making solar hot water and rainwater capture part of the building code.
3. Encouraging denser urban development, with better public transport (the whole "transport oriented design" paradigm, with a focus on building walkable neighbourhoods)
4. Moving to electric transport - both individual and public
5. Building as much solar, wind, geothermal, ocean and biogas based power infrastructure as needed. Build in enough storage to deal with any intermittency issues. Expand the grids and interconnect them. Make the grid smarter - manage demand to match supply instead of always trying to generate sufficient power to meet demand.
6. Increase the use of recycling, eventually moving to a "cradle to cradle" / "design for disassembly" / "internet of things" industrial paradigm, so that we can give up the current extraction based system of manufacturing.
7. Adopt various other efficiency measures as appropriate (cogeneration, increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards etc)
8. Work from home where possible.
9. Expand office opening times and work in shifts where possible. This can reduce traffic congestion which safes energy.
10. Reduce human population. IMO, without this, the other 9 are at best stop-gap strategies.
Hello All:
As I am a brand new user, I feel a little guilty about my first post, but I am compelled to respond. I have been vigorously study the energy/PO/alternative subject, trying to cut through the various agenda driven noise. I read the doomers, the pollyannas, the cornucopians and everything in between. I haven't decided where I sit but what is essential on this subject is verifiable, realistic data wherever and whenever possible.
Please, do not take this as a flame. My intention is exactly the opposite.
So, I must take exception to your statement:
"2. How can the supply side be fixed given a finite planet ? The amount of energy available from renewable sources is more than 10,000 times our current consumption."
By definition, a finite planet has a fixed supply side of energy. It consists of how many joules we receive every day and we can't use more than that unless we've stored some from the previous day's (or month's insolation)
From my studies, about 99%+ of renewable energy comes from the sun, and as of 2004, total energy consumption would make this factor less than 8200.
Am I being picky? Yes and no. If we are to wrap our heads around this problem, every number we use must be realistic and grounded. That said, whether it it some vague "more than 10,000" or a more specific 8200, it is a meaningless, potentially dangerous, cornucopian statement. I have seen it many times, so you are not alone.
What is our current solar consumption? As we enjoy the benefits of oxygen, and are relying on plants to provide us with it, while at the same time they are stopping our CO2 levels from not going through the roof any faster than they are, I would suggest that we are indeed using that energy and shouldn't mess with it.
The ambient temperature of the earth is almost entirely due to solar radiation, without which we would have a very cold dark orb, so I posit that we are using that energy, as is every member of the food chain.
The oceans, which comprise 4/5 of the planet is a solar driven food machine, starting at the smallest creature who thrive by photosynthesis and are the very foundation of the marine food chain. Further, temperature differentials that are responsible for moving nutrients via massive ocean currents are solar driven. As we avail ourselves of this bounty, that energy is off limits.
Every creature on this planet; herbivore, carnivore or omnivore survives as a result of what the sun provides, both in terms of food and water. For land creatures, every scrap of water that they use was distilled and delivered by, you guessed it, solar energy. We are in that group, from our millions of acres of direct food crops to millions of tons of plant life eaten by our domesticated animal. This planet is solar powered and always has been.
So, what is left for us? Frankly, I don't know, but as the earth is in relative equilibrium, I would say it is using just about all of it.
That doesn't mean that there isn't something left over for us, but what is our realistic supply? Again, I don't know, focusing on "realistic" values, any form of direct or indirect solar conversion must be in relative proximity to its consumption. This is a good thing, otherwise we could screw up our oceans more than we already have. Perhaps we could extract solar energy from the poles, and lessen ice cap melting, but that makes for a pretty long extension cord. :-)
Let me provide an example:
If we were to replace the energy consumption of the US using photovoltaics, (and I don't suggest we do), it would require we cover 21.8% of the US land mass with solar cells (Based on an average of 5KWh/m2/day and an efficiency of 25%).
I show this to highlight the staggering amount of energy that we consume.
So here are the two key questions:
How much is available to us?
How much can we realistically expect to harvest?
Whether you meant to or not, the statement in question implies boundless resources and further implies that it's all for the taking. When will we ever learn?
Please take this in the vein it was meant and if I have missed anything, feel free to jump all over me. We are dealing with some very large numbers here so between sig. figs and units, it's easy to make a mistake.
Cheers
You're not posting on a suspended artistic license, are you?
Let's see. 1*1017BTU * 1054.4 J/BTU = 1.05*1020 J/yr energy.
1.05*1020 J / 0.25 = 4.20*1020 J sun required (assuming all 100 quads are supplied as electricity)
4.20*1020 J/yr / 1.8*107 J/m²/day / 365 days/yr
= 6.39*1010 m²
= 6.39*104 km²
Looks like a square 253 km (157 miles) on a side. That's a long, long way from 20+% of the US land mass.
In practice, large amounts of that energy would be used as heat (low to no conversion loss) and the fraction used as electricity is counted some 3x in its portion of the 100 quads. Both the USA and Australia may be in bad shape, but a lack of solar energy doesn't figure in either of our troubles.
Right you are, still haven't figured out where I messed up. It's a factor of 15??? (mutter, mutter, mutter)
The World Resources Institute puts 2000 US total consumption at double your figure, so the required area would a minimum of 1.3e5Km2, or a square 357 km (221 miles)on a side, still not a trivial figure. Factor in conversion (DC-AC or electrolysis plus transmission costs) and add another 25% plus whatever increases over the last 8 years.
In some ways, this proves my point and a good raison d'etre for sites like this. If we don't have realistic data, we can't move forward logically.
Having wiped a little egg off my face, I still stand by my basic premise.
Yes, I know Oz has no solar shortage, I worked in the Simpson desert and the Strzleki Desert for 3 months.
I close, cheerfully busted
Back to your note about impact on the general environment, put PV on roofs and solar thermal plants in the desert.
I really can't see how we could have any meaningful impact on the environment if we did this (except for the benefit of shutting down all the coal and nuclear power plants).
We aren't going to change the albedo of the earth and the energy isn't "lost" - it will reemerge as heat somewhere down the track.
Yes, I agree, although heat (infrared) has a lower energy value than visible or ultraviolet light, it all goes to progressively lower energy levels. That's entropy for you.
The red and infrared spectrum does not contain sufficient energy for photosynthesis, but as you rightly point out, we have lots of desert and are making more every day.
My main point was the need for real data, and I think I have beat that to death enough. Secondly, I wanted to point out how much energy we consume and what sort of effort will be required to replace it.
Also, you are right to point out that PV will do nothing to replace petroleum distillates unless we use the electricity to generate hydrogen, which is a cruel hoax as a transportation fuel (IMHO), or further process the hydrogen into some sort of liquid fuel, which will do little to address CO2 emission issues.
As an interim or stop-gap measure, I don't understand why coal should not be used for electrical generation, providing scrubbers and CO2 sequestration are included. Perhaps I am naive, but I'm still learning.
As more and more countries "get it", I see a looming general resource crunch. If fossil fuel independence is possible, it will come at an enormous cost in money, natural resources and energy. Rather than hijack this thread, I will post my theory for all to pick apart once I am better informed.
Cheers,
PV (and any other form of power generation, preferably using renewables) will help replace oil if we transform our transport systems to be electricity based instead of liquid fuels based.
We need to do both things to deal with peak oil.
The EIA says the US consumed 104.8 quads in the last year on record, so you might want to see if WRI is doing any funny accounting.
"Two men say they're Jesus, One of them must be wrong." - Mark Knopfler.
Your reference to WRI implies that WRI is less credible than the EIA. Can you justify this?
At present I have no basis for believing one over the other, (or either one, for that matter) but the WRI does not detail its methodology as well as the EIA.
That said, I find it interesting that the link you provided showed:
- Fossil fuels jumped .06 quads due to notation f "Includes 0.06 quadrillion Btu of coal coke net imports.", which is not reflected in imports.
- Renewables jumped up .05 quads between input and the breakout after adjustments (deduction) and exports (deduction).
Not a huge jump, but still, unexplained discrepancies make me question the overall validity.
I will investigate more.