 | 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 | DrumBeat: May 14, 2008 |  |
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
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.