PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[Nosi]

drkitten, I do hope you are right.

From a professional POV I'd really like photovoltaics to become major, as my experience in power semiconductor design and development are fairly good match for that field, and it would increase demand for my skills.

I think that a potential problem is that oil is pretty energy dense, so is highly suitable for transport applications. Hydrogen isn't nearly as good.

I doubt any SINGLE alternative fuel besides nuke will replace oil, but combos of alternatives will perhaps have a chance along with nuclear. Oil and oil companies got a big fat black eye in the Gulf of Mexico to boot.

 

[Hindmost]

The only problem with that is that the amount it takes to sustain our way of life is also a function of our technology; as oil prices rise, the value in oil substitutes or oil-efficient technologies rises. Again, this isn't exactly news; it's exactly what's been seen in other "peak" events. People didn't use less lighting when whale oil got expensive (quite the opposite), but they did switch to kerosene and other light-producing technologies.

The problem now is that the planet will start to test thermodynamic limits. No technology circumvents thermo. When whales were disappearing, we had quaker state crude, which was very plentiful and produced energy cheaper. When oil starts to really run short, there isn't any replacement energy source that can make that same claim. Unfortunately, I just don't think fusion is close enough to take over.

glenn

 

[drkitten]

The problem now is that the planet will start to test thermodynamic limits.

Nowhere close. Just for giggles, calculate how much energy is available in the rotational energy of the planet.

Hell, my understanding is that there's more energy available in coal ash (from the uranium in the core) than you can get from burning the coal. We're nowhere near thermodynamic limits.

 

[Hindmost]

Nowhere close. Just for giggles, calculate how much energy is available in the rotational energy of the planet.

Hell, my understanding is that there's more energy available in coal ash (from the uranium in the core) than you can get from burning the coal. We're nowhere near thermodynamic limits.

First you are going to have to tell me how you plan on harnessing the rotation of the planet.

I have posted before how it is not possible for nuclear to replace oil in the near future. There isn't enough industrial capacity and there aren't enough trained professsionals. It will be lucky to break even over the next 20 years on the planet. Uranium only becomes a feasible long-term energy source when reprocessing/breeding is added and possibly with thorium hybrid reactors. However, there are no licensed designs available and it takes a bit to put all the pieces in place. To replace just the gas fired plants in the US, 100 nukes would have to be built. To replace the coal fired capacity, it would take about 250--300 plants. Peak coal is probably at least 50 to 80 years in the future. The US has 104 nukes on the grid which took 30 years to achieve--many at very high cost.

To replace 350-400 quads over the next decades, a variety of sources will be needed and none will be cheaper. That is why we are hitting some limits as population grows. There is still no such thing as a free lunch; the planet has exploited millions of years of stored solar, geothermal and chemical energy. Technology doesn't trump thermo.

glenn

 

[JihadJane]

Again, this isn't exactly news; it's exactly what's been seen in other "peak" events. People didn't use less lighting when whale oil got expensive....

When oil gets too expensive we can all move into the towering fairy castles built by our delusional, growth-is-forever economic "experts"!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When oil gets too expensive we can all move into the towering fairy castles built by our delusional, growth-is-forever economic "experts"!

You're living there now. Will there be enough room?

 

[Nosi]

You're living there now. Will there be enough room?

??????

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

??????

JihadJane lives in a fairy castle in the land of make believe.

 

[drkitten]

First you are going to have to tell me how you plan on harnessing the rotation of the planet.

No, I'm not. If you're wondering how we can manage to do it, then you're admitting it's not a thermodynamic limit, but a technological one.

I have posted before how it is not possible for nuclear to replace oil in the near future.

Yes, and if we didn't believe you then, we're not going to believe you now. And for the same reason that you were wrong in the previous paragraph. You're not allowing for technological development. See the Simon-Ehrlich wager for further discussion.

Technology doesn't trump thermo.

But it doesn't have to. The energy is there. You just don't know how to get to it -- which means technology needs only to trump ignorance.

 

[Mark6]

First you are going to have to tell me how you plan on harnessing the rotation of the planet.

Tidal energy does exactly that -- even if in very inefficient manner.

 

[drkitten]

Tidal energy does exactly that -- even if in very inefficient manner.

Wait.... are you suggesting that there are technological improvements that could be made to improve the extraction of a known form of energy?

Nah, that couldn't possibly be. It's thermodynamically impossible to extract energy from anything other than oil. It's got to be. Otherwise how could one support a set of ignorant Mad Max fantasies?

 

[jimbob]

First you are going to have to tell me how you plan on harnessing the rotation of the planet.

I have posted before how it is not possible for nuclear to replace oil in the near future. There isn't enough industrial capacity and there aren't enough trained professsionals. It will be lucky to break even over the next 20 years on the planet. Uranium only becomes a feasible long-term energy source when reprocessing/breeding is added and possibly with thorium hybrid reactors. However, there are no licensed designs available and it takes a bit to put all the pieces in place. To replace just the gas fired plants in the US, 100 nukes would have to be built. To replace the coal fired capacity, it would take about 250--300 plants. Peak coal is probably at least 50 to 80 years in the future. The US has 104 nukes on the grid which took 30 years to achieve--many at very high cost.

To replace 350-400 quads over the next decades, a variety of sources will be needed and none will be cheaper. That is why we are hitting some limits as population grows. There is still no such thing as a free lunch; the planet has exploited millions of years of stored solar, geothermal and chemical energy. Technology doesn't trump thermo.

glenn

Wait.... are you suggesting that there are technological improvements that could be made to improve the extraction of a known form of energy?

Nah, that couldn't possibly be. It's thermodynamically impossible to extract energy from anything other than oil. It's got to be. Otherwise how could one support a set of ignorant Mad Max fantasies?

Why rotational energy? I'd have thought the obvious one is the solar energy reaching the planet every year. Rotational energy is a bad one to choose, because if we did manage to extract a significant proportion then day-length would become unpleasant.

Hindmost listing the amount of infrastructure that would be needed to deal with the deficit required to keep at our current rate of energy usage is not a Mad Max fantasy.

I read his (?) post as stating that the "cheap" energy-dense fuels with a low energy-cost of extraction are nearing their limits.

For high-speed aircraft especially, hydrogen is far less suitable than kerosene.

 

[drkitten]

Why rotational energy? I'd have thought the obvious one is the solar energy reaching the planet every year.

Because the math is easier for rotational kinetic energy.

Hindmost listing the amount of infrastructure that would be needed to deal with the deficit required to keep at our current rate of energy usage is not a Mad Max fantasy.

Yes, it is. It makes no allowance for technological progress.

I read his (?) post as stating that the "cheap" energy-dense fuels with a low energy-cost of extraction are nearing their limits.

... but, of course, what is cheap today isn't necessarily cheap tomorrow. Aluminum used to be more expensive than gold -- and whale oil used to be the cheapest fuel around.

That's the whole point of the Simon-Ehrlich wager. If you simply project current trends, you find that since January, the temperature in New York has increased something like forty degrees over four months, which means that by the time of the 2014 Superbowl, it will be hot enough to melt the girders the stadium is built from. Similarly, if you project the then-current trends for the price of copper, Ehrlich calculated that it would be unaffordable by now.

Except it wasn't, because he didn't factor in the development of new technology to make substitute goods better, cheaper, and more widely available.

 

[Hindmost]

No, I'm not. If you're wondering how we can manage to do it, then you're admitting it's not a thermodynamic limit, but a technological one.

In general, the rule is that you should provide support for your own claims. So, please show us some evidence that we can harness the earth's into useable amounts of energy.

Yes, and if we didn't believe you then, we're not going to believe you now. And for the same reason that you were wrong in the previous paragraph. You're not allowing for technological development. See the Simon-Ehrlich wager for further discussion.

I am not asking you to believe me. I cited MIT and DOE with respect to nuclear issues. Here are the links again and you will see some of the limitations. It takes years to build a reactor vessel and steam generators--and the whole plant takes 5 years if done well. There is work to get this lower, but it won't be immediate. There are only a few places on the planet that can forge the heavy vessel components.

As the for wager, I have known about it for years and it is still applicable--the fact that the time was limited to 10 years invalidates it. I wouldn't take that bet now.

http://nuclear.energy.gov/np2010/reports/mpr2776Rev0102105.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But it doesn't have to. The energy is there. You just don't know how to get to it -- which means technology needs only to trump ignorance.

Cheap energy is not there with the exception of coal. Cite something that will produce 350 quads/year within the next four decades and I will agree with you. No technology alters thermo though.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

Tidal energy does exactly that -- even if in very inefficient manner.

Why rotational energy? I'd have thought the obvious one is the solar energy reaching the planet every year. Rotational energy is a bad one to choose, because if we did manage to extract a significant proportion then day-length would become unpleasant.

Hindmost listing the amount of infrastructure that would be needed to deal with the deficit required to keep at our current rate of energy usage is not a Mad Max fantasy.

I read his (?) post as stating that the "cheap" energy-dense fuels with a low energy-cost of extraction are nearing their limits.

For high-speed aircraft especially, hydrogen is far less suitable than kerosene.

When I was looking for the nuclear links, I found this...it is interesting it that calcs on how many quads we can get out of tidal and wave energy. I have only skimmed it, but there may not be enough attention being paid to deep ocean currents. The paper is anti-nuke however, so I am a bit disappointed.

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSEC-GP-216-03.pdf

When I studied tidal power in the past, it was very limited as far as energy output. There were insufficient locations around the planet to take advantage and the return was small for a large infrastructure. I do need to update my knowledge.

glenn

 

[JihadJane]

Suppression of information about Peak Oil:


'How The Global Oil Watchdog Failed Its Mission
How the IEA was silenced about the future of global oil production.
'

12 years ago, the International Energy Agency (IEA) discovered that Peak Oil would threaten the prosperity and stability of our societies. Yes, they knew it. While some IEA officials tried to inform the world about this game-changing event, it appears that others had different priorities.

 

[drkitten]

In general, the rule is that you should provide support for your own claims.

Right. And I have done. My claim is that there is energy available in the rotation of the earth, and therefore that there is no thermodynamic limitation forcing us to rely on oil.

It's not my problem that you don't know what the word "thermodynamic" means. It's an impressive word, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Suppression of information about Peak Oil:


'How The Global Oil Watchdog Failed Its Mission
How the IEA was silenced about the future of global oil production.
'

12 years ago, the International Energy Agency (IEA) discovered that Peak Oil would threaten the prosperity and stability of our societies. Yes, they knew it. While some IEA officials tried to inform the world about this game-changing event, it appears that others had different priorities.

The Jews just can't get away with anything while a smart cookie like you is watching.

 

[Hindmost]

Right. And I have done. My claim is that there is energy available in the rotation of the earth, and therefore that there is no thermodynamic limitation forcing us to rely on oil.

It's not my problem that you don't know what the word "thermodynamic" means. It's an impressive word, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

I certainly have a different definition of what is evidence for a claim...until you show or cite some calcs on how many quads/year with harnessing the rotation of the earth, what you have provided is just an ideological rant. You can also use methane hydrate or dropping marbles into a black hole for the same level of evidence in the future...

However, I did get a "C" in thermo, so your poisoning of the well/ad hom is not as bad as one might think.

glenn

 

[DC]

is "the jews" a kind of new godwin?