Will the internet survive energy contraction?

"Peak" is not the same as "run out." There's enough coal in the US to last another 200-300 years.
 
Last edited:
Patzek's paper doesn't dispute the size of the coal reserves. His model is based on the assumption that the current wild push for sequestration will negate any gains in coal plant efficiency. I see where he's coming from, but without reading the paper I don't know if I really agree with the conclusion.
 
excaza said:
Patzek's paper doesn't dispute the size of the coal reserves. His model is based on the assumption that the current wild push for sequestration will negate any gains in coal plant efficiency. I see where he's coming from, but without reading the paper I don't know if I really agree with the conclusion.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure where the 200 to 300 year number came from?
 
Current usage is roughly 1 billion tons of coal a year. Estimated reserves at active coal mines are around 17.1 trillion tons.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
Current usage is roughly 1 billion tons of coal a year. Estimated reserves at active coal mines are around 17.1 trillion tons.
Click to expand...

Then 200-300 years assumes a pretty sharp increase in consumption?


Also, CO2 emission, global warming, etc.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Then 200-300 years assumes a pretty sharp increase in consumption?
Click to expand...

Yes, among other things. The US output now is roughly 100 quadrillion Btu, and is estimated to be around 120 quadrillion Btu by 2035. There's also the issues with actually mining the entire reserves, and how efficiently/cost effectively it can be done. Then there's all the scrubbing, transportation, uses outside of power generation, sequestering, etc.

The estimates for coal reserves as a whole are much higher than the 17.1 trillion tons (I've seen upwards of 200 trillion tons), but I'm hoping we'll have come up with something else by the time it's necessary to tap into them.

There's a lot of coal.
 
Yeah, coal is really nice from an output perspective, but it's a horrid energy source from any health, environmentalist or safety perspective.
 
I agree, and I think the internet will continue to be the most efficient way to do many things.
 
TFian said:
Are you sure there'd be no energy for making paper? We made paper for far longer than we had electricity...
Click to expand...

Don't confuse low-tech with low-cost.

For example, the total cost -- whether in energy, labor, materials, and what-not -- of treating polio victims dwarfs the total cost of vaccinating against polio.
 
I'm just wildly speculating, but I think industries will continue to burn coal if that's what it takes. Unless we actually outlaw it, in which case... Well, I guess wars will be fought over it?
 
Hard to say, we have to see what happens, if sequestration becomes the new wave. The issue here in the US is that there was supposed to already be scrubbers on all new coal plants and then somebody bent the grandfathering rules to say that new coal plants built next to old coal plants weren't really 'new coal plants', but "existing coal plants".
 
Hindmost said:
The current usage of coal for the US is about 1 billion tons, but the EIA estimates of reserves for active mines is 17.9 billion tons with total reserves about 488 billion of which 261 billion are recoverable.
Click to expand...

I think you mistyped "bi" fro "tri" in at least one place :)
 
TFian said:
Yes, I know the internet will not be shut down *right away*, the question is will contraction eventually shut the internet off.
Click to expand...

As already noted, "energy" is not limited to oil, and the way your source talks about energy obscures the role of electricity. There are many ways to generate electricity that don't rely on oil or other fossil fuels.

Your source is also assuming that in the meantime, we aren't doing anything about our energy infrastructure. Fortunately, people are not immobilized like deer in the headlights, peak oil or no peak oil. We are building new electric-generation infrastructure that uses renewable resources. Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with recent developments:

World's Largest Wind Project is Underway In California: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/worlds-largest-wind-project-is-underway.html

Engineers race to design world's biggest offshore wind turbines: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/engineers-race-to-design-worlds-biggest.html

Africa’s Biggest Windfarm Debuts in Morocco: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/africas-biggest-windfarm-debuts-in.html

1,000-Megawatt Plant in Calif. Marks New Milestone in Solar Expansion: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/1000-megawatt-plant-in-calif-marks-new.html

Pike research: Solar To Hit Grid Parity by 2013: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/pike-research-solar-to-hit-grid-parity.html

Solar's Great Leap Forward: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/06/solars-great-leap-forward.html

Spain - A Solar Thermal Powerhouse: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/spain-solar-thermal-powerhouse.html

The Race For Smart Grids: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/race-for-smart-grids.html

Hot rocks and high hopes: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/09/hot-rocks-and-high-hopes.html

Asia powers into renewable energy: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/asia-powers-into-renewable-energy.html

More at that blog, which simply forwards articles from larger media, including the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Economist, and the Guardian. It's a useful collection point for renewable energy news. I recommend it to you as a reminder that we are not doomed.
 
GreyArea said:
As already noted, "energy" is not limited to oil, and the way your source talks about energy obscures the role of electricity. There are many ways to generate electricity that don't rely on oil or other fossil fuels.

Your source is also assuming that in the meantime, we aren't doing anything about our energy infrastructure. Fortunately, people are not immobilized like deer in the headlights, peak oil or no peak oil. We are building new electric-generation infrastructure that uses renewable resources. Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with recent developments:

<skip>

I recommend it to you as a reminder that we are not doomed.
Click to expand...
After reading a bit more about (and by) John Greer -- "the Archdruid" in OP, -- I've come to conclusion that he WANTS civilization to be doomed, and willfully ignores all evidence to the contrary because contiuation of industrial society is just repugnant to him. He assumes people ARE immobilized like deer in the headlights, because if they are not, then he is irrelevant.

Or worse, he is just a hypocritical doom-monger who keeps writing books on his computer and cashing checks in an airconditioned bank.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom