Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
Heineken wrote:
The electricity that is saved just gets used elsewhere to keep the growth juggernaut moving. Jevon's paradox.
That's the whole point. The electricity saved powers EV's without increasing grid capacity. There is also less mercury in CFLs than is produced by the electricity used to power incandescents during their lifespan. Not to mention recycling of CFLs. _________________ The shovel with a wheel - The Wovel.
http://wovel.com/
Joined: Sep 14, 2004 Posts: 6487 Location: Rural Virginia
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
Huh? Your post makes little sense.
The power saved gets used elsewhere, for a net saving of zero. The power plants keep humming and producing their mercury, and the CFLs contribute their own, new source of mercury.
That doesn't sound like progress to me.
Mercury is one of the most deadly poisons around. Billions of CFLs will add large amounts in aggregate. Most will never be recycled, but will end up broken in landfills, on roadsides, and on floors.
It would be better to stick with incandescents but to use far FEWER of them, and to lower the wattage.
Unfortunately, our civilization doesn't do FEWER or LESS. _________________ "Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
I guess we are arguing different points. I'm saying there are 2 possibilities:
1. Keep using incandescents and build more power plants to power EV's
or
2. Switch to CFL's and use existing power plants to power EV's.
EV's will become more numerous and they will need power. I say the grid can currently handle a large number of EV's without further increase, but if more power is needed more efficient use of the power we have can provide that power, including more efficient lighting.
I don't buy the mercury doomer stuff either. There is a very tiny amount of mercury in CFL's and recycling programs are already increasing. Not to mention that they last so much longer they won't need to be replaced very often. I've been using CFL's for over 5 years and I've only replaced 2 of the very early ones that frankly weren't that good. _________________ The shovel with a wheel - The Wovel.
http://wovel.com/
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
JRP3 wrote:
2. Switch to CFL's and use existing power plants to power EV's.
Switching household use would free up ~75 billion kWh/year, or more via all lighting in the states, which is enough to power a trillion miles in Apteras/similar. Smaller efficient EVs would go farther on the same amount of electricity saved via efficiency increases outside of households, or some combo of both. _________________
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
TonyPrep wrote:
I'm not sure why you ask the first question. The US covers at least 4 time zones. That alone extends daytime travel and electricity use. Work and leisure goes on round the clock and long journeys are common (same here).
Oh, well, the point being that for most common use, the individual would return home the same day, and if their work prevented it, they simply wouldn't use an EV. Similarly, if someone w/ an EV wanted to use something for a longer trip, they could simply rent an ICE powered vehicle.
TonyPrep wrote:
I still can't find that TheOilDrum post but I remember looking at this report (PDF) a few months ago: IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES. Though it was generally positive on the ability of the present grid to cope with PHEVs (not all-electric vehicles), it's pertinent to point out that the study concluded that 73% of the light duty vehicle fleet, as PHEVs, could be serviced by the current grid if they were charged in off-peak hours.
If you look at the graph on page nine, you'll notice that their energy use per mile is anywhere from about three to eight times that of the Aptera, and consequently, the battery cost per mile for the only appropriate chemistry given performance constraints I know of, lithium phosphate, would increase similarly. Spending $10,000 every ~150,000-200,000 miles in the case of the Aptera isn't so bad since that's less that what would be spent on gas in the most efficient gas offering, a Prius. Increase that by a factor three to eight and it turns into something that not only doesn't save money, but isn't affordable at all for most. Consequently, their impact on the grid is off by a factor of around four.
TonyPrep wrote:
This implies that for PHEVs a significant increase in capacity would be needed to cope with 100% of the LDV fleet.
Only if everyone is willing to shell out an about four times as much for battery and electricity costs. I don't think we can right now due to economic pressure right now, so that large of a load on the grid is moot IMO.
TonyPrep wrote:
I think the point is moot, to some extent, because it will take a long time (possibly decades) to move to mainly PHEVs and, by then, fuel savings may be overtaken by oil production declines, so a further move to all-electric may be needed putting a strain on the grid that it may not be able to take (if it had not already succumbed to 100% PHEVs).
I think it's moot for some time, not because the grid couldn't handle it, but because of BIC. In order to maximize profit, alternatives need to be kept at arms length for as long as possible. That being said, it's only a matter of time IMO. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1988 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
yesplease wrote:
I think it's moot for some time, not because the grid couldn't handle it, but because of BIC. In order to maximize profit, alternatives need to be kept at arms length for as long as possible. That being said, it's only a matter of time IMO.
Time is something we don't have a lot of, in this matter.
So, not only could the US grid not handle an all PHEV fleet, without a significant increase, with attendant worries about reliability (as per the report) but it most certainly couldn't handle a totally EV fleet and we can't possibly move to that quantity of EVs or PHEVs anyway. So electric or plug-in hybrids are not going to keep personal transportation going, in the current manner.
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
TonyPrep wrote:
[ So electric or plug-in hybrids are not going to keep personal transportation going, in the current manner.
I agree, nothing will. But they can keep some form of reduced personal transportation going. People will have to cut back no matter what, and if transportation is expensive enough, whatever the fuel, they will. I think it's obvious that the grid, as it is, can handle a large shift to EV's.
As far as time zones are concerned, the grid is not homogeneous. Plugging my car in at night in NY won't cause a drain in CA during peak time. _________________ The shovel with a wheel - The Wovel.
http://wovel.com/
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
TonyPrep wrote:
So, not only could the US grid not handle an all PHEV fleet, without a significant increase, with attendant worries about reliability (as per the report)
The report assumes we all have an extra $15,000 to throw at battery packs/electricity every few years, which is likely impossible.
TonyPrep wrote:
but it most certainly couldn't handle a totally EV fleet and we can't possibly move to that quantity of EVs or PHEVs anyway. So electric or plug-in hybrids are not going to keep personal transportation going, in the current manner.
Of course they can't. But the current manner is purposely designed to be as wasteful as possible. Perpetuating that waste through electricity instead of liquid fuels won't do anything except make more money by having more people pay out the nose and move any "peaks" onto some other finite resource.
The only possible instantiation of electrics due to economics would be small efficient versions such as the Aptera. Assuming electrification of the current fleet is simply silly because the current fleet weighs in at around a twentieth of the weight of a fully loaded semi, but only gets two to three times the mileage. Conspicuous consumption? Yeah sure... The report you linked cannot be accurate due to economic constraints, unless we somehow miraculously becomes four times wealthier overnight. _________________
Joined: Jan 14, 2008 Posts: 321 Location: The Yukon
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
mkwin wrote:
This just highlights the fact peak oil is not really an energy problem it is a liquid fuel problem.
I see many alternatives in the medium to long term for low carbon energy such as 3rd and 4th generation nuclear, fusion, solar film, CSP, wind, tidal turbines. Wind kites, geothermal and hot rock. Plus, in general, gas and coal are plentiful.
The problem is not really energy. The problem is the reliance of transport on oil. If oil goes into decline soon (next 10 years or so) the potential discontinuities make plenty of doom scenarios plausible. I believe, however, that Campbell et al are overly pessimistic and URR is more likely to be around 2600 billion barrels so the decline will be more of a, gradually declining, bumpy plateau. High oil prices, economic problems but not the end of the world. Not yet anyway.
Your interpretation is one that is becoming more clear all things considered. As mentioned in another thread this week, the TrendLines Avg of the 23 production profile scenarios (with its 3.9-Tb URR) projects that this year's flow rate (87-mbd) will not be breached until 2029 AD ... reflecting a 92-mbd Peak in 2019. _________________ www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4319 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
FreddyH wrote:
Your interpretation is one that is becoming more clear all things considered. As mentioned in another thread this week, the TrendLines Avg of the 23 production profile scenarios (with its 3.9-Tb URR) projects that this year's flow rate (87-mbd) will not be breached until 2029 AD ... reflecting a 92-mbd Peak in 2019.
Freddy, can you dumb that down a little?
Are you saying that your projections show 87 mbd is the peak, or is it 92 mbd, and are you saying the peak will be in 2019, 2029 or some other year?
I'm not sure what "flow rate" means. Is that different from barrels per day? _________________
Joined: Jan 14, 2008 Posts: 321 Location: The Yukon
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
BigTex wrote:
FreddyH wrote:
Your interpretation is one that is becoming more clear all things considered. As mentioned in another thread this week, the TrendLines Avg of the 23 production profile scenarios (with its 3.9-Tb URR) projects that this year's flow rate (87-mbd) will not be breached until 2029 AD ... reflecting a 92-mbd Peak in 2019.
Freddy, can you dumb that down a little?
Are you saying that your projections show 87 mbd is the peak, or is it 92 mbd, and are you saying the peak will be in 2019, 2029 or some other year?
I'm not sure what "flow rate" means. Is that different from barrels per day?
The Avg indicates Peak Rate will be 92 in 2019 and All Liquids will decline back to 87 in 2029. The insinuation that substantial energy replacement or substitution is required on the short term seems to be misguided according to the projections by the globe's recognized geologists and analysts. _________________ www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1988 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:02 am Post subject: Re: My days as a doomer might be over
FreddyH wrote:
The Avg indicates Peak Rate will be 92 in 2019 and All Liquids will decline back to 87 in 2029. The insinuation that substantial energy replacement or substitution is required on the short term seems to be misguided according to the projections by the globe's recognized geologists and analysts.
So, you think production will never go below 87 mbpd, until 2029, but will only get to 92 mbpd by 2019. That's an average growth rate of 0.5% per year. I think it's a matter of opinion whether that woeful growth rate can meet the demand placed on it by growing economies. However, recessions can dent that demand. The question is: will we have recessions because there is no substantial replacement for the gap represented by such a slow production growth rate, or because of some completely unrelated economic condition?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
