Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 22:15:49

PraiseDoom wrote: Well....yes....but I was really HOPING you meant overnight, and you obviously didn't, and I've been waiting around for 2 years for "overnight" to happen, so I'm sensitive to the issue I guess.


Peak oil is not a date in time that precipitates some startling event or collapse.

It is when it is seen in hindsight by the markets that it is here.

It is when the stocks are depleted and demand destruction rolls up to the developed world and bites our ass.

It's when the cost to access energy implodes the economy.

It is when Saudi Arabia says they have no spare capacity.

Strikes me as interesting, the idea that building out the power structure of the 21st Century is the driver of economic growth, just as the growth of Standard Oil, public works projects, the interstate highway system and electrification of America once were?


Yes, but the next great public works project may be one of manual labor, and not machine.

So maybe thats 50 to 75 years of economic growth building out the new energy infrastructure?


No, it's 50 to 75 years of powerdown, restricted per capita consumption and population reduction building out a sustainable replacement for a smaller population and energy demand.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 23:46:19

MonteQuest wrote:
PraiseDoom wrote: Well....yes....but I was really HOPING you meant overnight, and you obviously didn't, and I've been waiting around for 2 years for "overnight" to happen, so I'm sensitive to the issue I guess.


Peak oil is not a date in time that precipitates some startling event or collapse.


Says you. The Prophet Ruppert speculated that America wouldn't be a functioning entity after Rita and Katrina....and the Prophet Duncan might disagree with you heartily as well.

MonteQuest wrote:
Strikes me as interesting, the idea that building out the power structure of the 21st Century is the driver of economic growth, just as the growth of Standard Oil, public works projects, the interstate highway system and electrification of America once were? So maybe thats 50 to 75 years of economic growth building out the new energy infrastructure?


No, it's 50 to 75 years of powerdown, restricted per capita consumption and population reduction building out a sustainable replacement for a smaller population and energy demand.


Well that doesn't sound near as fun as target practice on zombies as envisioned by the Prophet Duncan.
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 00:32:57

PraiseDoom wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
PraiseDoom wrote: Well....yes....but I was really HOPING you meant overnight, and you obviously didn't, and I've been waiting around for 2 years for "overnight" to happen, so I'm sensitive to the issue I guess.


Peak oil is not a date in time that precipitates some startling event or collapse.


Says you.


No, says you.

Aren't you the one who said here we are two years post peak and no collapse?

July 2006 is the peak of oil production so far with May 2005 the peak of conventional oil.

Those dates in time did not precipitate anything but a statistic so far.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby Omnitir » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 02:13:32

MonteQuest wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.

An interesting projection considering that in reality solar has been growing 33% for the past decade.

If this rate were maintained, solar alone would meet 100% of electricity demand, (yes growth included), 26 years from now. Sure, maintaining 33% growth for 26 years straight is probably impossible (well assuming that solar isn't the next aviation, or micro processing, or automotive industry in terms of explosive growth). But at the very least such projections should make us take the solar growth projections from the worlds largest oil company with a grain of salt.



If this rate were maintained, solar alone would meet 100% of electricity demand, (yes growth included), 26 years from now.


If pigs had wings they could fly. Links to support this rather spurious claim? And I don't mean a exponential growth graph, I mean studies to support it. How credible is it to trash Exxon's projections with one at the opposite extreme?


You don't need a link to someone else's study, you just do the math yourself. Exxon's projections are just fine, as are mine. The only difference, is that Exxon calculate 11% growth, while I looked at the past 10 years of PV growth and projected those figures; 33% per annum. At 33% growth in PV capacity, given demand growth of 4% per annum, it will take 26 years to meet all of the worlds electricity demand.

You foresee it taking the best part of a century to reach a sustainable energy paradigm, but your projection can only be accurate if PV growth takes a massive hit. Why do you believe this will happen? Will energy scarcity lower demand for alternative energies? Will all the R&D going into solar and nanotechnology and whatever else will become a part of the future solar capacity all be diverted into ramping up resource wars?

It seems more logical to me that as more and more people become aware of both the energy and environmental problems civilization faces, there will be an increasing demand for alternatives.

MonteQuest wrote:Let's be accurate here. Photovoltaic, according to your link has been growing at 33%, not all solar/wind technologies together.

But I will go you one better:

According to a study done by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, the fastest growing energy technology has been grid-connected solar PV, with total existing capacity increasing from 0.16 gigawatts (GW) at the start of 2000 to 1.8 GW by the end of 2004; a 60 percent average annual growth rate during the five-year period.

During the same period, they cite other renewable energy technologies grew rapidly as well:
• wind power: 28 percent
• biodiesel: 25 percent
• solar hot water/heating: 17 percent
• off-grid solar PV: 17 percent
• geothermal heat capacity: 13 percent
• ethanol: 11 percent

However, even with these massive growth rates, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geo thermal and biofuels contribute just 2% of our primary energy with wind/solar less than 1%. An almost inconsequential contribution, given the twilight of the oil age on the near horizon.
Peakoil and the Growth of Renewable Energy


Your last statement in bold completely fails to factor in exponential growth. These growth rates, while accounting for a mere fraction of primary energy right now, will ramp up rapidly if maintained. No extensive study needed, just the most simple understanding of mathematics and exponential trends.

You can argue against the possibility that these growth rates will be maintained. Maybe peak oil will cause a massive drop in the demand for alternatives (though the opposite seems more likely), or maybe some other factor will drop the growth of renewables. But the fact is that if these growth rates persist, renewables will dwarf conventional energy sources within a few decades. The fact that they are starting from such a small percentage of our total primary energy is completely, utterly, irrelevant. If you think otherwise, you need to revisit exponential growth.


MonteQuest wrote:And it is not electricity demand that is our near-term concern, it is liquid fuels. Photovoltaic electricity does not help that but marginally.

Firstly, battery technology is also following the same exponential trends as solar (and most other techs for that matter). There are several possible solutions to the liquid fuels crisis if we have enough energy, which is why meeting our electricity needs with alternatives is so important in trying to address peak oil. As solar replaces more of the conventional sources of electricity generation, other fuels become viable for transportation.

This discussion about liquid fuels was previously attempted, but was merged with some water for fuel thread where the discussion on solving liquid fuels was promptly buried under the argument of perpetual motion.

To reiterate the important point that was originally sought to be discussed in that thread: if we can produce sufficient electricity, we can solve oil decline issues through a range of alternative fuels. Even a hydrogen economy would be viable with sufficient electricity generation.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Down Under

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 14:46:28

Omnitir wrote:
You don't need a link to someone else's study, you just do the math yourself.


Can you not read? I said a study; not the math.

Exxon's projections are just fine, as are mine. The only difference, is that Exxon calculate 11% growth, while I looked at the past 10 years of PV growth and projected those figures; 33% per annum.


(sigh) 11% is for all wind/solar technologies, not just PV.

At 33% growth in PV capacity, given demand growth of 4% per annum, it will take 26 years to meet all of the worlds electricity demand.


I won't even respond. :roll:

You foresee it taking the best part of a century to reach a sustainable energy paradigm, but your projection can only be accurate if PV growth takes a massive hit. Why do you believe this will happen? Will energy scarcity lower demand for alternative energies? Will all the R&D going into solar and nanotechnology and whatever else will become a part of the future solar capacity all be diverted into ramping up resource wars?


Economic collapse.

Are we going to build solar PV for the third world?

We had better.

Energy scarcity may well prevent alternative energies.

Who will do without while we use that energy to build solar systems?

Heat or solar panel in the spring?

It seems more logical to me that as more and more people become aware of both the energy and environmental problems civilization faces, there will be an increasing demand for alternatives.


Yup, just like ice or generators in a hurricane.

Extremely expensive and in short supply.

MonteQuest wrote:However, even with these massive growth rates, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geo thermal and biofuels contribute just 2% of our primary energy with wind/solar less than 1%. An almost inconsequential contribution, given the twilight of the oil age on the near horizon.

Your last statement in bold completely fails to factor in exponential growth. These growth rates, while accounting for a mere fraction of primary energy right now, will ramp up rapidly if maintained. No extensive study needed, just the most simple understanding of mathematics and exponential trends.


Completely fails? It shows that even with exponential growth rates over the last few years it is still less than 1%.

60% growth rate over the last 5 years for PV is surely exponential?

And these rates for 5 years are not exponential?

• wind power: 28 percent
• biodiesel: 25 percent
• solar hot water/heating: 17 percent
• off-grid solar PV: 17 percent
• geothermal heat capacity: 13 percent
• ethanol: 11 percent

You can argue against the possibility that these growth rates will be maintained. Maybe peak oil will cause a massive drop in the demand for alternatives (though the opposite seems more likely), or maybe some other factor will drop the growth of renewables. But the fact is that if these growth rates persist, renewables will dwarf conventional energy sources within a few decades. The fact that they are starting from such a small percentage of our total primary energy is completely, utterly, irrelevant. If you think otherwise, you need to revisit exponential growth.


Meanwhile, energy demand stands still?

If these growth rates persist?

If a pig had wings....

And even if we can do this, it won't be as cheap, portable, scalable, or as readily available as oil and gasoline...and it must be.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 14:50:35

Omnitir wrote: This discussion about liquid fuels was previously attempted, but was merged with some water for fuel thread where the discussion on solving liquid fuels was promptly buried under the argument of perpetual motion.


Hydrogen, no matter how you produce it to be an energy carrier, is still an energy consumer.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 18:29:54

MonteQuest wrote:
PraiseDoom wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
PraiseDoom wrote: Well....yes....but I was really HOPING you meant overnight, and you obviously didn't, and I've been waiting around for 2 years for "overnight" to happen, so I'm sensitive to the issue I guess.


Peak oil is not a date in time that precipitates some startling event or collapse.


Says you.


No, says you.


Not really. I just parrot the Prophets. They, being experts in the fields of economics, engineering, and geology, are much more believable.

MonteQuest wrote:
Aren't you the one who said here we are two years post peak and no collapse?


Yup. I am very upset with the Prophets currently.

MonteQuest wrote:
July 2006 is the peak of oil production so far with May 2005 the peak of conventional oil.

Those dates in time did not precipitate anything but a statistic so far.


I know. Interesting how those 8% declines and Chindia growth and such isn't even showing up in inventory levels. The Prophets have some splainin to do! :lol:
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 18:39:35

Omnitir wrote:
You don't need a link to someone else's study, you just do the math yourself.


Are you telling Monte....DO THE MATH!!! Excellent!

Omnitir wrote:Your last statement in bold completely fails to factor in exponential growth. These growth rates, while accounting for a mere fraction of primary energy right now, will ramp up rapidly if maintained. No extensive study needed, just the most simple understanding of mathematics and exponential trends.


Albert Bartlett's revenge!!! If exponential decline is good enough for crater oil production, it sure can be used to increase PV sales/production/usage!!

Excellent observation!! And again...all it requires is...DOING THE MATH!! An arguement of such beauty and effectiveness.....lets take bets!! Can an larger exponential PV incline beat a smaller crude exponential decline!! And the answer is...DO THE MATH!!!!

I am now depressed. I wonder if I can get credit on my credit card if I return my MRE's uneaten, and my ammo unspent?
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 19:00:23

"larger exponential PV incline" whatever that is?

by the way. To use this wondrous bevy of pv panels to replace liquid fuel we will need an exponential grid incline also. And an exponential electric storage incline. And an exponential electric car incline.

to many inclines. better dig those mre's out of the trash.
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26992
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 19:03:38

PraiseDoom, you don't seem to have much to offer to the discussion except troll-like insipid remarks, that, in fact, show you are not reading the posts.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Wed 20 Jun 2007, 19:12:16, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 19:11:26

pstarr wrote:"larger exponential PV incline" whatever that is?

by the way. To use this wondrous bevy of pv panels to replace liquid fuel we will need an exponential grid incline also. And an exponential electric storage incline. And an exponential electric car incline.

to many inclines. better dig those mre's out of the trash.


An exponential produciton of raw resources and an exponential increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to make them.

That why I wanted to see a study of what it would take to ramp up solar. Using exponential growth and pointing to it as proof assumes a lot of things growing exponentially, not just solar PV.

And in a declining energy environment, I don't see the exponential growth of anything happening.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby Omnitir » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 20:02:48

MonteQuest wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
You foresee it taking the best part of a century to reach a sustainable energy paradigm, but your projection can only be accurate if PV growth takes a massive hit. Why do you believe this will happen? Will energy scarcity lower demand for alternative energies? Will all the R&D going into solar and nanotechnology and whatever else will become a part of the future solar capacity all be diverted into ramping up resource wars?


Economic collapse.

Are we going to build solar PV for the third world?

We had better.

Energy scarcity may well prevent alternative energies.

Who will do without while we use that energy to build solar systems?

Heat or solar panel in the spring?

It seems more logical to me that as more and more people become aware of both the energy and environmental problems civilization faces, there will be an increasing demand for alternatives.


Yup, just like ice or generators in a hurricane.

Extremely expensive and in short supply.

Projecting future costs of PV, based on the current trends (with a growth of 33%), we get the cost of PV electricity falling bellow conventional sources sometime mid to late next decade:

Image


MonteQuest wrote:However, even with these massive growth rates, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geo thermal and biofuels contribute just 2% of our primary energy with wind/solar less than 1%. An almost inconsequential contribution, given the twilight of the oil age on the near horizon.
Omnitir wrote: Your last statement in bold completely fails to factor in exponential growth. These growth rates, while accounting for a mere fraction of primary energy right now, will ramp up rapidly if maintained. No extensive study needed, just the most simple understanding of mathematics and exponential trends.


Completely fails? It shows that even with exponential growth rates over the last few years it is still less than 1%.

60% growth rate over the last 5 years for PV is surely exponential?

And these rates for 5 years are not exponential?

• wind power: 28 percent
• biodiesel: 25 percent
• solar hot water/heating: 17 percent
• off-grid solar PV: 17 percent
• geothermal heat capacity: 13 percent
• ethanol: 11 percent

*sigh* All you've shown is that the beginning of an exponential trend is slow. What a revelation. :roll:

Project these trends onwards for another couple of decades, and then try to tell me that they don't meet future growth much less oil decline.

It's really really simple. If you keep doubling an number, no matter how small a number, it will begin slow but eventually will skyrocket.

Take another look at the follow graph. You are pointing to the trend pre 2010 and saying "look at how meagre alternatives are". But in doing so you completely fail to acknowledge that this growth is exponential, and if maintained, the picture will change dramatically.

Image


MonteQuest wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
You can argue against the possibility that these growth rates will be maintained. Maybe peak oil will cause a massive drop in the demand for alternatives (though the opposite seems more likely), or maybe some other factor will drop the growth of renewables. But the fact is that if these growth rates persist, renewables will dwarf conventional energy sources within a few decades. The fact that they are starting from such a small percentage of our total primary energy is completely, utterly, irrelevant. If you think otherwise, you need to revisit exponential growth.


Meanwhile, energy demand stands still?

If these growth rates persist?

If a pig had wings....

Even in the face of growing demand, an exponential trend will, eventually, ramp up suddenly to dwarf other linear trends.

Yes, if growth rates persist, and if pigs had wings. That's the whole bloody argument! I'm pointing out that it's perfectly possible for alternatives to meet all of our electricity needs within a few decades, if only the growth rates can persist. Can growth persist? It doesn't seem probable to me. But than I'm also not going to dismiss it based on the fact that apparently economic collapse is written in the stars.

You seem to be arguing that it's not even possible for alternatives to replace conventional energy, when clearly it is possible. If it will or not is another argument entirely, and that's not an argument that you have been making.

I'm not saying that solar WILL continue to grow exponentially and replace conventional energy sources. I'm saying it's possible, contrary to your posts about alternatives being less than 1% of our primary energy.

And even if we can do this, it won't be as cheap, portable, scalable, or as readily available as oil and gasoline...and it must be.
[...]
Hydrogen, no matter how you produce it to be an energy carrier, is still an energy consumer.

You are ignoring the point again. Yes, clearly hydrogen is an energy carrier - but that's the point! IF, we had plentiful energy thanks to our ability to capture that tiny fraction of sunlight that it would take to power all of civilization, IF we had abundant electrical energy, we can easily solve the liquid fuels crisis.

IF we have enough electricity generation, it wouldn't matter that any given storage system, such as hydrogen, is a net energy looser. All that would matter is that we would be able to produce a fuel that is indeed as "cheap, portable, scalable and as readily available as oil and gasoline".

The problem is generating the electricity.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Down Under

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 20:25:35

Omnitir wrote: You seem to be arguing that it's not even possible for alternatives to replace conventional energy, when clearly it is possible.


Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, highly foolish and highly unsustainable. We are in overshoot.

We cannot be looking to meet demand, we need to be looking to restrict it, reduce it , and replace it with sustainable systems.

I'm not saying that solar WILL continue to grow exponentially and replace conventional energy sources. I'm saying it's possible, contrary to your posts about alternatives being less than 1% of our primary energy.


If pigs had wings....

You are ignoring the point again. Yes, clearly hydrogen is an energy carrier - but that's the point! IF, we had plentiful energy thanks to our ability to capture that tiny fraction of sunlight that it would take to power all of civilization, IF we had abundant electrical energy, we can easily solve the liquid fuels crisis.


That "ability" comes at a price of consuming more energy that you get. The last thing we need in a declining energy environment is a new consumer.

Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense

In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen...

“About four renewable power plants have to be erected to deliver the output of one plant to stationary or mobile consumers via hydrogen and fuel cells,” he writes. “Three of these plants generate energy to cover the parasitic losses of the hydrogen economy while only one of them is producing useful energy.”

This fact, he shows, cannot be changed with improvements in technology. Rather, the one-quarter efficiency is based on necessary processes of a hydrogen economy and the properties of hydrogen itself, e.g. its low density and extremely low boiling point, which increase the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage....

“In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with ("green") electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem."


http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 20:25:40

Omnitir wrote:
It's really really simple. If you keep doubling an number, no matter how small a number, it will begin slow but eventually will skyrocket.


While I'm quite sure this genius level dissertation on mathematics ( or what qualifies for it around here because most wouldn't know any better ) is interesting, YOU keep missing a necessary and important detail!!

If one is predisposed to want a Doom...one can find it anywhere, and can fly against the wind, be blind to any fact, and ignore any and all obvious evidence to the contrary.

This phenomena is bi-directional of course. Currently I am adhering to the words of the Prophets, but given another couple years or dozen post peak, perhaps I shall switch sides.

PS: I fell for Y2K as well, and boy did I feel like an idiot the LAST time I stocked up on rations and ammo and Mary K cosmetics ( the wife said if I wanted more ammo for the post Y2K world, she wanted a stockpile as well ). :-D
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 20:51:50

Ok, let's look at the USA for electricity projections from the EIA:

Total electricity sales increase by 41 percent in the AEO2007 reference case, from 3,660 billion kilowatthours in 2005 to 5,168 billion kilowatthours in 2030.

In the AEO2007 reference case, generation from wind power increases from 0.4 percent of total generation in 2005 to 0.9 percent in 2030.

Solar technologies in general remain too costly for grid-connected applications, but demonstration programs and State policies support some growth in central-station solar PV, and small-scale customer-sited PV applications grow rapidly [168]. Grid-connected solar generation increases to 0.1 percent of total generation in 2030.

Despite technology improvements, rising fossil fuel costs, and public support, the contribution of renewable fuels to U.S. electricity supply remains relatively small in the AEO2007 reference case at 9.0 percent of total generation in 2030—about the same as their share in 2005.

Bottom line: there are not even any assumptions of solar/wind technologies even gaining ground over the next 25 years.

There are no investments nor planning for it to be otherwise.

Total installed PV capacity is now 3,700 MW.

PV, from 1 tenth of 1% to our main primary electrical energy source in 25 years?


Dream on....
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 21:07:57

Exponential growth at work for 18 years and still "far less than 1%."


U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
Projected growth rates for renewable energy, in contrast, are relatively high, but because renewable energy is a small part of the mix, the high growth rates projected still result in a relatively small contribution to the mix. Ethanol demand is projected to rise over 300 percent, or about 5 percent per year; after this increase ethanol will constitute about 5 percent of the total gasoline demand. Photovoltaic solar generation is projected to rise 26 percent per year in the utility sector, and 10 percent for electricity that is not sold into the grid; however, EIA projects that the percentage of solar photovoltaic power supplied to the grid would still be far less than 1 percent of the total supply by 2025.

Link
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 21:39:05

MonteQuest wrote:Exponential growth at work for 18 years and still "far less than 1%."
I just hate the truth. It is so inconvenient :shock:
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26992
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 21:56:09

pstarr wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Exponential growth at work for 18 years and still "far less than 1%."
I just hate the truth. It is so inconvenient :shock:


I hate to admit it, but I agree.

Just drove from the backbone of America to Bar Harbor Maine and back and didn't run into a single instance of gas rationing, shortage, lack of food supplies, or even a decent bread line.

An interesting reality, some 2 years into this Post Peak world. The truth, it is indeed inconvenient to the Church of Doom and my hopes of being the first to introduce my neighbor to the new rules of Duncans Gorge via superior firepower are diminishing.

:shock:
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 22:02:56

Omnitir wrote:You foresee it taking the best part of a century to reach a sustainable energy paradigm, but your projection can only be accurate if PV growth takes a massive hit.


A detailed study, published by the LTIResearch Group in Mannheim in 1998, found that, if the development of renewable energy systems were supported as an urgent priority by decisive, well-coordinated action by governments, then it would be possible to provide energy from them equal to as much as 35% of the energy used at present - but it would take fifty years to do so.


Links to your studies, please?

In fact, our twenty-five year estimate of the time needed for a shift from dependency on oil is doubly optimistic, because the LTI-research group's own estimate of fifty years is based on the assumption of the comfortable background of a fully functioning economy with no disruptions to transport or industry or to any of the other conditions of normality. In reality, the building of the renewables-based economy will have to take place against a background of the oil shock, with all its consequences, which will make it difficult to put into effect a decisive coordinated programme on anything at all.


Link
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16291
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby DrBang » Wed 20 Jun 2007, 22:50:41

You're right, wahoodoggydoo. There's plenty of oil. Centuries, perhaps millinea of it. We will never run out.

That means the economy is golden (at least!). So go forth, shop with confidence, and treat yourself! Take a look at a new car - some of the new financing options make a new car a great bargain. May I suggest a large, comfortable SUV? You'll be safe, secure - and now is the time to make some good deals.

Truth is, we're all just enjoying a bit of whimsy. None of us believe any of this. So spend, enjoy, and live life to the fullest!




I am also fairly new here.

I found this exchange interesting. Many times I have tried to explain the concept of Peak Oil and the knock on effects I think will happen to who I thought were intelligent educated people. Sometimes they debate the point based on the data and concepts presented with an open mind. About 3 times out of 5 I get someone who gets emotionally involved with a certain reality. They focus on a set of ideas and refuse to budge. Often they follow the 'classic economist' approach:

    Sure peak oil is possible but probaby not right now.....

    The government would do something if this was the case, its why we pay taxes.....

    Business's will step in and manufacture the alternative tech cars and trucks, etc when the time comes to ensure societies survival. This is what happened in WWII. Its amazing what private business can achieve when they want to. They will do this when asked by the govt en masse and hand out the non oil products like cars to members of the public.... [this one was special. this guy was deadly serious and started up on the personal attacks]

    Exponetial growth in a finite system is just fine and dandy....

    Its all good, things will just take care of themselves....

    The market will fix things, it always does.....

    Leading economists around the world think this is a load of crap...

    Science will invent something....

    Stop destroying my world veiw you bastard (I need it)...


Then they start up on the personal attacks as what happens when someone puts forward a threatening idea.

I found this exchange and other like it a good training simulator. I have a good book that does simialr things:

"How to argue with an economist"

I am now taking a new tack. Not bothering to get such people to see the PO point of view. Their reality is obviously so important to them it would too traumatic to even test its strength and viability. I don't waste my time anymore.

I do enjoy a good old fashioned debate with people who see things differently to me. I learn things. Also I find any ideas I may have that are not strong enough to survive are weeded out. This is so important in a time of results on the ground and consequence.
User avatar
DrBang
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu 14 Jun 2007, 02:00:00
Location: SE Qld Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests