Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Alternative Energy (general) Thread pt 3(merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby MD » Tue 07 Jul 2015, 16:44:24

Yes those are lovely energy alternatives.

What about the myriad of other products that come from oil?

It's a very, very, very long list.

here's a few: http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%2 ... roleum.htm

Replace those too! Oh and once you are done working through those 144, there are thousands more in the queue. Good luck!
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby sunweb » Tue 07 Jul 2015, 17:07:31

Challenging business as usual of any ilk doesn't necessarily make a person a doomer. I am more concerned about leaving a viable earth than I am having electric tools and toys.
User avatar
sunweb
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu 04 May 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Minnesota

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 07 Jul 2015, 17:43:29

sunweb wrote:Challenging business as usual of any ilk doesn't necessarily make a person a doomer. I am more concerned about leaving a viable earth than I am having electric tools and toys.


What a bunch of bull. The bagholders on the earth at the end of the suns life wil feel reassured by your deep love for them. What is your monument going to say: "Well, we left you a lot of weed and clean water."

The earth is going down the drain no matter what you do.
America cannot afford combustion.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 07 Jul 2015, 19:40:54

Tikib wrote:
pstarr wrote:Sub, there is little reasonable re fusion and pumped hydro/tidal dams.

As for thorium MSR is it really more reasonable than solar? Beats me.


So in other words you havn't done on the maths on it and don't understand EROEI.
Danish wind will provide far cheaper energy then any solar power ever will.
I understand EROEI. But that is not the issue. If you read what I wrote above, I was questioning the value of pumped hydro/tidal dams. You are spouting apparently, much like a geothermal orifice.

Tikib wrote:And Fusion of the kind I have been suggesting has been producing net energy since the mid 50's. Tokamak style fusion is almost as useless as solar.
Fusion of the kind you have been suggesting remains in your head. Not the non-virtual places we all live in.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26319
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 07 Jul 2015, 23:15:52

Tikib wrote:Read Preato and Hall, Solar power cannot maintain a civliziation complicated enough to make solar panels.
Its horrifically useless as a technology and its that dead end which is curently dooming us.
...
So in other words you havn't done on the maths on it and don't understand EROEI.
Danish wind will provide far cheaper energy then any solar power ever will.
I take it you only have a problem with Solar PV? Because there are many other forms of solar power: wind, hydro, solar heating, etc.

I also find many of the energy inputs Prieto and Hall used to calculate the EROEI of solar PV to be questionable. For example: taxes. Yes taxes were an additional cost for Prieto, but they are not an energy input of solar PV. Taxes are used to fund various services to society. They should not be counted as an energy input for manufacturing a solar PV panel.

Solar panels can be recycled at the end of their life for a fraction of the energy cost used to create them. You can't do that with fossil fuels. This applies to other energy inputs Prieto and Hall used such as the 6,000 tons of steel in the fence. Steel can be recycled as well.

In addition, energy and monetary costs for Solar PV have changed greatly since Spain installed it's Solar PV panels(Spain was the case examined in Prieto and Hall's book). Spain installed most of it's Solar PV panels between 2007 and 2008. Solar PV costs(both monetary and energetic) have fallen considerably since then, while energy output has increased considerably:
Solar photovoltaic prices have fallen by 80% since 2008.
Solar energy to be cheapest power source in 10 years

Material usage for silicon cells has been reduced significantly during the last 5 years from around 16 g/Wp to 6 g/Wp due to increased efficiencies and thinner wafers.
A PV system located in Southern Europe with multi-Si modules has an Energy Payback Time of around one year. Assuming 20 years lifespan, this kind of system can produce twenty times the energy needed to produce it(EROEI of 20:1).

In the last 10 years, the efficiency of average commercial wafer-based silicon modules increased from about 12% to 16%.
Photovoltaics Report
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby Apneaman » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 00:27:41

Tikib, even if you can back up your claims with maths and science, they are trumped by hardwired ape behaviour/psychology and that is backed by observation, data and the ever growing consequences.


The most important climate story today is the global coal renaissance

"If you only focused on the United States, you might think coal's days are numbered.

The dirtiest of all fossil fuels once provided more than half of America's electricity. That has since dropped to 39 percent, thanks to competition from cheap natural gas, a dogged campaign by the Sierra Club to shutter old coal plants, and strict new air pollution regulations. Add in the Obama administration's upcoming crackdown on CO2 emissions from power plants, and US coal will keep declining in the future.

But that's not true globally. Far from it. According to data from BP's Statistical Review of Energy, coal consumption has actually been accelerating worldwide since the end of the 1990s:"


http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8908179/coa ... ate-change
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby Tikib » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 07:56:39

pstarr wrote:
Tikib wrote:
pstarr wrote:Sub, there is little reasonable re fusion and pumped hydro/tidal dams.

As for thorium MSR is it really more reasonable than solar? Beats me.


So in other words you havn't done on the maths on it and don't understand EROEI.
Danish wind will provide far cheaper energy then any solar power ever will.
I understand EROEI. But that is not the issue. If you read what I wrote above, I was questioning the value of pumped hydro/tidal dams. You are spouting apparently, much like a geothermal orifice.

Tikib wrote:And Fusion of the kind I have been suggesting has been producing net energy since the mid 50's. Tokamak style fusion is almost as useless as solar.
Fusion of the kind you have been suggesting remains in your head. Not the non-virtual places we all live in.


In that case I retract what I said. Sorry Pstarr if I got something wrong it's my bad not yours.

The value of pumped hydro/tidal is that it by far the most efficient form of storage. Pumped water is one of the most efficient ways to store energy on a large scale. And it becomes much much more efficient if your using excess capacity in an already made dam rather than having to build one. Denamrk gets 25% of there electricity from wind because of Scandaanvian hydroelectric dams.

As for the fusion point: As Steinhaus says Tokamak fusion has never ever produced more energy than it has used. Ivy Mike which is very close to how PACER would work produced net energy first time, 60 years ago.

And scientists predict that 33% of that net energy can be converted to electricity with current steam generators.
Last edited by Tikib on Wed 08 Jul 2015, 08:15:04, edited 2 times in total.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby Tikib » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 08:04:46

MD wrote:Yes those are lovely energy alternatives.

What about the myriad of other products that come from oil?

It's a very, very, very long list.

here's a few: http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%2 ... roleum.htm

Replace those too! Oh and once you are done working through those 144, there are thousands more in the queue. Good luck!


As I said synthetic oil. Done and Done.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 14:44:27

Hall and Prieto weren't simply writing about taxes.

Following the Sci Am article mentioned in other threads, the energy return for solar is 6 or better.

The energy return and quantity needed by this will be higher than what is offered by all sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 15:33:33

I did not say Hall and Prieto simply wrote about taxes. I said I had a problem with some of the inputs they used, such as taxes. And I am hardly alone:

After this session one of the speakers, Marco Raugei, at Oxford Brookes University, came over. He was very upset by my question because he thought Prieto and Hall’s book was awful. He told me it was so bad that several scientists had tried to prevent Springer from printing it.

The book wasn’t peer-reviewed, it was inconsistent in so many ways, not defensible the way economic inputs were converted from money to energy such as the insurance figures, some air travel expenses, too haphazard, inconsistent in method and goal, not clear enough in stating that this is just one snapshot moment in time in Spain and that it used an ill-advised subsidy scheme.

There has been a firestorm of criticism of this book.


Also, read about what the author of the Scientific American article had to say about the numbers he got for Solar PV:

Solar (PV): The latest data in Raugei's study was at least a couple of years old, so the EROI today is most likely higher than 6, the number cited in my article.
Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment

And that comment itself was written several years ago, so the data is even older.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 21:17:06

Tikib wrote:The value of pumped hydro/tidal is that it by far the most efficient form of storage. Pumped water is one of the most efficient ways to store energy on a large scale. And it becomes much much more efficient if your using excess capacity in an already made dam rather than having to build one. Denamrk gets 25% of there electricity from wind because of Scandaanvian hydroelectric dams.

I like pumped storage, makes sense (good article here), but as for Denmark,I googled "denmark pumped storage electricity" and found this: (this)
In contrast to Spain and Germany that have several PHS installations, the hydro potential of Denmark is low and due to the topographic characteristics of Denmark, pumped hydro storage is not relevant.

So I don't know.
Tikib wrote:As for the fusion point: As Steinhaus says Tokamak fusion has never ever produced more energy than it has used. Ivy Mike which is very close to how PACER would work produced net energy first time, 60 years ago.

And scientists predict that 33% of that net energy can be converted to electricity with current steam generators.

Right. but not fusion
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26319
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 08 Jul 2015, 23:10:27

kublikhan wrote:I did not say Hall and Prieto simply wrote about taxes. I said I had a problem with some of the inputs they used, such as taxes. And I am hardly alone:

After this session one of the speakers, Marco Raugei, at Oxford Brookes University, came over. He was very upset by my question because he thought Prieto and Hall’s book was awful. He told me it was so bad that several scientists had tried to prevent Springer from printing it.

The book wasn’t peer-reviewed, it was inconsistent in so many ways, not defensible the way economic inputs were converted from money to energy such as the insurance figures, some air travel expenses, too haphazard, inconsistent in method and goal, not clear enough in stating that this is just one snapshot moment in time in Spain and that it used an ill-advised subsidy scheme.

There has been a firestorm of criticism of this book.


Also, read about what the author of the Scientific American article had to say about the numbers he got for Solar PV:

Solar (PV): The latest data in Raugei's study was at least a couple of years old, so the EROI today is most likely higher than 6, the number cited in my article.
Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment

And that comment itself was written several years ago, so the data is even older.


I addressed all of the points in a discussion with you and Graeme in another thread. You countered none of them. In fact, that's the pattern that I keep seeing.

You have a problem with some inputs and not the others? How does that affect energy return then?

The argument is that the systems are old. Aren't the best systems to be studied those that have been operating for several years?

And that's for Spain. What happens to countries that don't even have enough funds or local resources to support basic needs?

And how does a source with both low energy returns and quantity, plus dependence on oil for mining, manufacturing, shipping, and even petrochemicals, meet the needs of a global capitalist system that requires continuous growth and expanding markets? I keep asking this and the only answers I get are visions and press releases, except for one study that referred to industrialized nations.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 09 Jul 2015, 00:17:10

Ralfy, I'm pretty sure I already addressed your points about taxes and old data:

kublikhan wrote:
ralfy wrote:Taxes and land leases aren't the only factors involved. In fact, many enumerated in the review do not involve money.
Yes. But when the taxes, leases, etc were stripped out, and the grossly inflated money to energy conversion adjusted to more realistic values, the EROEI rose to an energy quality adjusted 18:1. This sounds very different from the EROEI of 2.45 that was presented earlier.


kublikhan wrote:
ralfy wrote:About data being old, I don't understand why it is not logical to look at systems that have been operating for several years.
Sure you can look at old data. But if you do so, you must then concede that that data is completely irrelevant in respect to modern systems currently on the market. Like you often say, we need to consider all factors. These are the factors I am considering when you present papers based on old data:
1. Solar PV panels have fallen in price 90% from old data to now:
2. Solar PV energy inputs have fallen sharply from old data to now:
3. Solar PV power output increased by more than a third from old data to now:


When I went back and looked in that thread, you were the one who did not reply to these points.

ralfy wrote:And that's for Spain. What happens to countries that don't even have enough funds or local resources to support basic needs?

And how does a source with both low energy returns and quantity, plus dependence on oil for mining, manufacturing, shipping, and even petrochemicals, meet the needs of a global capitalist system that requires continuous growth and expanding markets? I keep asking this and the only answers I get are visions and press releases, except for one study that referred to industrialized nations.
The IEA answered this one:

A global transition to clean energy would cost $44 trillion but save $115 trillion in avoided fuel costs, according to a new report. Such benefits would be spread out over the course of decades.

Transitioning to a cleaner, more-efficient energy mix will save the global economy trillions of dollars in avoided fuel costs, according to a report released Monday by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Much of the savings will come in the form of efficiency upgrades for buildings and vehicles, but deployment of more wind, solar, and other renewable technologies will also play an important role.

Energy efficiency stands to play a primary, low-cost role in reducing carbon emissions worldwide. In the IEA's most aggressive vision of a sustainable energy future, efficiency accounts for 38 percent of cumulative emissions reductions, compared with 30 percent from renewables. This would come in the form of more fuel-efficient cars, and building codes that promote more sustainable architecture and design. The building sector already uses 50 percent of global electricity generated. If you could do something there to halve that, that would be a huge, huge achievement.”

Decarbonizing most of the global energy system by 2050 would require an additional $44 trillion investment, according to the latest IEA report, up from the estimated $36 trillion in last year's assessment. Those costs are offset by $115 trillion in fuel savings, according to IEA, resulting in net savings of $71 trillion through 2050.
IEA: Clean energy shift will save world $71 trillion through 2050

Any other points you want answered Ralfy?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 09 Jul 2015, 03:37:33

pstarr wrote:
Tikib wrote:The value of pumped hydro/tidal is that it by far the most efficient form of storage. Pumped water is one of the most efficient ways to store energy on a large scale. And it becomes much much more efficient if your using excess capacity in an already made dam rather than having to build one. Denamrk gets 25% of there electricity from wind because of Scandaanvian hydroelectric dams.

I like pumped storage, makes sense (good article here), but as for Denmark,I googled "denmark pumped storage electricity" and found this: (this)
In contrast to Spain and Germany that have several PHS installations, the hydro potential of Denmark is low and due to the topographic characteristics of Denmark, pumped hydro storage is not relevant.

So I don't know.
Tikib wrote:As for the fusion point: As Steinhaus says Tokamak fusion has never ever produced more energy than it has used. Ivy Mike which is very close to how PACER would work produced net energy first time, 60 years ago.

And scientists predict that 33% of that net energy can be converted to electricity with current steam generators.

Right. but not fusion


Sorry Pstarr I forget that North Americans aren't as aware of the European energy system as Europeans. To be more specific Denmark sends excess electricity to Norwegian/Swedish Hydroelectic dams to be stored. Without that storage Denmarks plan to get 50% of its electricity from wind by 2020 would have failed already.

As for you other point, fission boosted fusion is most definitely fusion.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 09 Jul 2015, 05:12:44

What do I think? Calculating the EROI of non existent technologies seems pretty iffy. You give hard numbers as if you have them, but I do not think you do. This is not meant to discourage you from thinking about or ideally doing such good analyses, but as I said doing this on non existent plants is tough.

I am 72 years old, have been in the energy business +- for 50 years, have watched and listened to all kinds of plans for various kinds of great energy resources etc etc. Fusion, breeder reactors, alcohol from plants etc Plus all the nut case stuff. And here we are, 50 years later, still running the world on about 75-80 percent fossil fuels. Whatever its plusses and minuses Prieto and Hall used real data. Problem is they were too optimistic I think, as solar PV plants are failing and closing down in Spain much faster than the 25 years we had proposed as project life span. Palmer and Weisbach got similar results as Prieto and Hall...

But you could do a service by doing the best you can on your proposed technologies, giving your methods etc. There is an awful lot of chatter on line about EROI but few people who seem willing to learn the discipline and do the hard work of attempting to calculate real EROIs (Its very hard) and getting it published in peer reviewed journals. I do not know if you have scientific training etc or the inclination to do play this sort of game.... but that is the only way I know. A problem is that the provision of good data to do these things is degrading, at least in US.

But lets say you are right. Everywhere we are in the world people hardly have enough money to keep the present ship afloat (although taxing the rich their fair share would help, as would decline in population growth to zero or less). We would require massive diversions from consumption to investment. We could do it, but it would not be easy.


Charles Hall
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 09 Jul 2015, 05:18:33

Just as a response to professor hall I intend to do my own eroi analysis on both pacer and lftr. Lftr however has of course had eroi analysis done on hypothetical plants which put it at around 200. However I think a working lftr would have a much lower eroi due to the cost of solving the current technical problems.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 09 Jul 2015, 12:02:43

Tikib wrote:Just as a response to professor hall I intend to do my own eroi analysis on both pacer and lftr. Lftr however has of course had eroi analysis done on hypothetical plants which put it at around 200. However I think a working lftr would have a much lower eroi due to the cost of solving the current technical problems.


LFTR: Thats where you connect a chemical processing plant to every single reactor. No utility, country, whatever...would buy such a ridiculous contraption.
America cannot afford combustion.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 11 Jul 2015, 21:32:13

kublikhan wrote:Ralfy, I'm pretty sure I already addressed your points about taxes and old data:


Likely not, as all of the points I raise below I gave in previous posts.

kublikhan wrote:Yes. But when the taxes, leases, etc were stripped out, and the grossly inflated money to energy conversion adjusted to more realistic values, the EROEI rose to an energy quality adjusted 18:1. This sounds very different from the EROEI of 2.45 that was presented earlier.


Yes, just remove them, and ignore anything else to drive up energy returns.

BTW, several of the points raised do not involve money.


Sure you can look at old data. But if you do so, you must then concede that that data is completely irrelevant in respect to modern systems currently on the market. Like you often say, we need to consider all factors. These are the factors I am considering when you present papers based on old data:
1. Solar PV panels have fallen in price 90% from old data to now:
2. Solar PV energy inputs have fallen sharply from old data to now:
3. Solar PV power output increased by more than a third from old data to now:


When I went back and looked in that thread, you were the one who did not reply to these points.

[/quote]

1. Stick to energy returns. Higher than 6, right? How much higher can it go, and how high should it be to maintain growth, etc?

2. Use present conditions and systems running for some time to see what really happens. That's why Hall and Prieto's book is useful.

3. No. 2 is important.

In general, following what Inman said, the return is probably higher than 6.

What about energy quantity? Energy returns after dealing with lack of petrochemicals, energy density, etc?

The IEA answered this one:

A global transition to clean energy would cost $44 trillion but save $115 trillion in avoided fuel costs, according to a new report. Such benefits would be spread out over the course of decades.


Needs to be done within a decade. Others argue that the transition should have started more than a decade ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0ujDVRIzGM

And that's supposed to involve extensive coordination and cooperation, in a capitalist global economy that operates along opposite lines.

And for a global economy that according to the IEA needs the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every three to seven years.

And for growth similar to that of the last three decades. What about growth for a large middle class?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470


Transitioning to a cleaner, more-efficient energy mix will save the global economy trillions of dollars in avoided fuel costs, according to a report released Monday by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Much of the savings will come in the form of efficiency upgrades for buildings and vehicles, but deployment of more wind, solar, and other renewable technologies will also play an important role.



According to the 2010 report, will require conventional production flat lining in order to allow oil and gas to increase by just 9 pct across two decades. That's because the additional energy will be needed for the transition, which may take many decades:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131--the ... oil-2011-1

And that's supposed to meet the usual growth of around 3-4 pct in global GDP, in turn tracked by a 1-2 pct increase in oil demand. Of course, one decouple by creating more credit, but look what happened during the past few years.

And that's just for oil. What about the other resources, from fresh water to copper to phosphates?


Energy efficiency stands to play a primary, low-cost role in reducing carbon emissions worldwide. In the IEA's most aggressive vision of a sustainable energy future, efficiency accounts for 38 percent of cumulative emissions reductions, compared with 30 percent from renewables. This would come in the form of more fuel-efficient cars, and building codes that promote more sustainable architecture and design. The building sector already uses 50 percent of global electricity generated. If you could do something there to halve that, that would be a huge, huge achievement.”



Energy efficiency in a global capitalist system with competition leads to the opposite.

Decarbonizing most of the global energy system by 2050 would require an additional $44 trillion investment, according to the latest IEA report, up from the estimated $36 trillion in last year's assessment. Those costs are offset by $115 trillion in fuel savings, according to IEA, resulting in net savings of $71 trillion through 2050.
IEA: Clean energy shift will save world $71 trillion through 2050

Any other points you want answered Ralfy?


There are no resource savings in a global capitalist system with a growing middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

and the drive for higher profits and returns on investment, especially when the same credit levels that allow for "decoupling" are now many times higher than the global economy itself:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/ ... arket.html

Ultimately, given energy and all material resources (not just oil), a limits to growth will be reached:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

Given that, a decrease in material resource use and energy across the board is inevitable.

Finally, all of these points were raised in previous posts in other threads.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 12 Jul 2015, 00:08:14

ralfy wrote:Yes, just remove them, and ignore anything else to drive up energy returns.
As I mentioned several times, IMHO taxes do not belong in an EROI analysis. If anything, they belong on the output side of the equation, not the input side. This is not about me stripping out data to make my case look better. It is about removing a variable that does not belong there:

kublikhan wrote:The energy you are investing is not going towards oil production or Solar PV production. It is going to the government. Yes you are investing more energy, but it is going towards providing government services. Healthcare, education, etc. Not energy production.

Say taxes suddenly jumped to 100%. Everything you made went straight to the state. That doesn't mean the EROEI of the oil well suddenly went down to 0. It just means the output of the well was being diverted elsewhere. Or say the output of a powerplant was broken down as so(I'm just making these numbers up):
30% Industrial
30% Commercial
30% Residential
10% Government

The government output is not an "energy cost". it is not being used to support the plant. It was not used to construct the plant. The government provides services to society. Healthcare, education, defense, etc. These services are being powered by the outputs of the power plant. You don't say "the output of the plant fell to 90% because 10% is being used by the government". The plant is still outputting 100% of it's power to society. Society is enjoying the fruits of that energy return. It is not a cost, but a service being provided.


ralfy wrote:BTW, several of the points raised do not involve money.
I am aware of that. And that is exactly why no monetary adjustments were made for those points. Only the points involving money.

ralfy wrote:1. Stick to energy returns.
Thank you. So you finally agreeing that we should strip out taxes, land leases, etc and stick with energy costs. I am with you 100%.

ralfy wrote:2. Use present conditions and systems running for some time to see what really happens. That's why Hall and Prieto's book is useful.

3. No. 2 is important.
The problem with that is Hall's book did not stick with energy inputs like you suggested.

ralfy wrote:In general, following what Inman said, the return is probably higher than 6.
I'm good with this. Nice to find some common ground :)

ralfy wrote:What about energy quantity? Energy returns after dealing with lack of petrochemicals, energy density, etc?

Needs to be done within a decade. Others argue that the transition should have started more than a decade ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0ujDVRIzGM
Shoulda woulda coulda. World leaders tend to act when the problem is right in front of their face. Not decades out. Even the most pessimistic projections in this video(which have already turned out false BTW) show us having large quantities of energy dense petrochemicals for decades to come. And if we are to use history as our guide, it is not the manufacture of renewable energy that is the first to take a hit when oil prices rise and supply gets tighter. It's the more inefficient uses of oil like US car driving. Or uses where more readily available alternatives exist. Like replacing heating oil with natural gas. Or reducing/replacing oil in the electricity production sector as has already happened in much of the US and how more aggressive plans are on the board for places like Saudi Arabia, Hawaii, etc.

ralfy wrote:And that's supposed to involve extensive coordination and cooperation, in a capitalist global economy that operates along opposite lines.
It's already happening to some extent. It is a matter of degrees.

ralfy wrote:According to the 2010 report, will require conventional production flat lining in order to allow oil and gas to increase by just 9 pct across two decades. That's because the additional energy will be needed for the transition, which may take many decades:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131--the ... oil-2011-1
From the report:

All this requires a balanced and unbiased government policy to guide exploration and development of technologies to unlock the new fossil fuel reserves, expanding the R&Ds of emerging technologies, while effectively practicing and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.
This is basically the same thing the IEA and Ren21 are calling for. And like I said earlier, it is already happening to some extent. It is a matter of degrees. However I agree more work needs to be done here.

ralfy wrote:Energy efficiency in a global capitalist system with competition leads to the opposite.
Actually no. But that is a common misconception on this website. Rebound effects that exceed 100% are generally found to happen in disruptive technologies such as the steam engine, electric motor, fusion?, etc. Not general consumer level improvements that increase efficiency such as LED bulbs, higher fuel economy, insulation, etc. And even rebound effects below 100% can be mitigated with energy taxes such as European style fuel taxes, carbon taxes, etc. Or mandates such as carbon caps. Or energy getting more expensive because of new investments needed to replace existing plants/infrastructure(Ex: replacing decades old coal plants in the US with new plants raises utility rates). Or a supply side squeeze raising the cost of energy because output falls(Ex: peak oil).

More is not always better. For rich and poor alike, the sky (i.e., a burning sun in every living room) is not the limit for lighting demand. Illuminating engineering societies around the world have actually been reducing their lighting-level recommendations for many years running, as overzealous guidelines have been seen to create excessive glare and other problems. Even granting some pent-up demand for more lumens, LEDs can save energy because their light can be more precisely directed to end-use needs and more easily controlled.

Changes in the efficiency of lighting affect both the cost of light and the amount of light that can be consumed per unit energy; while changes in the cost of energy associated with lighting affect only the cost of light. Thus, an increase in the cost of energy associated with lighting, which would normally reduce both human productivity and energy consumption, can be mitigated by an increase in the efficiency of lighting: energy consumption can be held constant while maintaining some human productivity increase or energy consumption can be reduced without a decrease in human productivity.


[Jevons Paradox] seems less likely to hold for dedicated energy efficiency technologies such as thermal insulation, particularly when these are used by consumers or when they play a subsidiary role in economic production. These technologies have smaller effects on productivity and economic growth, with the result that economy-wide energy consumption is likely to be reduced.

Policy implications
Energy efficiency may be encouraged through policies that raise energy prices, such as carbon taxes, or through non-price policies such as building regulations.

3. Rebound effects may be mitigated through carbon/energy pricing – whether implemented through taxation or an emissions trading scheme
Carbon/energy pricing can reduce direct and indirect rebound effects by ensuring that the cost of energy services remains relatively constant while energy efficiency improves. Carbon/energy pricing needs to increase over time at a rate sufficient to accommodate both income growth and rebound effects, simply to prevent carbon emissions from increasing. It needs to increase more rapidly if emissions are to be reduced.
The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency

ralfy wrote:There are no resource savings in a global capitalist system with a growing middle class:
...
Ultimately, given energy and all material resources (not just oil), a limits to growth will be reached:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

Given that, a decrease in material resource use and energy across the board is inevitable.
Sounds good to me. Most energy is wasted. Ditto for material. This needs to change. Higher consumption does not necessarily mean higher quality of life. And vice versa. Especially in the developed world.

The U.S. has an energy efficiency of 42 percent, which means 58 percent of all the energy we produce is wasted!

It estimated that 71 percent of energy generated for transportation is wasted, 66 percent is wasted in electricity, 20 percent is wasted in commercial and residential buildings, and 20 percent is wasted in industry or manufacturing.
US Now Leads in Energy Waste

ralfy wrote:as all of the points I raise below I gave in previous posts.
...
Finally, all of these points were raised in previous posts in other threads.
...
And that's just for oil. What about the other resources, from fresh water to copper to phosphates?
Join the club Ralfy. I too find myself repeating previous points. This might be the fourth time I mentioned the tax point alone. Also, this discussion started out on the EROI of Solar PV panels. I have already accommodated much of your topic creep. However this is turning into quite a lengthy post. I would prefer to try and stay on topic as much as possible and not write such lengthy posts spanning many topics.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: 3 Energy Technlogies to Replace Fossil Fuels

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 12 Jul 2015, 23:23:58

kublikhan wrote:As I mentioned several times, IMHO taxes do not belong in an EROI analysis. If anything, they belong on the output side of the equation, not the input side. This is not about me stripping out data to make my case look better. It is about removing a variable that does not belong there:

kublikhan wrote:The energy you are investing is not going towards oil production or Solar PV production. It is going to the government. Yes you are investing more energy, but it is going towards providing government services. Healthcare, education, etc. Not energy production.

Say taxes suddenly jumped to 100%. Everything you made went straight to the state. That doesn't mean the EROEI of the oil well suddenly went down to 0. It just means the output of the well was being diverted elsewhere. Or say the output of a powerplant was broken down as so(I'm just making these numbers up):
30% Industrial
30% Commercial
30% Residential
10% Government

The government output is not an "energy cost". it is not being used to support the plant. It was not used to construct the plant. The government provides services to society. Healthcare, education, defense, etc. These services are being powered by the outputs of the power plant. You don't say "the output of the plant fell to 90% because 10% is being used by the government". The plant is still outputting 100% of it's power to society. Society is enjoying the fruits of that energy return. It is not a cost, but a service being provided.


Why not, especially given the fact that the low price is included, the assumption that the manufacturer will still be around to honor warranties, etc?

And there are other factors to consider besides taxes.

Thank you. So you finally agreeing that we should strip out taxes, land leases, etc and stick with energy costs. I am with you 100%.


Consider the energy costs of these. In fact, consider the energy and material resource cost across capitalization, energy generation, energy distribution, and use.

From there, we can come up with something like ecological footprint. For example,

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905


The problem with that is Hall's book did not stick with energy inputs like you suggested.


It's the same thing when one refers to the low dollar prices of panel, or argues that the economy can decouple from energy through more money creation.

Ultimately, we need to look at the energy returns needed to sustain a growing global economy plus deal with physical limits. I don't think the first is possible given the second.


I'm good with this. Nice to find some common ground :)



Except that the global economy will require much more than that. That's why there can be no energy technologies that can replace fossil fuels. In fact, even fossil fuels will not be enough.

Shoulda woulda coulda. World leaders tend to act when the problem is right in front of their face. Not decades out. Even the most pessimistic projections in this video(which have already turned out false BTW) show us having large quantities of energy dense petrochemicals for decades to come. And if we are to use history as our guide, it is not the manufacture of renewable energy that is the first to take a hit when oil prices rise and supply gets tighter. It's the more inefficient uses of oil like US car driving. Or uses where more readily available alternatives exist. Like replacing heating oil with natural gas. Or reducing/replacing oil in the electricity production sector as has already happened in much of the US and how more aggressive plans are on the board for places like Saudi Arabia, Hawaii, etc.


Your second sentence contradicts your first.

Large quantities <> high production rate. That's why we're now resorting to shale oil.

Renewable energy doesn't take a hit first when oil prices go up. Rather, it won't meet rising energy demand brought about by decades of fossil fuel use.

More efficiency in capitalist systems don't lead to less consumption but the opposite.

Saudi Arabia is using other energy sources not because they offer higher output but because of peak oil.

It's already happening to some extent. It is a matter of degrees.


See below.

All this requires a balanced and unbiased government policy to guide exploration and development of technologies to unlock the new fossil fuel reserves, expanding the R&Ds of emerging technologies, while effectively practicing and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.
This is basically the same thing the IEA and Ren21 are calling for. And like I said earlier, it is already happening to some extent. It is a matter of degrees. However I agree more work needs to be done here.


The IEA argues that conventional production has to flat line to allow oil and gas production to increase by around 9 pct across two decades. At the same time, at least 70 pct of oil demand increase has to be replaced by RE.

To allow for that flatlining, oil producers will have to go for max. depletion rates at little or no profits, and heavy coordination and cooperation has to take place across economies, together with significant levels of regulation.

The complete opposite has been taking place for the past six decades. In fact, we've seen the complete opposite the past five years: bailouts, volatile oil prices, reliance on junk bonds to keep expensive production afloat, etc.


Actually no. But that is a common misconception on this website. Rebound effects that exceed 100% are generally found to happen in disruptive technologies such as the steam engine, electric motor, fusion?, etc. Not general consumer level improvements that increase efficiency such as LED bulbs, higher fuel economy, insulation, etc. And even rebound effects below 100% can be mitigated with energy taxes such as European style fuel taxes, carbon taxes, etc. Or mandates such as carbon caps. Or energy getting more expensive because of new investments needed to replace existing plants/infrastructure(Ex: replacing decades old coal plants in the US with new plants raises utility rates). Or a supply side squeeze raising the cost of energy because output falls(Ex: peak oil).



Actually, yes, as seen in increasing material resource use, energy use, and even money creation worldwide across several decades.

The reason for this is that most people worldwide can barely access basic needs, but the numbers are growing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

In which case, don't expect sales for LED bulbs, among other things, to plummet or even stabilize.

More is not always better. For rich and poor alike, the sky (i.e., a burning sun in every living room) is not the limit for lighting demand. Illuminating engineering societies around the world have actually been reducing their lighting-level recommendations for many years running, as overzealous guidelines have been seen to create excessive glare and other problems. Even granting some pent-up demand for more lumens, LEDs can save energy because their light can be more precisely directed to end-use needs and more easily controlled.


Only for those who are part of the middle class. For most human beings? Don't expect them to lower their energy and material resource demands in the long term.


Changes in the efficiency of lighting affect both the cost of light and the amount of light that can be consumed per unit energy; while changes in the cost of energy associated with lighting affect only the cost of light. Thus, an increase in the cost of energy associated with lighting, which would normally reduce both human productivity and energy consumption, can be mitigated by an increase in the efficiency of lighting: energy consumption can be held constant while maintaining some human productivity increase or energy consumption can be reduced without a decrease in human productivity.


And what kind of efficiency are we talking about that will meet the energy and material needs of

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

The U.S. alone needs up to a quarter of world oil production to maintain living standards, and similar can be seen across industrialized nations.


[Jevons Paradox] seems less likely to hold for dedicated energy efficiency technologies such as thermal insulation, particularly when these are used by consumers or when they play a subsidiary role in economic production. These technologies have smaller effects on productivity and economic growth, with the result that economy-wide energy consumption is likely to be reduced.

Policy implications
Energy efficiency may be encouraged through policies that raise energy prices, such as carbon taxes, or through non-price policies such as building regulations.

3. Rebound effects may be mitigated through carbon/energy pricing – whether implemented through taxation or an emissions trading scheme
Carbon/energy pricing can reduce direct and indirect rebound effects by ensuring that the cost of energy services remains relatively constant while energy efficiency improves. Carbon/energy pricing needs to increase over time at a rate sufficient to accommodate both income growth and rebound effects, simply to prevent carbon emissions from increasing. It needs to increase more rapidly if emissions are to be reduced.
The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency


And this is supposed to take place in a global economy essentially controlled by a financial elite?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-world

Sounds good to me. Most energy is wasted. Ditto for material. This needs to change. Higher consumption does not necessarily mean higher quality of life. And vice versa. Especially in the developed world.


Now, all you need to do is to reconcile that with the view that fossil fuels have been used to promote the opposite, and that RE is supposed to replace them. In short, RE is supposed to maintain "business as usual." In fact, that's the assumption of the IEA views concerning RE.

The U.S. has an energy efficiency of 42 percent, which means 58 percent of all the energy we produce is wasted!

It estimated that 71 percent of energy generated for transportation is wasted, 66 percent is wasted in electricity, 20 percent is wasted in commercial and residential buildings, and 20 percent is wasted in industry or manufacturing.
US Now Leads in Energy Waste



As I said, in a global capitalist system with a growing middle class, there is no conservation. Resources that are not utilized are used elsewhere for profit.

Join the club Ralfy. I too find myself repeating previous points. This might be the fourth time I mentioned the tax point alone. Also, this discussion started out on the EROI of Solar PV panels. I have already accommodated much of your topic creep. However this is turning into quite a lengthy post. I would prefer to try and stay on topic as much as possible and not write such lengthy posts spanning many topics.


The study doesn't deal only with taxes or even money but multiple factors:

http://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting-a ... -solar-pv/

The was criticism of the study but also responses from Prieto (see the same link).

Most important of all is that there is actually no "topic creep" for the simple reason that fossil fuels, given energy returns, energy density, etc., have been used for industrial civilization and the global capitalist economy for several decades. The same economy requires extensive material resource inputs, including petrochemicals. Why should these be ignored? Is it simply a matter of energy return, and in this case nameplate power vs. actual power produced?

Put simply, what we are looking for are energy technologies that have the following qualities:

1. with energy densities that are as high as that of oil or higher;

2. energy returns at 15 or better and growing to meet a global middle class that will soon reach 50 pct of the world's population;

3. increasing energy and material resource needs per capita, to a level equivalent of those found in industrialized nations;

4. can produce the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil (around 10 Mb/d) every three to seven years;

5. produces no or much lower CO2 throughout the mining, manufacturing, and shipping process;

6. can make up for diminishing returns in mining;

7. can deal with environmental damage and generally resource depletion, such that it can provide more than just ecovillages to each human community (some refer to electric vehicles, smart grids, and other devices; the assumption then is the same middle class conveniences), and essentially go beyond any limits to growth.

If they cannot, then there are no energy technologies that can replace fossil fuels and maintain economic growth, both needed by a large human population that can barely access basic needs and by a growing middle class from which a financial elite (that controls the same global economy) profits. At most, combinations of technologies will be used to at best meet basic needs.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests