THE Power Down Thread (merged)

[abelardlindsay]

Note that coal to oil involves more steps that coal to gas.
So the use of coal gas to fire CCGTs (I know - cost) to produce electricity at about 60% would be greatly more eff than to go the extra steps and convert the coal gas to a liquid and burn it in your ICE at 30% eff. Granted, there are costs of distribution etc. but the difference in infrastruture requirements would likely be swamped by the eff of use.
Also note that to replace 1/4 of the oil consumption in the US would require the doubling of domestic production of coal (use of low BTU coals and Rentech conversion factors)

Doubling of coal production is not that hard. Especially given how huge the profits would be and the fact that coal production is simple, old, proven technology. Fischer-Tropsch is it. There's nothing else that's going to work.

Really, I read about Hydrogen (Storage + Transport Problems), BioDiesel(Negative EROEI), Oil Sands (Maybe, but needs lots of natural gas/energy input/water), Energy Efficiency (Sure try it but Good Luck!), Oil Shale (Still needs more research), and the only solution to liquid fuels is Fischer-Tropsch, period end of story.
I don't even know why this board doesn't have a fischer-tropsch topic because all the rest is just unrealistic thinking brought about by the environmental minded's disapointment that there's no way to escape from carbon based energy. By all means, keep researching alternatives, maybe there will be a huge breakthrough that solves all our energy issues in a nice neat environmentally acceptable way but given the choice between die-off mixed with millions of man hours of effort constructing an infrastructure to suppor a non-viable solutions and Fischer-Tropsch I'll take Fischer-Tropsch.

[rogerhb]

I like the idea that tar-sands and oil-shale will be a piece of piss when we are currently choking on high sulpher crude.

[Drakn]

]there are absolutely NO costs associated with going to an absolute coal dependent society. Rolling Eyes . Give me freakin break. Stop your bullshit now. Peak oil is about Upgrade. not going back to 17th century mercury death and cancer rates INCREASING to exponential rates. You cornucopian jackasses are disgusting. You care nothing about humans or any thing living. Its all about ME.
Its easy! Its not energy intensive! Rolling Eyes Laughing
Oh wait cancer is close to exponential rates NOW.

The first part I will just pass off as a mad man's rant. Let it be known that I was stating what would likely happen, not what I would like to happen. Humanity is addicted to energy, that's how we are. I don't see how my view is cornucopian, as coal is a limited resource as I stated before. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word.

[Drakn]

holmes wrote;

heavy metals and lead are already killing off swaths of the environment and People. Each year swaths of the adirondacks are dieing. It never ended. along with acid rain. Fools dont give a rats ass about nothing. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Monte is Right!
This is for the good kids. Kids
the oceans are poision. Oceans
want more? Heavy Metal
want more?

That's all horrid but it isn't going to stop humanity from burning fossil fuels. We would have to introduce enough toxins to kill the grand majority, something that will never happen - there just isn't enough in the world.

[Drakn]

small_steps wrote;

Note that coal to oil involves more steps that coal to gas.
So the use of coal gas to fire CCGTs (I know - cost) to produce electricity at about 60% would be greatly more eff than to go the extra steps and convert the coal gas to a liquid and burn it in your ICE at 30% eff. Granted, there are costs of distribution etc. but the difference in infrastruture requirements would likely be swamped by the eff of use.

Do you have any references that show efficiencies at these levels?

[medicvet]

Just because something is extremly bad for us doesn't mean we won't utilize it, unfortunately, and that is the bottom line.

[small_steps]

Combined Cycle gas turbines get approximately 55 eff and GE working on a CCGT that is expected to get about 65 eff.
Compare this to your ICE, which will get maybe 30% eff, probably less.
I don't have the reference for the ICE eff number, and don't want to spend the time finding the current CCGT number, and I don't think the next gen GE CCGT number is in the public domain, sorry

[Drakn]

small_steps, the reference I found indicated only 50%. It also suggested it might increase efficiency, but let's stick with what is known.
Ref:DOE

And the ICE is around 30% optimally.
Ref:Page

Additionally, getting it to electrical form is not the only problem, you also have to convert the electricity into your battery. Typically that is done at about 90%. That leaves only 45% efficiency for the electrical system. Pile onto that your costs of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine and a system of electric cars, and the answer is no longer certain. It seems to be so tight that neither system clearly beats the other. And so, humanity will likely just stick with the default - gas cars, processed from coal.

[Ludi]

Though many people here admit peak oil is a real problem and needs a solution, the solutions offered are diametrically opposed - one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives. When even those of us who see the problem and know a solution is required can't agree on what the solution is, how will we convince the sceptics who don't even recognise a problem? How can we even hope to work toward a solution when we can't agree on what the solution is?

Are we just going to spend our time calling the other side stupid?

[Hegel]

That's why I'm sporting the signature below

[killJOY]

When even those of us who see the problem and know a solution is required can't agree on what the solution is, how will we convince the sceptics who don't even recognise a problem?

Sadly, you don't.
I've written several articles (for no pay) to our local newspaper.
I've given a couple of presentations.
I've informed those friends who are willing to listen.
That's it. I've done my job.

You can advise people to adjust their personal lives in order to meet the coming unknown "adjustment" of uncertain magnitude.
It's not my job to save the world.
I am now as prepared as any human being can be. That's it.

[azreal60]

There is no "one sure cure" for peak oil. Therefor, there is going to be alot of arguing about what to do because even the experts can only say, " do this and it might help". No one is sure of the extent of how it will affect us, only that it will be bad for the lifestyle currently being lived for the majority of the planet. Potentially catastrophically bad.
So i would say the fires of our debate helps forge a stronger metal when it comes out. This is the crucible, we aren't going to let things out of here that Can't be presented to the public. And i'm sorry, if we can so easily shoot down some of these ideas, so can the public.
That's why while we encourage strong and vigorous debate, we are very strict and going to keep getting more strict about letting people attack each other directly. This accomplishes nothing and does nothing to improve the quality of our ideas. So i guess i would say, keep on slugging, because sooner or later we all knock one out of the park. And if we hit enough homeruns, our team(humanity) might just win.

[gt1370a]

The market will decide for us. If alternatives are profitable, they will be used; if not, demand destruction will occur. Or, we can just blow each other up over the remaining trillion barrels.

[Paul64]

Are we just going to spend our time calling the other side stupid?

Actually, among the major peak oilers, I don't see a whole lot of antagonism, say, Simmons vs. Heinberg. Even on the more radical powerdown end, say Lundberg, one may think he is a bit out there (I say this even as I personally have developed some affinity for the radical view). But even someone like him is really not a real threat to the more mainstream PO movement. Incidentally Heinberg, although opposed to nuclear, seems resigned to its re-emergence.
Even on the pro-energy/pro-tech end there is a recognition that whatever is done or not done, energy will need to be conserved, through more localization and less wasteful and unnecessary transportation. Obviously, energy use will be less, whether we plan for it or not.

I think part of the real problem is people are so caught up in the complexity and stress of modern life, trying to get by, and general information overload (much of it big media propaganda), that they just don't want to think about the whole thing, even if they read a 'doomerish' article or hear something from a friend on the issue. When they do, like the recent Time articles, the message, muddied as it is by the opposing 'optimist, can-do' view, is soon forgotten. BTW, the latest issue of Time is all about a big promo for various high-tech breakthroughs and gadgets that are suppposed to make our life +so much+ better
Anyway, until real pain and dislocation start to become reality, I can't see any significant progress happening. I am not a soft-lander, but my positive view of things is that certain individuals who have a wide set of various practical and interpersonal skills, and take care of their health (eating well, exercising intensively and intelligently, and avoiding addictions) can (with some luck, granted) do just fine amid general scarcity and hardship. Most of the modern amenities we have in the 1st world to me are of questionable value as far as helping people to actually be happy and healthy.

[orz]

one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

Even the nuke/tech people say we need to powerdown. Just not permanently.

[thuja]

Its not a matter of either/or. Nukes will happen, wind and solar will happen, coal will happen, offshore drilling will happen, and in my opinion, powerdown will happen as well. When faced with the first major gas shortages, any environmental opposition will be brushed aside and we will move full scale into funding anything that gets us energy. But we'll pay for the big guns first and foremost. We'll go for the coal and the nukes because it gets a big payoff.

In my mind it will not nearly be able to offset the escalating deficit in oil and we will move in to a period of demand destruction. We will not be able to just become more efficient or do more with less. We will do less and less as a society. We will power down.

So its both, not because of any lobbying or education we do- but because the citizenry will demand more energy from somewhere when they start to see supplies dwindle, and there won't be enough energy to fill the gap....

[EnergySpin]

one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

Even the nuke/tech people say we need to powerdown. Just not permanently.

Exactly, this is the point that most luddites don't get about the tech people position. No one is saying that is going to be easy but individuals will have to reduce their demands on the system, so that the system can provide more for the future. This is why I prefer the term "powerswitch" ... energy is not an issue. Harnessing it is is an issue because the infrastructure is not there YET. The technology is here though .... Even the arguments about oil energy density are somewhat irrelevant. Nuclear power stations have a EROEI of about 40-50 ... and modern wind turbines in the 30-50s. This is actually high-quality energy i.e. electricity the one that can be converted to any service with the exception of the personal automobile. This has to wait technological breakthroughs in battery materials (do-able), or fuel-cells / H2 storage (probably not do-able).
The important point is that we have to power down as individuals ... and divert the majority of our energy to infrastructure activities. The degree of our success is also going to depend on how we handle it as a society/international community. Rationing powerswitch by the market mechanism is going to hurt us. And I had the "privilege" to reside in Cinci during the 2001 riots ... and watch the French riots over the TV. In both cases , the root cause is the isolation and marginalization of large groups. If we repeat this mistake then the situation is going to turn into a clusterf**k.
My 2c

[bobcousins]

Actually I thought the main divide amongst peak oilers is not about what should be done, but whether it will work. AIUI, the Monte view is that there is not enough time, or it won't scale, or if it does scale we will come a cropper due to Peak something else. There are some who oppose nuclear, but I think the Monte view is not that we should not go nuclear, but that we are doomed whatever we do. [I am confident that he will correct me in no certain terms if I have misrepresented this position! ]

As I see it the main dispute is over whether to back nuclear, renewable or both.

[linlithgowoil]

we are doomed whatever we do

yes, this is true. in a few short billion years, we'll be engulfed by the sun.
monte says we are doomed whatever we do, and he is right. but who cares? you are doomed from the day you are born - so is it better not to be born?
the universe will eventually just be a black dark place that is ever expanding. that is our ultimate fate - so what?

[EnergySpin]

we are doomed whatever we do

yes, this is true. in a few short billion years, we'll be engulfed by the sun.
monte says we are doomed whatever we do, and he is right. but who cares? you are doomed from the day you are born - so is it better not to be born?
the universe will eventually just be a black dark place that is ever expanding. that is our ultimate fate - so what?

This is not the right way of viewing the world. The moment we are born, we receive our death sentence ... so what? Nihilism will get us no where ...
Irrespective of the purpose (or actually lack thereof) in the universe, we create purpose with our actions and we can shape a small part of the universe according to our views. To deny that we can/should do so because the universe is going to die a thermal death can be due to laziness, or stupidity.
I presume you were being ironic though ....