For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject:
Tokyo - No, I mean the excess people will starve or not be born, and the excess machinery won't be able to be run for lack of oil (even if there are billions of barrels of oil in the ground, if it costs one barrel of oil to bring out one barrel, it stays down there).
The term "blow off" or "blown off" doesn't mean to blow up with bombs, that term is also used to mean shake off, throw off, etc. Not meaning bombs!
My grandfather helped work on the bombs that were dropped on Japan by the way. I visited Hiroshima myself in connection with a sport I was involved in, and went to the museum there. Some team mates went to "ground zero" as they called it but I didn't get the chance. In fact I was really sick with the flu, and was supposed to stay in bed - I waited until the coach and everyone was gone then left the hotel and went to see the museum etc., then came back and went back to bed and no one found out. It is very peaceful in Hiroshima now.
EROEI of coal during the 50s: 80
EROEI of coal during the 70s: 30
Quote:
I'll help you with this one. The total value of the surface mined bituminous coal and lignite mined in the U.S. in 1997 was $13,689,516,000, and the total spent on fuel by that same industry was $393,113,000.
Posting costs is useless. One, they will change as oil gets more expensive, and two, they don't take all energy costs into account.
Quote:
Oil plays a very small role in U.S. manufacturing today.
You're right about that...and that is another problem. The reason we are so "efficient" these days is that we've outsourced all the energy-intensive, heavy manufacturing. And even not-so-heavy manufacturing. It's hard to say exactly how much, but most estimates put it at about 50%. That is, 50% of our supposed energy efficiency improvements since the '70s aren't really energy efficiency at all; we've simply moved the energy use offshore.
Example: Instead of manufacturing plastic VCR tapes, DVDs, and action figures here, and using the petroleum that making and molding all that plastic requires, we import them from China. That improves our efficiency, since we aren't using any energy in the country. China is, but that doesn't count on our tally. Presto, a remarkable increase in efficiency!
The last round of this happened around 2000, when the price of natural gas spiked. It tripled practically overnight, and industries that were dependent on it: fertilizer, aluminum, chemicals, concrete, etc. - moved overseas. Since it's hard to ship natural gas, but easy to ship a bag of fertilizer. (We may come to regret this when TSHTF.)
So cost estimates, and some EROEI estimates, are completely useless, because they don't consider the energy it took to manufacture goods if they were manufactured overseas.
Quote:
So where is the oil used, Leanan? What exact process?
If you really want to know, here's a goverment paper on solar panel manufacturing you might find of interest:
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject:
Good one Leanan!
Yes, we're outsourcing all our dirty industry to the 3rd world, and then patting ourselves on the back for how nice and clean we're doing things ourselves. Yes, delivering pizzas to each other and taking in each others' laundry and manicuring each others' nails is cleaner than plastics manufacturing.......
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:32 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking the back of capitalism
tokyo_to_motueka wrote:
FatherOfTwo wrote:
What is it going to take to break the back of capitalism?
capitalism will destroy itself in due course.
it's a system based on constant accumulation and the exploitation of low-entropy areas.
but the biosphere is finite and eventually cascading entopy and the instability of complex systems will topple the whole edifice.
You are forgetting the constant influx of low entropy photons from the Sun. And the Sun is going to be around for a lot longer than any of us are.
EROEI of coal during the 50s: 80
EROEI of coal during the 70s: 30
Okay. I'll accept that as evidence. So we've established that the coal industry is facing diminishing EROEI, as calculated by the author of that paper. How exactly is that going to cause a problem in the future? Even if we assume that the EROEI of coal in the 2000s is (say) 15, it isn't having any impact on the coal industry at all. The price of coal in the 2000s is exactly where it was in 1950 -- a little less than $2 per million btu. Coal may be facing diminishing returns in terms of EROEI (as calculated by the author of that paper), but coal isn't getting more expensive, and the industry isn't facing diminishing financial returns, so who cares?
How do you envision coal production breaking down due to decreasing EROEI?
Quote:
Quote:
So where is the oil used, Leanan? What exact process?
If you really want to know, here's a goverment paper on solar panel manufacturing you might find of interest:
How exactly is that going to cause a problem in the future? Even if we assume that the EROEI of coal in the 2000s is (say) 15, it isn't having any impact on the coal industry at all.
That's because there's an alternative: oil and natural gas. It will be an entirely different story once those are in decline.
And that, really, is my point. We're looking at a paradigm shift here. For the first time, we'll be moving to an energy source with a lower EROEI. Previously, it's always been the opposite: from lower to higher. That sort of transition is easy; thermodynamics is on your side.
Quote:
That was interesting. It demonstrates my point. Oil isn't used anywhere in the process, except perhaps as a feedstock to make polyimide resin.
I think you owe everybody an apology for spreading misinformation when you said "It takes a lot of petroleum to make solar panels."
The article said nothing of the sort. I can only assume you didn't understand what you read.
I'll attempt to translate....
Breakdown for thin-film type panel:
- A transparent front layer that also protects from the environment;
IOW, plastic. Made out of petroleum, and requires a lot of energy to work.
After the petroleum is "cracked," the part of it that will become plastic is mixed with various chemicals (which are themselves manufactured using petroleum), heated, and made into powder or pellets. Using machines that are made out of metal, rubber, and plastic that were manufactured using petroleum, and lubricated with it.
These are shipped (using oil) to the plastics manufacturers, who will melt them (at temps as high as 2000F) and mold them. (The molds also take petroleum to produce.)
A transparent and conductive top layer or grid that carries away current;
Basically, this is glass, with a thin layer of aluminum or other metal. (Aluminum is an energy intensive metal, BTW. Most of our remaining aluminum plants moved overseas after the last natural gas spike.) The aluminum is deposited using DC magnetron spattering. The magnetron is itself a high-tech, high-energy device, made of metal (which is manufactured using petroleum). Glass is also a high-energy product. Sand, recycled glass, and other materials are heated to almost 3000F. After the glass is formed, it's heated again to "anneal" it. The temperature must be carefully controlled, or the glass will be too brittle to use.
A thin (1-4 micron), central sandwich of semiconductors that form one or more junctions to separate charge;
Semiconductors are another high-energy product. They are usually made from silicon, most of which is imported, on ships made of oil-forged metal, powered by marine diesel. The manufacturing process also takes a lot of energy, using high-tech equipment, air-conditioned, super-filtered clean rooms, etc.,
Various intermediate processing steps: scribes and depositions to interconnect strip cells, annealing steps to activate or complete certain components; lamination to attach encapsulation; buss bar attachment to carry off power; isolation scribes at the borders; glass or other substrate handling, cleaning, and heating.
Most of those take energy and special equipment that is made using petroleum.
The other common way of making solar cells is crystal growing/casting. But that's not exactly low-energy, either. From this site:
Crystal growing and casting plants are best sited where there is an abundant source of reliable, cheap energy to power the high temperature operations.
That is generally natural gas or oil. So I stand by my statement that it takes a lot of petroleum to make solar panels.
Would it be possible to make them without using any petroleum? Possibly, but it would be much more difficult and expensive. That is what I mean when I say that all the "alternatives" are massively subsidized by cheap oil right now.
And that, really, is my point. We're looking at a paradigm shift here. For the first time, we'll be moving to an energy source with a lower EROEI. Previously, it's always been the opposite: from lower to higher. That sort of transition is easy; thermodynamics is on your side.
I'll give you an example of a time when we moved from a source with high EROEI to lower EROEI: the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture. That move did not harm early humans. If anything, it gave them a leg up.
Quote:
Breakdown for thin-film type panel:
- A transparent front layer that also protects from the environment;
IOW, plastic. Made out of petroleum, and requires a lot of energy to work.
Yes, plastic is used in today's solar panels, and you're right that might be a problem if large-scale solar is attempted when plastic is very expensive.
However, there are two points which aren't clear:
1) Whether that plastic is absolutely necessary. (For example, some current solar panels use a plastic back panel, which has no functional purpose other than packaging.) Could other substances be used?
2) Whether the plastic can be made from other inputs besides oil, such as synthetic oil, natural gas, coal gas or coal.
Quote:
A transparent and conductive top layer or grid that carries away current;
Basically, this is glass, with a thin layer of aluminum or other metal. (Aluminum is an energy intensive metal, BTW. Most of our remaining aluminum plants moved overseas after the last natural gas spike.) The aluminum is deposited using DC magnetron spattering. The magnetron is itself a high-tech, high-energy device, made of metal (which is manufactured using petroleum). Glass is also a high-energy product. Sand, recycled glass, and other materials are heated to almost 3000F. After the glass is formed, it's heated again to "anneal" it. The temperature must be carefully controlled, or the glass will be too brittle to use.
A thin (1-4 micron), central sandwich of semiconductors that form one or more junctions to separate charge;
Semiconductors are another high-energy product. They are usually made from silicon, most of which is imported, on ships made of oil-forged metal, powered by marine diesel. The manufacturing process also takes a lot of energy, using high-tech equipment, air-conditioned, super-filtered clean rooms, etc.,
In the above, you are doing the switcheroo. We are talking about oil dependence, not energy dependence. Your original claim was that lots of oil is required to make solar panels, and to prove that you are pointing out how much energy it takes to make solar panels. That's cheating.
To help you visualize how wrong you are about oil dependence, I'll post these charts:
As you can see, oil plays a neglible role in the manufacture of aluminum and glass.
Quote:
Various intermediate processing steps: scribes and depositions to interconnect strip cells, annealing steps to activate or complete certain components; lamination to attach encapsulation; buss bar attachment to carry off power; isolation scribes at the borders; glass or other substrate handling, cleaning, and heating.
Most of those take energy and special equipment that is made using petroleum.
As you can see, the following industries use virtually no petroleum for manufacturing: Fabricated metal products; Machinery; Computer and Electronic Products; Semiconductors and Related Devices, Electrical Equip. Appliances and Components.
Quote:
The other common way of making solar cells is crystal growing/casting. But that's not exactly low-energy, either. From this site:
Crystal growing and casting plants are best sited where there is an abundant source of reliable, cheap energy to power the high temperature operations. That is generally natural gas or oil.
That energy is not provided by oil, as indicated by the stats above. It is provided by natural gas and electricity.
Quote:
So I stand by my statement that it takes a lot of petroleum to make solar panels.
Aside from the plastic, which is a minor part of the cost of a solar panel, you have not shown any oil dependence. As usual, you're hiding behind the word "a lot". How much is "a lot"?
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:50 am Post subject:
agni you make a good point - "the low entropy photons from the sun" may be the total source of low entropy the earth runs on.
the only mention I've seen anywhere of how the sunlight is a low-entropy source of energy, is in a physics textbook by a certain Russian physicist who escaped the USSR and worked on the US bomb project in WWII. Hint: his wife's name was Rho.
I'll give you an example of a time when we moved from a source with high EROEI to lower EROEI: the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture. That move did not harm early humans. If anything, it gave them a leg up.
Actually, you're wrong on that. Switching from foraging to agriculture was terrible for humans. We went from working three hours a day to working 12 hours a day or worse. Even now, we are working 40 hours a week - twice as much as the 20 hours a week of even the hardest-working hunter-gatherers.
The advent of agriculture increased population density, but decreased standard of living. European hunter-gatherers were as strong, tall, and healthy as modern Europeans, judging from their bones. But after agriculture (and before oil), European skeletons became diseased, short, and stunted. Even the wealthy suffered. Look at the suits of armor worn by European royalty. They were shrimps. The average European woman is now too tall to wear them.
Quote:
Your original claim was that lots of oil is required to make solar panels, and to prove that you are pointing out how much energy it takes to make solar panels. That's cheating.
Um...no. You're the one that's cheating. The exact quote was, "It takes a lot of petroleum to make aluminum turbines or solar panels, or grow biomass fuels (yes, even algae and switchgrass)."
That is true. It does take a lot of petroleum to make solar panels, as they are manufactured now. Is it possible that we'll invent Star Trek-like replicators that will allow us to make solar panels using matter-antimater engines? Yes, but I'm not counting on it. The fact is, it takes a lot of energy, and if we are to continue to make such things, we are going to have to replace that energy.
Quote:
As you can see, the following industries use virtually no petroleum for manufacturing: Fabricated metal products; Machinery; Computer and Electronic Products; Semiconductors and Related Devices, Electrical Equip. Appliances and Components.
Like I said before...one, those are numbers for the U.S. only. We don't manufacture much at all anymore (except debt). The heavy-energy use industries have all been outsourced. Two, they aren't complete. It counts only the oil used to make a product, not the oil used to mine, manufacture or transport the parts and raw materials required to make something.
Quote:
That energy is not provided by oil, as indicated by the stats above. It is provided by natural gas and electricity.
I include natural gas when I say "petroleum," and I think that was pretty clear, since I talked about aluminum, fertilizer, etc., being driven overseas by the recent price spike. Electricity is indeed the source of energy most manufacturing uses...but that is generated using natural gas and oil. (We don't get a lot of electricity from oil, percentage-wise, but other countries do.)
In any case, natural gas will likely be a bigger problem than oil, because it is not as easily transported. If we had tons of natural gas, I wouldn't worry about about oil at all. Natural gas is a pretty good substitute.
But we don't have a lot of natural gas. The only reason we haven't had rolling blackouts in the northeast is that the weather has been unusually mild the past few years.
If they start trying to substitute natural gas for oil (I already use a natural-gas powered car at work), there won't be enough to go around. There probably won't be enough to go around soon, anyway. The utility companies are competing with homeowners who use natural gas for heat and cooking. Blackouts, or no winter heating? Tough choice.
And I shudder to think of what will happen if Canada decides to throw NAFTA overboard, and save their natural gas for their own people.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 977 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:47 am Post subject:
Leanan wrote:
And I shudder to think of what will happen if Canada decides to throw NAFTA overboard, and save their natural gas for their own people.
Don't worry it's very unlikely to happen. The repercussions would be too severe, the US and Canada have been in bed together for far too long and the Canadian military, oh wait, we don't have one.
Reminds me of a Robin Williams' joke about bobbies (police) in the UK and their lack of guns.
“Stop! Or I’ll say “Stop!” again!”
The only way it could happen is if Canadians started acting like Iraqi's - sabotaging the pipelines that ship it to the US. Not impossible, but we’ll all be in deep ka-ka by that point. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
I'll give you an example of a time when we moved from a source with high EROEI to lower EROEI: the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture. That move did not harm early humans. If anything, it gave them a leg up.
Actually, you're wrong on that. Switching from foraging to agriculture was terrible for humans. We went from working three hours a day to working 12 hours a day or worse. Even now, we are working 40 hours a week - twice as much as the 20 hours a week of even the hardest-working hunter-gatherers.
Yes, that's all true. But the shift from high EROEI to low EROEI did not stop or hinder growth. It facilitated growth. How do you explain that?
Your view seems to be that stepping from high EROEI to lower EROEI will be what screws up our civilization, and yet (as we see by the HG->agriculture transition) it was just such a step which led to the creation of civilization in the first place.
Quote:
It does take a lot of petroleum to make solar panels, as they are manufactured now. Is it possible that we'll invent Star Trek-like replicators that will allow us to make solar panels using matter-antimater engines?
It's a lot more likely that we'll simply turn to other feedstocks (like synthetic oil) to make the plastics needed to build solar panels. Or we'll just design the panels so they don't require plastic.
Quote:
I include natural gas when I say "petroleum,"
That's fine, but then we aren't facing an imminent global peak in petroleum.
Quote:
In any case, natural gas will likely be a bigger problem than oil, because it is not as easily transported. If we had tons of natural gas, I wouldn't worry about about oil at all. Natural gas is a pretty good substitute.
But we don't have a lot of natural gas. The only reason we haven't had rolling blackouts in the northeast is that the weather has been unusually mild the past few years.
If they start trying to substitute natural gas for oil (I already use a natural-gas powered car at work), there won't be enough to go around. There probably won't be enough to go around soon, anyway. The utility companies are competing with homeowners who use natural gas for heat and cooking. Blackouts, or no winter heating? Tough choice.
But isn't that a local problem, not a global problem? It's only a problem for areas of the world (like North America) which are depleting and have no gas import infrastructure. Russia certainly isn't going to be having any natural gas problems. In fact, it seems quite likely that all energy intensive industry will drain out of countries with high energy costs, and migrate to countries with low energy costs. As you say, it's easier to transport product than gas. So what's wrong with that?
agni you make a good point - "the low entropy photons from the sun" may be the total source of low entropy the earth runs on.
Well, the source of low entropy could be internal or external. Given that for most purposes we can rule out internal sources (except for hydrothermal vents and exotic animals that live near them) that leaves the sun as pretty much the only other source.
I_Like_Plants wrote:
the only mention I've seen anywhere of how the sunlight is a low-entropy source of energy, is in a physics textbook by a certain Russian physicist who escaped the USSR and worked on the US bomb project in WWII. Hint: his wife's name was Rho.
I am not aware of that off the top of my head. Mind enlightening me?
Yes, that's all true. But the shift from high EROEI to low EROEI did not stop or hinder growth. It facilitated growth. How do you explain that?
I don't think you can say there was growth, at least not as we currently define it. Capitalism as we know it didn't exist then, so it's kind of pointless to talk about growth.
Quote:
Your view seems to be that stepping from high EROEI to lower EROEI will be what screws up our civilization, and yet (as we see by the HG->agriculture transition) it was just such a step which led to the creation of civilization in the first place.
I don't think it's even appropriate to describe this as a change in EROEI. A hunter-gatherer, a horticulturalist, or an agriculturalist are all using the same energy source: solar, mostly via biomass.
Quote:
That's fine, but then we aren't facing an imminent global peak in petroleum.
I think we are. Even if we aren't, we are certainly facing the North American peak, right now. And natural gas cannot be shipped as readily as oil, and no number of LNG ports will change that.
Quote:
Russia certainly isn't going to be having any natural gas problems. In fact, it seems quite likely that all energy intensive industry will drain out of countries with high energy costs, and migrate to countries with low energy costs.
That has already happened.
Once oil is in short supply, it will be much more difficult to transport the goods. And we won't be able to afford them anyway.
I would argue we really can't afford them now. We are buying this stuff on credit. Eventually, the rest of the world will realize that we can never repay them, and they will stop throwing good money after bad, even though it means they'll lose the money they already invested.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
The article said nothing of the sort. I can only assume you didn't understand what you read.
