[Pops]

EIA 2009 Annual Energy Review

[Xenophobe]

Excellent graphics.

12% of renewable energy goes into transport. Pretty darn surprising. Considering the growth rates of such things it should be relatively easy to calculate at what point it would be reasonable to expect that large volumes of petroleum could be displaced by that combination.

[Xenophobe]

The growth rate of one subset of renewables, wind, is growing quickly but still accounts for a minute percent of the total-- a very small fraction of 1%

In the long term, only that growth rate matters. This is a well known concept within peak oil.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/dr_albert_bartlett

[Xenophobe]

The growth rate of one subset of renewables, wind, is growing quickly but still accounts for a minute percent of the total-- a very small fraction of 1%

In the long term, only that growth rate matters.

Only if you believe in an infinite planet.

No one believes in "the infinite planet", it's a self contained strawman.

The growth rate simply indicates that given time, the nonlinear increase in renewable based transport energy can overwhelm the amount of energy derived from the other items (which is not growing in an exponential fashion), thereby replacing them.

No infinite planet required, just a measured progression to something else.

[Xenophobe]

No one believes in "the infinite planet", it's a self contained strawman.

Belief in an "infinite planet," of unlimited resources, is the basis for our near-religious free-market paradigm.

Please reference any reasonably academic source, journal or textbook which says that infinite resources are required for a free market paradigm to exist. Or perhaps explain how we have managed a reasonable facsimile of such a thing without obviously having this "infinite planet" around to back us up?

No infinite planet required, just a measured progression to something else.

Your argument is techtopian at best.

I did not make an argument, I just stated the nature of nonlinear growth equations moving in relation to things which aren't moving, or growing. From a mathematical perspective, the outcome is not in dispute.

Long before renewables account for a significant proportion of energy generation, the current energy base our industrial infrastructure depends on, the energy base for the development of renewable infrastructure, will be unavailable for numerous reasons;
1)--ongoing petroleum depletion results in less energy for transition to renewables.
2)--the evident failure of renewables to penetrate the transportation sector,
3)--the desperate need to reduce all industrial activity (including that of renewables development) for AGW.
4)--rare-earth minerals, fresh water, etc. shortages for industrial production of renewables (see PV etc.)_
5)--bankrupcy of government subsidies and paucity of investment possibilities for renewable development

You pack more than a few strawmen into every paragraph, don't you?

Okay, 1) ongoing depletion started prior to 1859 and certainly didn't stop us from ramping up the current round of renewable based technologies, 2) renewables have already penetrated the transportation sector as demonstrated by the EIA graph this conversation is based on 3) global warming is only a consideration if you choose it to be and if you don't it certainly isn't a restriction on the further use of crude, 4) shortages in other minerals have an even better ability to be replaced, substituted for or recycled than crude does and certainly aren't slowing down the exponential growth in renewables and 5) those subsidies are still going on regardless of the conditions of governments for reasons other than the economic necessity of the subsidy itself.

[Pops]

I seem to be having some posting problems - let me know if anyone else is losing posts.


I was going to say 2010 will probably be the first year since 2004 that wind installs are down - I'm not looking for a link this time around, Google it.

The recession has forced electric demand down so there's no good excuse to build, nonetheless we keep burning FFs at virtually the same rate.

[sparky]

.
total consumption 72.970 quadrillions
total production 94.600 ''
geo thermal 0.373 ''
wind 0.693 "
solar /pv 0.109 "


new age renewables are smaller than a statistical mistake

[Xenophobe]

You removed the crux of my argument, the main tenet of our free-market system. If it is true that demand creates supply, a logical implication is the supply will always be there, as population is exponentially creating demand. You appear to work under the religious assumption that technology creates energy.

I accept no such statement that demand creates supply. I demand a million dollars. When do you think supply will satisfy my demand?

And because population isn't growing exponentially, and per capita consumption has been stable for a few decades now, certainly demand for energy isn't increasing exponentially either.

The solution to depletion mitigation includes the problem of scale. At current rate, demands of development and implementation, replacements for our petroleum-dependent transport system will not be available. In time, in the scale required. See The Hirsch Report.

I have. Unfortunately it has been pretty heavily discredited in its most basic assumptions, which is that estimates of available FF's are too high. Natural gas was supposed to be in crisis mode even back in 2005 when the report was written. More than ample supply appeared when demanded. If I could only get my million dollars so easily.

Most of this, starting with "ongoing depletion started prior to 1859" is pedantic nonsense (depletion/production decline. Who cares) , rosy projections (hydro is tapped out and the rest is insignificant), or simple non responses (AGW).

I wouldn't want to defend those particular strawmen either. Pick better ones next time?

[Xenophobe]

Hirsch has not been discredited, certainly not by a lightweight of you caliber.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the Hirsch report?

"Like oil reserves estimation, natural gas reserves estimation is subject to
enormous uncertainty. North American natural gas reserves estimates
now appear to have been excessively optimistic and North American
natural gas production is now almost certainly in decline."

We most certainly were not in decline. And those estimates weren't optimistic.

"High prices do not a priori lead to greater production. Geology is
ultimately the limiting factor, and geological realities are clearest after the
fact."

Page 36.

Higher prices led to exactly the increased production Hirsch said would not happen. And it was because of the basics of geology which Hirsch misinterpreted. In the real world, its called being discredited.

And I am not short, at least not by American standards.

[Xenophobe]

You are not going to drag up you Bakken BS again.

I referenced Hirsch mistaking the natural gas cliff in the US for what became the natural gas bubble. Shale gas is not oil. The Bakken is an oil play, and its total oil volumes are unlikely to effect the domestic oil supply situation.

There is little evidence that these super tight formations (only recently produced in quantity out of desperation and the furious decline of free-gas deposits) will produce over the long term. You know that. Everybody knows that, and besides it has nothing to do with The Hirsch Report on Peak Oil.

I referenced Hirschs prognostication on gas, not oil. I provided the page number Ad hom deleted. Please stop this childishness, Moderator Staff

[Xenophobe]

Twenty years of work would make for a painless transition. We have not started any of the recommended responses Hirsch outlined.

Hirsches assumptions on needing those 20 years was based on information since proved patently false. Because of the type of fossil fuel they proved false on, and the sheer volumes available because of this mistake, there is no reason to assume any other assumptions within the report are any more valid.