[bonjaski]

the problem is to find a cheap solution without getting into a new dependence;


but when we can buy batterys for ~200$ / kwh
100wh/kgr with life of ~2000cycles (10-15years)
then for me the problem is solved;


interestingly you don't need more then 20mbd to move 2 billion 100mpg vehicles ...


and the earth could feed easily 4billion biogas HCNG hybrids

[TheDude]

interestingly you don't need more then 20mbd to move 2 billion 100mpg vehicles ...

Too bad the US is slouching towards a whopping 35MPG by 2020. A few years of shortage might get them off their butts but there are unfortunately obstacles in the way of implementing this as fast as we'd like to see.

If recession comes to the US in a big way you're not going to have much of a market for new cars anyway.

Best thing is to somehow reduce consumption, unfortunately most likely the hard way. And Americans will be hard at work paying off our national and personal debt for the foreseeable future too, making it hard to pay for big nuclear projects or a new car.

Only thing I can see keeping the US ship afloat is unproven techs like the Polywell fusion reactor. Pstarr's right about all the caveats regarding "renewables." The notion of really rigorously field testing biofuels was suggested here recently - grow some and try and power the machinery to grow more, see if it happens. Like Biosphere 2 I bet it'd turn into a bad joke in most cases. Wouldn't that be worthy science? If the international community's willing to spend $18 billion on ITER why aren't we willing to spend a pittance of that on these boondoggles, hmmm?

[frankthetank]

I think its a money problem. So many jobs in this country are service bases, that when the shit does go down, that the unemployed will rise in anger. You may have your solar panels and your fruit trees, but if your neighbor is dark and cold and hungry, i wouldn't doubt your house goes up in flames. Solar panels are expensive, and we (most) are in so much debt the way it is, i doubt anyone is going to pony up the bling to buy a new windmill and battery bank.

I think the rich will carry on as is (trips, planes, cars) and the middle class will join the ranks of the poor and most likely turn to chaos in a lot of the larger cities.

Reduced demand is coming, but it won't be voluntary, it'll be forced.

Ever try telling someone they should take a shorter shower or drive less...they don't take it kindly.

[mkwin]

I think its a money problem. So many jobs in this country are service bases, that when the shit does go down, that the unemployed will rise in anger. You may have your solar panels and your fruit trees, but if your neighbor is dark and cold and hungry, i wouldn't doubt your house goes up in flames. Solar panels are expensive, and we (most) are in so much debt the way it is, i doubt anyone is going to pony up the bling to buy a new windmill and battery bank.

I think the rich will carry on as is (trips, planes, cars) and the middle class will join the ranks of the poor and most likely turn to chaos in a lot of the larger cities.

Reduced demand is coming, but it won't be voluntary, it'll be forced.

Ever try telling someone they should take a shorter shower or drive less...they don't take it kindly.

Yes many of those service jobs will go but there will be new jobs in engineering, construction, local manufacturing and agriculture. We will no longer import our socks from China so someone has to make them. Globalisation will go into reverse and we will return to a local economy.

I agree with you, I think the middle class in the developed world will see a fall in their standard of living.

[Judgie]

Couple points...


I also envision that petroleum is going to be with us for a long long time. What will change is the cheapness and abundance. So I'm not that worried about needing some of it to do windmills, PV's, and batteries. If we stopped burning it as transport fuel there'd be plenty around for petrochemicals and the like.

Be that as it may, everyone else will be trying to do the same thing, that's a lot of plastic production alone. At the same time, TPTB will want to try continue on the current paradigm for as long as possible. Cheapness and Abundance (or lack thereof) of petroleum products will flow on to the cost of your PV's, windmills, batteries, and their supporting consumables.

[Judgie]

I'm not an expert in metallurgy but tell me again why it is we won't be able to make things like windmills without oil... pretty sure the greeks were smelting bronze a few thousand years ago, and I don't think they were doing it with canisters of gasoline?

Do a little research, and think about why we use carbon fibre, or at the worst, aluminium in our windmills, rather than bronze........

[Judgie]

.....

[Judgie]

Uranium supply is not a "technicality" and is not the only argument. There are lots of other arguments against nuclear, eroei, security, nimbyism, time-lag, etc. Breeder reactors are always just around the corner. I would not depend on them. Perpetual energy system? Other than thermodynamics and reality there are other impediments to this techtopian dream: an entire investment, industrial, economic world paradigm built on petroleum which is in decline.

Firstly - renewable intermittency is being solved: - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/e ... tery_N.htm

Secondly, I’m a regular reader of TOD and have never seen a peak-battery argument made. Surely the materials could simply be recycled and reprocessed?

On Nuclear, read here http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2323 and here http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2355 for a contrasting view which thoroughly answers most of your points. EROEI with nuclear are you kidding me??? Average oil EROEI is what 5 to 1 now? That’s less than wind and many times less than any conceivable nuclear system. Designs for breeder reactors exist and are doable now. The reason they haven't been commissioned is simple, they are uneconomical with the historic collapse in the uranium price. Thorium is also very abundant and can be used for fuel in slightly more expensive reactors but it hasn't happened yet because uranium is so abundant. However, from a technical point of view, they are available now. NIMBYism - In a post-peak world this won't be a problem. Lead in times are primarily a function of NIMBYism. Scalability yes, issue here. An insurmountable problem - I don't think so.

Nuclear is not ideal and I agree with the writer of the second article I posted the energy order should be the following:


First, conservation and energy efficiency. "Negawatts" are the cheapest and most underexploited resource we have;
Second, renewable energies, starting with wind. They are proven technologies, are scalable and wind is already competitive, price wise;
Third, nuclear. It’s the least bad way to provide the base load capacity we'll need in the foreseeable future;
Fourth, gas-fired plants. Gas is less polluting than coal, gas turbines are very flexible to use. Such plants will probably be needed (in places that do not have sufficient hydro) to manage the permanent adjustment of supply to demand that electricity requires;
last, coal should be dismantled as quickly as possible from its current high levels of use - and new construction should be stopped.

I can't say it any better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_M22STINYw

You have to do something about TPTB

[MC2]

interestingly you don't need more then 20mbd to move 2 billion 100mpg vehicles ...

Too bad the US is slouching towards a whopping 35MPG by 2020. A few years of shortage might get them off their butts but there are unfortunately obstacles in the way of implementing this as fast as we'd like to see.

I bought a Toyota Corolla new in 1979 for 3500 dollars that got 35 MPG. As oil got cheaper and cheaper through the 80s and 90s, that little car seemed more and more like a death trap rolling down the interstate highways. It's going to take a huge increase in gas prices to get these morons to give up their huge SUVs.

[denverdave]

I think its a money problem. So many jobs in this country are service bases, that when the shit does go down, that the unemployed will rise in anger. You may have your solar panels and your fruit trees, but if your neighbor is dark and cold and hungry, i wouldn't doubt your house goes up in flames. Solar panels are expensive, and we (most) are in so much debt the way it is, i doubt anyone is going to pony up the bling to buy a new windmill and battery bank.

I think the rich will carry on as is (trips, planes, cars) and the middle class will join the ranks of the poor and most likely turn to chaos in a lot of the larger cities.

Reduced demand is coming, but it won't be voluntary, it'll be forced.

Ever try telling someone they should take a shorter shower or drive less...they don't take it kindly.

Yes many of those service jobs will go but there will be new jobs in engineering, construction, local manufacturing and agriculture. We will no longer import our socks from China so someone has to make them. Globalisation will go into reverse and we will return to a local economy.

I agree with you, I think the middle class in the developed world will see a fall in their standard of living.

True, there will still be plenty of work post-peak, especially with falling productivity and an abundance of labor over capital and energy. The flip side is wages will be subsistence levels

[MonteQuest]

I know that world energy demand is on the rise, but lets have a hypothetical situation where we could reduce demand drastically - how much would it have to be reduced by in order for renewable energy to fulfil our energy needs?

Huh?

As long as we have economic growth and as long as we have population growth, we can never have a sustainable energy regime from any source.

Population growth alone consumes all gains from conservation and efficiency gains are ruled by Jevons' Paradox in a free market.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron.

Read Dr. Bartlett.

Laws Relating to Sustainability

[MonteQuest]

Is it really a matter of being "there's no way to resolve the problems associated with PO" or is it a matter of political will to curb energy use and bring more renewables online?

There are solutions, but no techno-fix.

We must powerdown, restrict per capita consumption and reduce the existing population in order to move towards sustainability.

All other efforts are short-term selfish solutions.

[MonteQuest]

While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

No, the optimists deny and are ignorant of biology/ecology and overshoot, and the doomers are not.

[MonteQuest]

I guess what I wonder is how much of our current energy demand is completely unnecessary and could be easily cut back just by changing certain practices (i.e. using solid state lighting, not leaving computers/televisions/lights on when not in use, using lighter more fuel-efficient vehicles, better public transit, etc etc etc). If we "tightened our belts" (without radically altering our way of life), how much would energy demand fall ?

Duh?

Energy doesn't care whether it gets used for a good purpose or not. And GDP doesn't care what creates it. How do you cut sales and create massive unemployment and not radically alter our way of life?

Who absorbs this loss?

All that "unnecessary" consumption of energy employs millions of people.

You need to read my Solutions in Isolation thread.

It strikes me that peak oil itself is meaningless without the context of demand. If we somehow cut our energy needs by 90%, suddenly having maxed oil and gas production today means a lot less than it used to, and we can continue as usual for centuries into the future.

What about the 3 billion newcomers? Hmm?

But if renewables provide X amount of energy, and we change our behaviour to only require X amount of energy, then we have a sustainable energy system don't we?

Only on that day.

[MonteQuest]

But let's assume we could develop ways around enough of the problems and develop a half-decent hydrogen vehicle.

According to Honda, hydrogen fuel cell automobiles are at least two decades from reality. Honda's engineer in charge of fuel cells, Yozo Kami, admits it will take at least 10 years to bring sticker prices down to $100,000. General Motors claims they will have a commercial fuel cell vehicle ready by 2010, but that even assuming some level of mass production, a single finished car would probably run over $200,000.

But it sounds like you, pstarr, think that capitalism and conservation can never coexist, and therefore the writing is on the wall.

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

[DavidFolks]

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Add a little soap, agitate...

Classical capitalism allows the ownership of goods and the means to produce them. It is based on investing capital, providing goods and/or services at a profit, and re-investment of the profits in the venture. Prices and viability are controlled by the market by supply and demand. You don't turn capital investments into cash, your capital investments produce profits. You spend the profits, not the capital. Conservation, diligence and care maintain and nurture a producing asset so it can grow.

Our current paradigm of conspicuous consumption is a little different. In it we use cash to aquire assets at as low a cash price as possible, then we liquidate the asset to provide a cash profit. In this system efficient = fast. Profit is generated by consuming the asset, then using the cash to buy another.... ad infinitum, until it's all gone that is.

[MonteQuest]

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Add a little soap, agitate....

Show me a business that can prosper by constantly cutting sales and without laying off workers.

[DavidFolks]

Show me a business that can prosper by constantly cutting sales and without laying off workers.

Any national airline!:lol:

I never suggested that a business could survive by constantly cutting sales.

Seriously though, capitalism and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. A business doesn't have to constantly increase its volume of sales to thrive, it has to maintain a level of sales that keeps its workforce employed, and produces a profit.

As for corporations, I realize that their only feduciary responsibility is to provide a profit to the shareholders. Most people seem to think this means constantly increasing the percentage of profit and dividends paid, but that simply is not so.

Capitalism, strictly speaking, is not the problem.

Profit taking through liquidating producing assets is.

[mkwin]

While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

No, the optimists deny and are ignorant of biology/ecology and overshoot, and the doomers are not.

We've had this conversation before. You take an extremely reductionist view of the human race and compare our current condition to other species. However, we are fundamentally different from other species and predicting trends or absolute natural laws like overshoot from these comparisons is unreliable.

Yes we need to stabilise and reduce populations in the third world, but we have the opposite problem in the industrialised world!! Just look at Japan, much of Europe and Russia - here the problem is the birth-rate that is too little to sustain the population at current levels.

Die-off in the third world…sadly yes. In the developed world…no.

[MonteQuest]

A business doesn't have to constantly increase its volume of sales to thrive, it has to maintain a level of sales that keeps its workforce employed, and produces a profit.

And how does it do that when it is constantly cutting sales through conservation?

Capitalism, strictly speaking, is not the problem.

No, a constant growth based system is the problem.