[The_Toecutter]

I am optimistic about the technology by the virtue of the fact it exists. We need to ramp up its use, however, if we are to avoid a large scale crisis. I'm hoping humanity will impress me, but I'm not counting on it.

An EV hard to work? I know people that built them with their own time, labor, and money when they were still in highschool. These aren't long range cruisers, but they are entirely highway capable.

http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/589.html

We have some of the leading executives in the auto industry saying this can't be done, when high school kids without degrees even, are doing it just fine.

Sure, they may not have the batteries for long range, as that problem lies in both production volume and on who holds the patents. Again politics comes into play. That $150/kWh NiMH battery that could allow 200 miles range? Chevron-Texaco bought the patent from General Motors, GM of which didn't want EVs to become mainstream and CT which didn't want EVs to become mainstream because that would mean less oil consumption and thus less revenue. Lithium ion batteries could allow 300-400 miles, but production volume is their problem. No major automaker wants to mass produce EVs, so without automotive volume production, prices stay above $500/kWh. To be economical, we need about $250/kWh, which mass production is more than capable of doing. But that mass production scenario is not the case we have today.

Keep in mind that Germany and Iraq as examples, are for the short term as in zero to fifteen years post peak. That fifteen years is shortened drastically with a steeper depletion curve. After that, it would be hard to fathom just how bad things could get, but it won't be pretty. It could mean a big dieoff, although that's no garuntee.

Biodiesel and celluoistic ethanol bost combined can meet 1/3 of our transportation needs @ 25 mpg. However, we need to use our farmland for food and other essentials like plastics, textiles, medicines. Basically hemp as a replacement for petrochemicals necessary to our current society. Electricity may not be practical for semi trucks, but biodiesel could have its uses there. Biomass might be too valuable to burn for common transportation, but it could certainly have a role if(very big if) there is enough spare biomass to go around without having to encroach on the environment for more farmland. Hemp has the added benefit of also restoring soil. It is a much needed plant in order to further lessen peak oil's effects. 25 mpg is not going to be sustainable, sad to say. We need to set our sights higher to consider biodiesel for transport, like 100+ mpg. That can be done. Opel's Eco Speedster sports car can get 110 miles per imperial gallon, and top 160 mph, doing 0-60 in under 8 seconds. Audi's A2 compact can seat five and get 90 miles per imperial gallon while topping out at 100 mph and doing 0-60 mph in 13 seconds. Niether of these are hybrids.

In order to change things, rejecting the current leadership and going after the executives of predatory companies may be necessary to get a sustainable society going. We're about to find out whether we waited too long to do anything or not. It certainly won't hurt to try to change things, but unlike you, I'm not one to gamble on an optimistic outcome. It may very well turn into a situation so drastic, that to fuel our cars on biofuels the poor will end up starving. Who knows. As a (hopefully)future engineer, I hope to do my part as an individual person to try to reduce my ecological footprint and overall impact on society before peak oil does it for me. I certainly have decided I don't need a degree to start now. First thing is first: successfully getting a job so I can pay for the parts I need to finish my project and get the house running on aeolic and solar.

My investment is relegated to myself only. I'm not rich. I'm a 20 year old college student seeking a degree in electrical engineering. I cannot afford to start my own business, as much as I'd like to. I'm worried about getting my electric car finished, house I live in going on alternatives, a big garden going, and my lifestyle less damaging both socially and ecologically before the shit hits the fan. In the meantime, if there's still spare time left or even if a crisis is averted, I'll at least be able to have my fun at the race track(or on our public roadways) as well.

[Optimist]

Well said.

Let me ask you this: Why is PO going to cause economic colapse in your mind? You seem to believe that at some point oil become so expensive that building plants to produce alternatives is unaffordable. I would argue the opposite, that expensive oil makes the alternatives more economical viable. The more expensive the oil, the more viable the alternative. No matter how expensive building say a coal liquification plant when oil is $200+/barrel, you are going to make a screaming profit @ $200+/barrel.

Tell you something else. Demand for oil is going to nose dive @ $200+/barrel. Sure, the current evidence does not show it - people driving like there is no tomorrow @ $60/barrel, as shown over the 4th of July weekend. But this is the early stages. The oil price is not yet hurting too seriously, much to OPEC's relief. Eventually that is going to change. I look at myself. At some point not driving will become a priority. Sure cycling the 30 odd miles to work will be inconvenient, but it can be done.

I don't see us planting energy crops in the future. To me the obvious future source of energy is waste. That is what I like about the TDP process I mentioned. Same thing with cellulosic ethanol. We will still be getting our energy via photosynthesis, but only from the inedible parts of the plant - there is plenty of that.

As for the inorganic elements you mentioned, these all (excluding nitrogen) remains as a solid product ("dry mineral" is what the TDP folks call it) after fuel production. Same principle applies. Fertilizer gets expensive enough, these solid products will be highly sought after.

That leaves nitrogen at the mercy of oil prices. Hey, some farmers are going to plant beans and peas to get the free nitrogen fixation going. Others will have to pay more. All will use more wisely.

BTW, you got a patent number on that $150/kWh NiMH battery? At some point that patent is going to expire. The alternative is to find a Chinese factory for building it

[Ludi]

Optimist, I'm wondering if there's any indication that alternatives will be ready to take up the slack after peak oil. The optimistic scenario points to about 2% decline in oil production annually, plus 2-3% additional demand, so let's be optimistic and call it 4% shortfall the first year. Alternatives, not counting hydro and nuclear, now account for about 2% of US energy production. Do we see alternatives advancing to make up 6% pf US energy production next year, if this year is peak (some think it is, some don't)? And of course that's just the first year, whatever year it is (could be 2007, 2010, 2030, depending on whose projection you choose to believe). Each year production will decline at least 2% plus demand going up 2-3%. This has been covered in numerous threads. Real doom projections see decline at 10% annually, or even higher. Will alternatives be ready for these sorts of declines? Is there evidence they will be?

[The_Toecutter]

Let me ask you this: Why is PO going to cause economic colapse in your mind? You seem to believe that at some point oil become so expensive that building plants to produce alternatives is unaffordable. I would argue the opposite, that expensive oil makes the alternatives more economical viable. The more expensive the oil, the more viable the alternative. No matter how expensive building say a coal liquification plant when oil is $200+/barrel, you are going to make a screaming profit @ $200+/barrel.

Since we don't have the alternatives going yet, we'll still be using oil to mine, transport, store, process, and construct both the raw materials for wind and solar generators, batteries, sustainable cars, ect. and the complete items themselves. Even with oil cheap, an electric car is cheaper along with wind energy cheaper than coal, but neither of these things are mainstream(politics). As oil initially gets more expensive, they are that much more cheaper in contrast. However, with all of our economy's functions linked to oil, inflation also goes up and soon after making the cost to implement these alternatives go up in value with oil. Our government is already in debt, as are most Americans, and even our large and small businesses are relying on debt-spending to keep afloat. How do you expect either the government, your average American, or the private enterprise to pay the upfront costs to implement alternative energy solutions when they won't have the money when peak shows its effects? They simply won't have the money to do it, and already debt ridden, they'd be hard-pressed to get the amount of start-up capital needed. Meanwhile, with inflation spiraling out of control, everything gets more expensive, including the alternatives to oil with the oil itself. Look to the 1970s and the rampant inflation that caused in just 5 years time. Think of what would happen with that inflation rate never abated due to oil prices not coming down, but only going up even more.

Tell you something else. Demand for oil is going to nose dive @ $200+/barrel. Sure, the current evidence does not show it - people driving like there is no tomorrow @ $60/barrel, as shown over the 4th of July weekend. But this is the early stages. The oil price is not yet hurting too seriously, much to OPEC's relief. Eventually that is going to change. I look at myself. At some point not driving will become a priority. Sure cycling the 30 odd miles to work will be inconvenient, but it can be done.

Key word is not yet hurting. Even mainstream news sources along with the banks like Goldman Sachs are expecting $100/barrel this winter. That's certainly not out of the realm of possibility and even this recent jump from $35-60 a barrel in less than 2 years is a warning sign.

I don't see us planting energy crops in the future. To me the obvious future source of energy is waste. That is what I like about the TDP process I mentioned. Same thing with cellulosic ethanol. We will still be getting our energy via photosynthesis, but only from the inedible parts of the plant - there is plenty of that.

Without cheap petroleum, that waste is likely going to be needed to initially keep our soil capable of bearing crops. Once consumption is cut back, far less waste is going to be generated.

BTW, you got a patent number on that $150/kWh NiMH battery? At some point that patent is going to expire. The alternative is to find a Chinese factory for building it

Off the top of my head? No. That patent is pretty much in Chevron Texaco's hands until about 2020. Odds are, we don't have until 2010 to wait before we do anything about peak oil, let alone 2020...

[The_Toecutter]

Optimist, I'm wondering if there's any indication that alternatives will be ready to take up the slack after peak oil. The optimistic scenario points to about 2% decline in oil production annually, plus 2-3% additional demand, so let's be optimistic and call it 4% shortfall the first year. Alternatives, not counting hydro and nuclear, now account for about 2% of US energy production. Do we see alternatives advancing to make up 6% pf US energy production next year, if this year is peak (some think it is, some don't)? And of course that's just the first year, whatever year it is (could be 2007, 2010, 2030, depending on whose projection you choose to believe). Each year production will decline at least 2% plus demand going up 2-3%. This has been covered in numerous threads. Real doom projections see decline at 10% annually, or even higher. Will alternatives be ready for these sorts of declines? Is there evidence they will be?

The real question you should be asking is not whether the alternatives can pick up the slack of a 10% decline, but whether or not they will. The technology may be there today, but there is a lot of politics involved with its adoption. One would think wind electricity would be taking hold at a rapid pace because it's cheaper than coal per kWh. But instead, it's very slow to take hold. It may be cheaper per kWh, but it's certainly not as profitable as something like coal and if scaled up could bring about more smaller enterprises and the end of the centralized energy industries. Ask yourself why that is, and look at who funds the PR campaigns against the development of wind energy sites. They are just one example of many.

[Dezakin]

It may be cheaper per kWh, but it's certainly not as profitable as something like coal

I'm sorry, this doesn't quite make sense.

[The_Toecutter]

Wind has a lot less processes needed to make energy from it. You don't need to mine it, extract it, process it, ship it, store it, and burn it. All of these processes present an opportunity to charge a consumer and somewhere along the line someone makes a profit from that process. Finally, by the time it gets to the coal plant, after everyone's profits have been paid to all of those industries, generation comes to $.04-.06 per kWh or so for that coal energy, of which the consumer then gets charged $.09 or more. All of these processes are wasteful and consume energy, but capitalism as we know it today thrives from this waste. Coal plants are expensive to construct and require very large capital investments, forcing the industry to stay centralized.

Wind simply needs the generators constructed at the point of operation, and it generates electricity at a cost of $.04-.05/kWh. No wasteful processes that people profit from down the line, and its startup costs are significantly less than a coal plant. Produce a large enough volume of wind generators, and they become so cheap at least one person on every block will have enough money to start up their own enterprise. This is decentralized and the current centralized industries fear this very much.

Switch from coal to wind, and you cut out all the mining, extracting, processing, transporting, storing, and burning and all the other residual industries that come with coals use, therefore, cutting out all the profits made along the way.

[Dezakin]

I don't think you understand markets, and I'm sure you underestimate the costs of wind. Wind would need no subsidies to compete if its actual costs were less than coal. There are things to consider such as the cost of power when the wind isn't blowing.

Markets aren't about endless graft from some magic trawl.

[The_Toecutter]

I don't think you understand markets, and I'm sure you underestimate the costs of wind. Wind would need no subsidies to compete if its actual costs were less than coal. There are things to consider such as the cost of power when the wind isn't blowing.

Markets aren't about endless graft from some magic trawl.

That's already factored in, considering that its main costs are the generators themselves and a very minute amount of maintenance. Find out their useful life and how many kWh they will provide over their life and you've got the average cost per kWh.

Obviously, in areas with less average wind speed, cost is higher, but I'm not referring to prime real estate for wind, which would allow 2-3 cents per kWh, but your average wind suitable real estate that's around 406 cents/kWh. The whole idea is to amortize the costs over the life of the generator itself and the amount of total kWh it will create.

One also has to understand that the market does not always follow what theory dictates. This is especially true when politics is thrown into the picture. Entrenched industries seek to kill competition by lobbying the government to give them favorable subsidies and to keep mandates out of the picture once the technology becomes viable. Well, the technology is viable and the current government is dragging its feet to the advice of the entrenched industries, while smaller enterprises are starting up, but since there is no major program to make wind mainstream, startup costs remain too high for it to be scaled out more so smaller enterprises can get into the picture and compete. Production volume is a big factor.

[Ludi]

Optimist, I'm wondering if there's any indication that alternatives will be ready to take up the slack after peak oil. Is there evidence they will be?

The real question you should be asking is not whether the alternatives can pick up the slack of a 10% decline, but whether or not they will.

Yes, that's why I specifically and deliberately used the word "will".

That's what I'm asking, not if they can, but if they will. I'd like to see evidence that they will, otherwise, it's not relevant that they can.

[Caoimhan]

We're getting news stories all the time about big new wind and solar installations being installed. You seem to be blind to all of this, Ludi.

[Ludi]

We're getting news stories all the time about big new wind and solar installations being installed. You seem to be blind to all of this, Ludi.

Bullpoopy! I'm quite aware of this. You seem entirely incapable of answering a simple question. Will the alternatives be able to make up the 4% energy shortfall the first year after peak? Will they?

What percentage of the US energy needs do these "big new installations" provide? Can you tell me? Are there enough installations planned to provide an additional 4-5% increase each year after peak?

The thing that frustrates me about tech boosters is they don't have any facts, only faith. I'm asking a very very simple question, for which no one apparently has an answer. Will alternative energy be ready to make up that shortfall? What is the annual percentage increase of alternative energy? If alternative energy production is currently at 2% of US energy production, what percentage will it be next year? Still 2%? Or what? Where are your facts? Where are your figures? Where is your evidence? You apparently have none and are going entirely on faith because big new installations are going in! Yes, I see the wind turbines going by on the interstate frequently. I'ts great! But what percentage of US energy needs will they provide in the years ahead?

[Dezakin]

The_Toecutter:

That's already factored in,

Right. And thats why every independant study I've read quotes the final price of wind higher. Your verbosity seems to be inversely proportional to your credibility.

Ludi:

The thing that frustrates me about tech boosters is they don't have any facts, only faith. I'm asking a very very simple question, for which no one apparently has an answer. Will alternative energy be ready to make up that shortfall?

I'm a tech booster, and I have facts, and nuclear certainly will be able to make up the shortfall of fossil after peak. I suppose its the wrong sort of tech to you, but I'm sure it will be some consolation that the lights will still be on.

[Ludi]

I'm a tech booster, and I have facts, and nuclear certainly will be able to make up the shortfall of fossil after peak. I suppose its the wrong sort of tech to you, but I'm sure it will be some consolation that the lights will still be on.

Good, can you give me the facts about the number of plants to be built in the next five years and how large a percentage of the US energy production they will provide? Thanks.

And no, it won't be any consolation.

[Dezakin]

Good, can you give me the facts about the number of plants to be built in the next five years and how large a percentage of the US energy production they will provide? Thanks.

In the US? None. But coal wont be peaking in the next five years, so theres no shortfall that needs to be met. But nuclear will still make up 20% US electricity production.

What I can tell you is that modern nuclear is nearly competitive with coal, so when coal becomes expensive (which it will when people start realizing that you can make money by turning it into diesel fuel and gasoline) nuclear will be unbounded by the normal growth restrictions of ordinary fossil fuels.

Why is it no consolation? You'll still be able to complain about how the world is being corrupted by man on boards like this one.

[Ludi]

Ok thanks.

I thought you were boosting nuke as an alternative to oil, but you we'ren't. My mistake.

And of course, you included a little insult, just as I expected you to. And not even an accurate insult at that.

[The_Toecutter]

Right. And thats why every independant study I've read quotes the final price of wind higher. Your verbosity seems to be inversely proportional to your credibility.

First, enough with the unwarranted insults.

Please link me to a few of those studies. I'd love to learn all I can about the technology.

However, these following articles, study summaries, and studies have wind at a cost-competitive price to or even cheaper than coal:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 3.9-5.1 cents per kWh for installation at the Fort Peck Reservation. This is compettiive with coal.

From 1995 to 1996, the Fort Peck Tribes commissioned a feasibility study for the installation of a wind-energy power plant. The study included a resource assessment, transmission system evaluation, conceptual plant design, and a cost-and-economic analysis. The study estimated the levelized cost of energy for a wind farm at 3.9-5.1 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/na_fort_peck.asp

This is according to the American Wind Energy Association, so it will be biased to an extent, but cost is at about $.036/kWh for large wind farms:

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsofWind-March2002.pdf

The following European study puts it at $.036-$.045/kWh:

http://www.ewea.org/documents/0223-BWE%20grids%20EN.pdf

Other things taken from an independent University study:

Princeton Economic Research Inc. estimates energy costs for 1998 wind technology at 4.66 cents/kWh at ridgeline sites with 6.7 meters per second (m/s) average wind speed at 10 meters elevation, and 6.51 cents/kWh for lowland sites with 5.2 m/s winds. PERI expects technology available between 2000 and 2002 to generate power at 3.25 cents/kWh and 4.53 cents/kWh, respectively. Wind Energy Weekly 814 (15 September 1998). These costs are based on and consistent with a recent authoritative source: Electric Power Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, EPRI TR-109496 (December 1997).

http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/chapman/footnotes.html

Another piece of information describing the Jacobson and Masters independent study:

"The direct cost per kilowatt-hour of power generated by winds of at least 14 miles per hour is 2.9 to 3.9 cents, according to a 2001 article in Science by Jacobson and Gilbert Masters, an emeritus professor (teaching) of civil and environmental engineering. That cost competes with that of power produced at new plants utilizing coal (3.5 to 4 cents) or natural gas (3.3 to 3.6 cents). Mighty winds might breathe clean, renewable power into the grid, which in 1999 relied on coal (51 percent) and natural gas (15 percent) to generate 66 percent of U.S. electric power."

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may21/wind-521.html

[EnergySpin]

Not to mention the EROEIs of the new 2MW, 3MW wind turbines, the fact that almost everything is recyclable and decomissioning will not require space suits, huge costs etc. And (at least to me) they are aesthetically pleasing to be around.
List of EROEIs for the new turbines installed in the Danish on shore and offshore wind parks can be foung here

[SchroedingersCat]

Don't forget that wind can also turn more than just generators. Pumps, grain mills, saw mills, power take-off, etc. Not as reliable as hydro, but easier to find.

[The_Toecutter]

That's incredible. The EROI is about 30 or so.

Crude oil from the United States has an EROI of about 25 as it is today, but the farther past peak we go the lower the EROI gets. At its best, crude oil has EROI of about 100. It varies depending on where you get the oil.

Also, SchroedengersCat, it will also end up powering my race car if I get everything set before peak makes everything too expensive.