Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Impossible - wind and solar

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 05:41:11

Its literally impossible to transition from oil to wind and solar.

You need an EROEI of over 50 to transition to and the only things that fit that bill are molten salt(not necessarily thorium starvinglion) and HAWT.

Solar EROEI: 2 to 10
Wind EROEI 20 to 30

Moltex is my favourite molten salt:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/0 ... CRQoYXXKHl

LCOE $38 cheaper than any form of power on the grid.
Tikib
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 06:07:28

Actually most forms of Fission power station have a better than 50:1 EROEI. Molten salt are great because they make reprocessing easiest, but they are not the single possible solution.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15414
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 06:27:07

Tanada wrote:Actually most forms of Fission power station have a better than 50:1 EROEI. Molten salt are great because they make reprocessing easiest, but they are not the single possible solution.


Sadly this simply isn't true. If it were we would all be using nuclear power. PWR's need a huge amount of there theorectical EROEI spent on safety.

Whereas MSR designs are walk away safe and use most of the energy in the fuel. MSR designs have predicted energy costs of about a quarter of that of current reactor designs.
Tikib
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 08:19:33

Tikib wrote:
Tanada wrote:Actually most forms of Fission power station have a better than 50:1 EROEI. Molten salt are great because they make reprocessing easiest, but they are not the single possible solution.


Sadly this simply isn't true. If it were we would all be using nuclear power. PWR's need a huge amount of there theorectical EROEI spent on safety.

Whereas MSR designs are walk away safe and use most of the energy in the fuel. MSR designs have predicted energy costs of about a quarter of that of current reactor designs.


Investing in safety needs to be done on the basis of cost benefit analysis. Unfortunately the fear mongers are never satisfied and continue to demand one more layer of safety, then one more layer of safety, then one more.... If you allow the fear mongers to determine your costs they will always drive costs up to the point where your system loses its economic advantage. There are passive safe PWR designs, but they never got built because the fear mongers convinced investors not to build any more fission power stations. There are also proven walk away safe gas cooled designs and walk away safe liquid sodium cooled designs, which were proven in testing before being killed by the Bill Clinton administration.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15414
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 11:49:26

"...need an EROEI of over 50 to transition...". Sorry...can't follow that logic. If a transition method has an EROEI of 70 and it's not economical it won't be pursued. But one with an EROEI of 10 will be readily utilized if the ROR is sufficient. Again, just like fossil fuel development, I haven't seen one alt project done or rejected based upon EROEI. Those are economic decisions. The Texas wind power industry (one of the largest on the planet) doesn't give a crap about EROEI. Never has and never will. They are in it strictly for the profit.

Additionally I haven't noticed much chatter about solar/wind being used to move away from oil. Usually it's to escape coal/NG fueled electricity generation. Of course in Texas, thanks in large part to our wind power, if you have a certain rate plan you can get free electricity to recharge you EV over night during 3 days during every week.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 12:58:06

ROCKMAN wrote:"...need an EROEI of over 50 to transition...". Sorry...can't follow that logic. If a transition method has an EROEI of 70 and it's not economical it won't be pursued. But one with an EROEI of 10 will be readily utilized if the ROR is sufficient. Again, just like fossil fuel development, I haven't seen one alt project done or rejected based upon EROEI. Those are economic decisions.

Yup. This "must have a high EROEI" is something the "wind and solar are impossible" folks keep wrongly touting, even as wind and solar continue to advance. One has to wonder how big those industries will have to get before they clue in. It reminds me of perma-fast-crashers and AGW denialists. Data seems to have no impact.

Additionally I haven't noticed much chatter about solar/wind being used to move away from oil.

Well, so far. To the extent that the BEV / PHEV industry succeeds, then as wind and solar expand, clearly those green sources will help us move away from oil.

The thing the "green is magic that will eliminate oil real soon now" folks seem unable to grasp is that the process will take decades, probably like 3 to 5 decades (which is too long given AGW, but that's the political reality).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Pops » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 13:55:44

eroei, lol, don't compare anything to FF

FF energy "production" has been an energy sink from day one

proof?

we have less than we started with
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby SumYunGai » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 13:59:12

ROCKMAN wrote:"...need an EROEI of over 50 to transition...". Sorry...can't follow that logic. If a transition method has an EROEI of 70 and it's not economical it won't be pursued. But one with an EROEI of 10 will be readily utilized if the ROR is sufficient.

Um, that is kind of a non sequitur there, ROCKMAN.

We need an ERoEI of over 50 to transition away from oil. You are saying that a source with an ERoEI of 70 won't be produced if it is not economical. Okay, that makes sense. Then you say that a source with an ERoEI of 10 will be produced if it returns a profit. Okay, that makes sense, too. But if we can't find an economic way to produce a source that yields an ERoEI over 50, we are screwed. It still will not be sufficient to transition away from oil. That is the point.
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 15:20:17

Rockman EROEI and ROR should be close to equivalent if they are calculated correctly, thats kind of the point.

But however you define it, we need energy substantially cheaper than is possible with wind and solar. Because it then has to be converted into transportation fuel.
Tikib
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 17:46:34

Tikib wrote:Rockman EROEI and ROR should be close to equivalent if they are calculated correctly, thats kind of the point.

But however you define it, we need energy substantially cheaper than is possible with wind and solar. Because it then has to be converted into transportation fuel.

So you're going to ignore what is happening with BEV's and PHEV's?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby SumYunGai » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 18:00:55

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
Tikib wrote:Rockman EROEI and ROR should be close to equivalent if they are calculated correctly, thats kind of the point.

But however you define it, we need energy substantially cheaper than is possible with wind and solar. Because it then has to be converted into transportation fuel.

So you're going to ignore what is happening with BEV's and PHEV's?

Dreams die last. There isn't enough happening quickly enough with BEV's and PHEV's to replace the energy currently being lost from oil. You just said so yourself:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:The thing the "green is magic that will eliminate oil real soon now" folks seem unable to grasp is that the process will take decades, probably like 3 to 5 decades

50 years is *WAY* too long. We need a replacement faster than that. You are ignoring the fact that oil will run out long before your replacement is theoretically ready. Too little, too late.
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 19:30:18

"But if we can't find an economic way to produce a source that yields an ERoEI over 50, we are screwed. It still will not be sufficient to transition away from oil." And again why? If someone comes up with a scalable biofuel that has an EROEI of 10 and sells for less the oil sourced motor fuel why couldn't it be used to transition? Perhaps I'm being dense but I'm missing the connection between ROR and EROEI. For instance for a shale well today to yield a 15% ROR it has to have an EROEI of twice (or more) then it had when oil was $90+/bbl. Which is exactly why current shale wells are showing higher initial production rates: a result of only the better prospects (i.e. higher EROEI) being drilled now and many wells with the same EROEI they had in 2013 are being ignored. And if oil drops and holds at $25/bbl? EROEI of those future wells may have to be twice what they are today to generate the same ROR.

OK, let's try this...supply the following ROR's:

EROEI 10 =
EROEI 40 =
EROEI 60 =
EROEI 80 =
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby SumYunGai » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 20:59:37

ROCKMAN wrote:"But if we can't find an economic way to produce a source that yields an ERoEI over 50, we are screwed. It still will not be sufficient to transition away from oil." And again why? If someone comes up with a scalable biofuel that has an EROEI of 10 and sells for less the oil sourced motor fuel why couldn't it be used to transition?

To transition to what, ROCKMAN? Oil is running out. Civilization needs to find another source of energy that yields an ERoEI over 50 to completely replace oil. So an ERoEI of 10 is just too low to do the job. Why doesn't that make sense to you?
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 10 Nov 2016, 23:07:13

SumYunGai wrote:50 years is *WAY* too long. We need a replacement faster than that. You are ignoring the fact that oil will run out long before your replacement is theoretically ready. Too little, too late.

Says you. You might want to try that line when we're not awash in a global oil glut so big it's threatening to bankrupt many oil producers due to low prices.

What I was obviously referring to was concerns about AGW. Also, in a decade or so, and increasingly thereafter, PHEV's and BEV's will be helping decrease the demand for oil, which will help the remaining supply last.

I'm not finding anything substantive in your argument here. Merely unsubstantiated opinions, not reflected in respected mainstream organizations which use science and math to make their projections, such as the EIA and the IEA.

And if that weren't enough, natural gas, coal, etc. are super-abundant in a pinch.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby SumYunGai » Fri 11 Nov 2016, 00:00:13

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:50 years is *WAY* too long. We need a replacement faster than that. You are ignoring the fact that oil will run out long before your replacement is theoretically ready. Too little, too late.

Says you. You might want to try that line when we're not awash in a global oil glut so big it's threatening to bankrupt many oil producers due to low prices.

Global oil producers are going bankrupt because the current oil price is so far below the cost of production. If consumers cannot afford to pay the full cycle production costs of producing oil, oil production will eventually stop. That is not a line, it is a fact.

Why is the global oil glut so big and so long lasting, anyway? Why doesn't supposed surging demand soak up the glut since oil is so damn cheap?

You don't have any answers, but the Etp model does.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:I'm not finding anything substantive in your argument here. Merely unsubstantiated opinions, not reflected in respected mainstream organizations which use science and math to make their projections, such as the EIA and the IEA.

The argument from authority is never very convincing, except to an authoritarian. Do you really think our leaders would publicly announce that the oil age was about to end if they knew it were true? It isn't a very popular position to take. 8O

Outcast_Searcher wrote:And if that weren't enough, natural gas, coal, etc. are super-abundant in a pinch.

For what? Those energy sources are already being produced and used as much as is economically feasible. It would take precious energy, money, and time to develop their capacity further. I don't know about etc., but natural gas and coal are not so super abundant that their capacity could be grown enough (or fast enough) to replace the energy being lost from oil. Besides, it really makes no sense from a physics perspective. As the net energy available from oil rapidly drops, lower ERoEI sources of energy, like coal and natural gas, cannot possibly do any good. How could they?
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 11 Nov 2016, 00:40:21

SYG - "So an ERoEI of 10 is just too low to do the job. Why doesn't that make sense to you?"

Makes no sense at all. Your saying that some substitute for oil that takes 1 unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy and sells for less then the then current price of oil won't allow a transition frtom oil? No, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

And I'm still waiting to hear what the ROR for an 60 EROEI investment is. And I'll keep asking ad nausium until someone answers. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby SumYunGai » Fri 11 Nov 2016, 01:04:33

ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - "So an ERoEI of 10 is just too low to do the job. Why doesn't that make sense to you?"

Makes no sense at all. Your saying that some substitute for oil that takes 1 unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy and sells for less then the then current price of oil won't allow a transition frtom oil? No, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

I never said anything about some substitute for oil. According to Tikib, it would take an energy source with an ERoEI of 50 to be able to generate enough liquid fuel to replace oil. An energy source with an ERoEI of 10 would not be sufficient to do this. Do you understand?
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 11 Nov 2016, 09:32:31

SumYunGai wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - "So an ERoEI of 10 is just too low to do the job. Why doesn't that make sense to you?"

Makes no sense at all. Your saying that some substitute for oil that takes 1 unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy and sells for less then the then current price of oil won't allow a transition frtom oil? No, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

I never said anything about some substitute for oil. According to Tikib, it would take an energy source with an ERoEI of 50 to be able to generate enough liquid fuel to replace oil. An energy source with an ERoEI of 10 would not be sufficient to do this. Do you understand?

Your the one that is not making any sense.
Take your example of 50:1 oil. To deliver a million barrels of oil you will have to produce 1,020,000 barrels at the well head. Not hard to do and each of the net 1,000,000 has all the BTUs per barrel they ever had. Now go to 10:1 oil. To Deliver1,000,000 barrels the oil company has to produce 1,100,000 barrels which is less profitable but certainly possible if the price of oil goes up a bit and the 1,000,000 barrels delivered STILL have every BTU they ever had.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby SumYunGai » Fri 11 Nov 2016, 10:14:21

vtsnowedin wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - "So an ERoEI of 10 is just too low to do the job. Why doesn't that make sense to you?"

Makes no sense at all. Your saying that some substitute for oil that takes 1 unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy and sells for less then the then current price of oil won't allow a transition frtom oil? No, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

I never said anything about some substitute for oil. According to Tikib, it would take an energy source with an ERoEI of 50 to be able to generate enough liquid fuel to replace oil. An energy source with an ERoEI of 10 would not be sufficient to do this. Do you understand?

Your the one that is not making any sense.
Take your example of 50:1 oil. To deliver a million barrels of oil you will have to produce 1,020,000 barrels at the well head. Not hard to do and each of the net 1,000,000 has all the BTUs per barrel they ever had. Now go to 10:1 oil. To Deliver1,000,000 barrels the oil company has to produce 1,100,000 barrels which is less profitable but certainly possible if the price of oil goes up a bit and the 1,000,000 barrels delivered STILL have every BTU they ever had.

This is becoming very tiresome. The point is pretty simple and easy to understand. According to Tikib, wind and solar do not have a high enough ERoEI to replace oil, because an oil replacement must be able to generate liquid fuels to fully replace oil. To do that would take an energy source (obviously other than oil itself) that has an ERoEI of over 50. Your answer has nothing to do with any of this.
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Impossible - wind and solar

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 11 Nov 2016, 10:42:21

I agree: really f*cking tiresome. "To do that would take an energy source (obviously other than oil itself) that has an ERoEI of over 50."

So one more f*cking time: where does the EROEI 50+ bullshit come from? And don't say Tikib for two reasons. First, that's not an answer. Second, explain my YOU think Tikib is correct. You keep posting a lot of words yet haven't provided one bit of DOCUMENTED support for the statement. If you or Tikib can't do that then there's no reason to continue this discussion.

And as promised: what is the ROR for an 60 EROEI investment? Since you and Tikib are putting out the relationship between ROR and EROEI there shouldn't be a problem answering.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Next

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests