Odd solar power?

[bpwoods]

Re: Odd solar power?

@ SF: "Until it can stand alone 24x7 at a reasonable cost..."

Cost in which currency? Money or energy? It makes for a most significant difference.

Money is easy to deal with; energy is not. But it is with the latter wherein the quandry lies. Money is fiat stuff; energy is physical stuff (primary or generated). If the 'original' cost of 100 energy units of liquid hydrocarbon fuel was 1, but is now somewhere within the range 15 - 20 units: "Planet Earth, you have an economic problem!" As a very rough guide, each of us needs 2 litres of liquid hydrocarbon fuel per day (to give each of us a basic-level living standard). I think we are at this point. Folk increase geometrically. Physical resources arithmetically. [cf: Rev T Malthus; 1789].

There are some differences of opinion about this, but at a cost of 25 energy units per 100 energy units, economic activity as we know it, it is asserted, will take a forced excursion down a Senaca Cliff face. Maybe, maybe not. Well see, but if it turns out to be correct, then it is too late! Some prudent conservation may be in order. Unfortunately, this comes with an unreasonable political-cost price tag.

The Industrial Revolution (1640-1860) was based on coal. The Western Economic Revolution (1860 -> 1980) is (was?) based on oil. The Global Economic revolution (1990 -> future) will be based on ??? Gas? Solar? Yeah! I Thought so!

[FRED]

Re: Odd solar power?

Fair enough. When I'm talking my book, I'll own it. While still expensive compared to coal and NG, it kicks diesel to the curb where that is the primary alternative to PV, (islands mostly). Energy density is not such a serious issue for solar but energy storage is still huge. Until it can stand alone 24x7 at a reasonable cost, it can't act as a primary source of energy.

We have struggled for years to try to explain to readers why oil is irreplaceable. To our way of thinking the reason for oil's irreplaceability ought to be obvious: it was manufactured for us millions of years ago for free, and it's hard to compete with free. All we have to do is find it and dig it up.

Here's how fast we are finding it and digging it up globally.

87,000,000 barrels or 3,654,000,000 gallons per day.

152,250,000 gallons per hour.

2,537,500 gallons per minute.

42,292 gallons per second.

To get a sense of how much oil that is consider river rafting.

A river becomes Class IV for rafting when the flow is above 6,000 cubic feet per second. Difficulty is extreme above 5,000 cubic feet per second.

If all of the oil consumed daily flowed in a single river it will form an extreme Class IV river running at 5,772 cubic feet per second, equal to the flow of the South Fork American River near Sacramento, California.

The global river of oil consumption does not, however, flow into a basin and into the ocean. It flows into a giant furnace where it is burned
at the same rate of 5,772 cubic feet per second, releasing 218 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per second.

To maintain such an astronomical flow of oil requires millions of pumping units large and small.

Pumping Unit Belridge Oil Field, Kern County, CA

This is to retrieve the oil that already exists, that has already been manufactured by nature millions of years ago. It is available for the cost of finding it, pumping it out of the ground, refining it, transporting it, and storing it.

Can we manufacture alternatives to fossil oil at a rate of 5,772 cubic feet per second, enough to keep a South Fork American River of oil flowing as the fossil oil endowment declines?

The popular answer is that we can if we use all available sources.

But can that be true?

Let's start with the most scalable of petroleum substituties: Coal to Liquids (CTL). Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel on earth. The technology to covert it to liquid fuels has been available for over 80 years.

The largest CTL plant is a new plant built in China in 2008. It, like all CTL plants, is located at the coal mine that serves it; CTL economics don't work if the huge volume of coal needed by the plant has to be transported.

The giant Chinese plant produces the equivalent of 40,000 barrels of oil per day from 4,300,000 tonnes of coal per year. Sounds like a lot but that translates into only 20 gallons of petroleum substitute per second.

To keep up with 42,292 gallons per second of global oil consumption, 2,100 equally large plants need to be built at thousands of coal mines that are large enough to service the plants, requiring 9,300,000,000 tonnes of coal per year or 120% of the world's current total coal output. That assumes there there is enough skilled labor and capital to build the CTL plants, each of which requires tons of steel and concrete and other materials.

For simplicity, let's restrict ourselves to the U.S. where coal, skilled labor, and capital are relatively abundant. In the U.S. 1,300 coal mines produce 1,100,000,000 tonnes of coal per year and the average plant produces 846,154 tonnes per year.

A CTL plant built at the average U.S. coal mine will produce 5 barrels per second; times 1,100 CTL plants a total of 6,606 barrels per second could in theory be produced for the entire U.S.

In sum, if a CTL plant were built at each mine in the U.S. and no coal was used for electricity generation or any other purpose then CTL could supply 16% of current U.S. oil consumption of 18,800,000 barrels or 43,000 barrels per second.

As we go down the list of alternatives -- CNG, LNG, hydrogen, etc. -- and do a similar analysis we arrive at the following conclusion: 100% of all manufactured oil substitutes for liquid fossil fuels combined cannot be manufactured quickly enough to compensate for a 5,772 cubic feet per second consumption rate of our oil endowment. Even of all of the primary sources -- gas, coal, sun, tides, hydro, etc. -- are dedicated entirely to manufacturing oil substitutes and none are used for heating or electricity production or manufacturing plastics or fertilizer or anything else, the total production rate doesn't even come close to the 5,772 cubic feet per second consumption rate. Instead, the oil endowment will shrink and shrink and the price will rise and rise. We cling to the optimistic hope that new technologies will allow ever more difficultly reached oil supplies to be exploited to compensate for supply losses in depleting oil fields, and for conservation technologies and practices to be developed and deployed fast enough to allow demand to adjust to rising prices without producing a global economic catastrophe.

[bpwoods]

Re: Odd solar power?

FRED: Thanks for that. Very informative. I loved the bit about the amount of coal that might be required. Albert Bartlett would be (somewhat) amused! Then there is the steel. And the concrete. And the electricity - "And whatever your having yourself!"

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

We cling to the optimistic hope that new technologies will allow ever more difficultly reached oil supplies to be exploited to compensate for supply losses in depleting oil fields, and for conservation technologies and practices to be developed and deployed fast enough to allow demand to adjust to rising prices without producing a global economic catastrophe.

I thought you guys were fairly confident about the world being able to adapt, although with several intense recessions in between. What do you mean by global economic catastrophe? Much of the world's oil goes towards personal transportation, which is extremely malleable to conservation.

[shiny!]

Re: Odd solar power?

I thought you guys were fairly confident about the world being able to adapt, although with several intense recessions in between. What do you mean by global economic catastrophe? Much of the world's oil goes towards personal transportation, which is extremely malleable to conservation.

It took about 170 years from the beginning of the industrial revolution to make the kind of society we have now. With PCO it'll only take a few decades to shake it apart. Methods of transporting food and necessities have to be revamped in very short order, and all the populated areas too large to depend entirely on mass transit will suffer huge social and economic disruption. And that only covers the transportation aspect of PCO, not manufacturing and farming.

Normalcy Bias and greed are preventing TPTB from addressing this stuff in a timely manner- I'd say we're already a few decades late. Would you not agree that we have the makings of a global economic catastrophe? Soylent Green is looking oddly prescient...

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

It took about 170 years from the beginning of the industrial revolution to make the kind of society we have now. With PCO it'll only take a few decades to shake it apart. Methods of transporting food and necessities have to be revamped in very short order, and all the populated areas too large to depend entirely on mass transit will suffer huge social and economic disruption. And that only covers the transportation aspect of PCO, not manufacturing and farming.

Normalcy Bias and greed are preventing TPTB from addressing this stuff in a timely manner- I'd say we're already a few decades late. Would you not agree that we have the makings of a global economic catastrophe? Soylent Green is looking oddly prescient...

The largest share of oil consumption is used for personal transportation, which means a lot can be done to mitigate the impact of PCO. It didn't take me years to adapt to walking or bicycling or using a highly efficient motorcycle. I made it happen very quickly. Farming, despite being fossil fuel intensive, uses a very small percentage of oil somewhere around 3-5% of world production. And a lot of food transportation can be handled by rail freight. In the US alone, 50% or so of freight is handled by rail. How much more could we handle? In what ways could things be shifted to handle PCO?

I realize this is anecdotal, but probably 80% of my parents oil consumption is from joy riding or making multiple needless trips. I am sure it is the same for a lot of people as well because no one I know tries to drive in a frugal manner or to live a frugal lifestyle. I bet most Americans could cut the amount they consume by 25-50% without even switching to another vehicle by simply changing driving practices. And once you start doing things like I've done, you can almost completely negate oil consumption aside from what you get from goods. And that, of course, can also be reduced by simply consuming less goods and conserving what you have.

If you guys are expecting such a bad downturn that society falls apart and we have Mad Max, what's really the point in even being on this site? Pretty much all dead anyway then. Might as well not waste it being here.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Odd solar power?

The largest share of oil consumption is used for personal transportation, which means a lot can be done to mitigate the impact of PCO...

True. Nearly every automobile in the US has only one person in it nearly all the time.
We can cut auto oil consumption in half tomorrow by putting two people in each car.

Full disclosure - I'll drive to work alone again tomorrow, in my over-powered 4 door sedan.

[shiny!]

Re: Odd solar power?

True. Nearly every automobile in the US has only one person in it nearly all the time.
We can cut auto oil consumption in half tomorrow by putting two people in each car.

Full disclosure - I'll drive to work alone again tomorrow, in my over-powered 4 door sedan.

That's why I think vehicles like the 2-seater Arcimoto are on the right track. At least 80% of cars on the road are used for short trips and carry only one person. But it's a huge waste to junk serviceable vehicles for new, fuel efficient vehicles, not taking into consideration all the natural resources consumed in order to build them.

I used to drive a 1986 Crown Vic that got 20 mpg. It leaked oil something fierce. I can't tell you all the times people saw the puddle under the car and told me to get a new car because of the wasteful oil leak. How many barrels of oil are consumed to build a new car???

With the loss of my husband I needed a more reliable vehicle. Got a fuel-efficient 2012 Hyundai Accent, which turns out not to be as fuel-efficient as advertised. With the outlay for the car, much higher insurance and registration fees, it hasn't saved me a penny. I would have been better off keeping the old Crown Vic.

And like you, I will be driving alone to work on a 60-mile round-trip commute. Which I do two days per week on a flex schedule, so car-pooling is out of the question. Sigh.

[bpwoods]

Re: Odd solar power?

"If you guys are expecting such a bad downturn that society falls apart ... .."

"What do you mean by global economic catastrophe?"

Well in the greater scheme of things - things move slow: little things happen. Then you (think) you notice a trend, its not really significant in the overall scheme but it counts. Then you sort of do notice something odd - and usually come to the wrong conclusion about its cause, especially if you are not well informed (or worse, mis-informed). Folk jump to conclusions. Its easier than doing the hard thinking. So we amble along until a 'hurricane' hits. NOW you DO notice something! But its too late. Large scale emediation is now too costly (in both money and resource terms). As the man said, "stuff happens". Society falling apart? Yeah, it happens, just be careful to keep most folk fed (enough food and fuel for hot meals) and you should be OK.

The transport thing is a good case-in-point. What did the US do before mass road transport was available? I understand the Interstate system was constructed after WWII. Is that correct? Rail transport is good. But the US also has large navigable rivers. Would regressing the US economy back to the mid 1920s really matter? It would: but whom would be the winners: and whom the losers? Lots of hard thinking is needed. And those unknown unknowns are a bitch!

Global econ catastrophe? I thought we were in one? Looks ominous to me. Well be back with this one.

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

I just think you guys underestimate conservation's role in reducing the impact of PCO. I just don't see how society will suddenly fall apart and we will all be living in Mad Max when there are plentiful unconventional oil sources and tremendous room for conservation that can happen almost immediately.

[Ghent12]

Re: Odd solar power?

We cling to the optimistic hope that new technologies will allow ever more difficultly reached oil supplies to be exploited to compensate for supply losses in depleting oil fields, and for conservation technologies and practices to be developed and deployed fast enough to allow demand to adjust to rising prices without producing a global economic catastrophe.

Well we have seen those new technologies and they appear to be quite promising. That's why "Saudi America" is on the news cycle. There is, at present, no legitimate reason to doubt the abundance of oil or natural gas. I really do think "Peak Cheap Oil" is overblown and that there is little possibility that technology won't "save us" from some impending shift in resource distribution.


We have also seen the conservation technologies associated with petroleum and they also appear to be quite promising. Cars today are vastly more efficient from just a few decades ago. Hell, some cars today are far more efficient than just five years ago! The reason that the efficiency hasn't been realized all that much in the metric of "miles per gallon" is that car weights have also increased substantially. In other words, the gains in efficiency were used primarily to support increased living standards via increased car safety (from the driver's perspective). There is plenty of room to give to "do more with less" in terms of the "miles per gallon" metric but the real question remains: what are people willing to sacrifice for their increased "efficiency" (using the lay person's connotation)? Then, of course, there are the status-symbol cars such as hybrids, EVs, and the like which are absolutely not much more efficient in any material sense, but are popular for the reason that cars exist in so many varieties in the first place--the social statements they make. They will only make as much of an impact as the popularity of "being green" dictates. Social fads always fade away, but sometimes they do leave stains the fabric of society.


There will be changes up ahead; there always are. But resources are resources and Oil isn't the dying geriatric benefactor it is made out to be.

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

There will be changes up ahead; there always are. But resources are resources and Oil isn't the dying geriatric benefactor it is made out to be.

I think the biggest culprit going forward is that people cling too much to old ways and old methods. Life without a car or significantly reducing usage of one just seems absolutely barbaric and incomprehensible and incompatible with modern life to a lot of people. And no amount of convincing will ever prevail because that is their life and has always been their life.

[lektrode]

Re: Odd solar power?

I think the biggest culprit going forward is that people cling too much to old ways and old methods. Life without a car or significantly reducing usage of one just seems absolutely barbaric and incomprehensible and incompatible with modern life to a lot of people. And no amount of convincing will ever prevail because that is their life and has always been their life.

well mr bad, as much as i agree with you on this, what was that EJ said the other day about 'the optimists' on this topic?




and while i also think we've only just begun to 'conserve', our whole economy/way of life/future depends on HUGE amounts of energy - and as much as the luddite brigade apparently envisions some kind of return to an 'all natural, agrarian lifestyle' - methinks we're going to need LOTS MORE energy in the future, not less.

and why The Big N-word is quickly becoming the only answer/hope - again, as much as i am a full-ON supporter of energy conservation, alternatives etc - we're going to need ALL the options, including solarPV, windmills and nukes, if we're going to sustain the lifestyle that The US has got quite well used-to - and i for one am not willing to give up so much as one sheet of toilet tissue so that we can revert to a less-than energy-intensive economy - i simply dont see how it would even be possible, without massive disruption and a whole lot less population.

[bpwoods]

Re: Odd solar power?

Lektrode: " ... and i for one am not willing to give up so much as one sheet of toilet tissue so that we can revert to a less-than energy-intensive economy - i simply dont see how it would even be possible, without massive disruption and a whole lot less population."

The less-energy economy will creep up on folk. But one day we get a 'hurricane' and then we notice. Who would have predicted the fuel and utility shortages in NY and NJ - its America for God's sake! And its those folk on the margins who got whacked. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last. The damage to Japan's utility infrastructure was not limited to the direct physical damage caused by the earthquake and tsumani. The damage rippled into areas that no-one imagined. Japan's national energy policy is in tatters. Whole neighbourhoods are permanently uninhabitable. This is how our economies will regress. Slow, slow, quick, slow, slow. No-one will have to 'give up anything'. You will no longer be able to avail of something you took for granted.

Some folk have this naive idea that 'technology will save us'. I doubt it will. We will be able to hang onto a lot of our existing stuff, but the 'new' stuff may have a hard time coming. Major industrial investment (long-term R+D) is being replaced by short-term profit extraction. Where will the resources come from to develop our alternative energies up to the industrial-level scales required? Land is no good - except for growing stuff. So that leaves Labour and Kapital. We have plenty of the former, but the latter? Looks a bit shy.

[Ghent12]

Re: Odd solar power?

I think the biggest culprit going forward is that people cling too much to old ways and old methods. Life without a car or significantly reducing usage of one just seems absolutely barbaric and incomprehensible and incompatible with modern life to a lot of people. And no amount of convincing will ever prevail because that is their life and has always been their life.

That's not even remotely true empirically. People are adaptable to the extreme. While it is true that a general decline in living standards of a population, as defined by that population, will be met with resistance, such a decline is always adapted to out of necessity. You can look at all the countries that declined through communism or were left in the dust due to communism (the two Koreas and two Germanys are phenomenal historical markers) and see that people simply adapt.

As another point, there is absolutely no reason to believe that car use will be significantly curtailed, at least in America. Looking at the first chart from this article shows that American car usage has already rebounded from the slight dip it took after the most recent energy-to-dollar adjustment: http://www.economist.com/node/21563280

It's really very simple. If people want cars and want to drive as much as before in America, only government policy can really stop them. People will adapt to any increases in fuel cost generally by demanding cost-effective, fuel-efficient vehicles, and only government policy can dictate that car manufacturers make what the people don't really want (see the dozens of examples related to "green" initiatives in cars at the state and federal levels). People may have sacrifice some demand in personal safety (car weight) to achieve their desire for affordable mileage, but it should be expected and celebrated that people adapt their expectations based upon real or perceived changes in resource availability.