Beyond Peak Oil

[Blake]

@RSVP

The problem is that we need oil to construct and convert to those alternatives, and very quickly.

No, we don’t. Had you read those threads I linked to you would see this point was addressed in detail. Electric draglines and other electric machinery for mining. Biomass petroleum, hydrogen fuel cells and electric trains for transport.

Can you explain why we would need to use even a single drop of oil to construct an alternative? Even using just today’s proven technology we wouldn’t need to use a single drop of oil would we?

And why would we need to build the alternatives quickly? Once we have evidence of a peak we will have at least 50 years before oil use becomes untenable. And we would have over 100 years before we would be unable to manufacture petroleum form coal. So why do you think there would be a rush?

Nuclear plants that take 10 years to build at $3-$5 billion each.

You seem to be simply quoting from those alarmist websites wihtout adding anything.

So it takes 10 years to build a power station. We have 150 years to do it in so what’s the problem? That was cecil’s primary point. The oil peak will lead to a gradual decline in production, but the decline will take place over decades, not months.

And if you read the threads I linked to you would see that the actual cost of building a nuclear power station is nothing like 3 billion dollars.

The site may not be scientific itself, but the hundreds of supporting reference links to sites certainly are.

Yes, but that is meaningless. The Time Cube guy regularly refers to reputable websites as well. That doesn’t make his conclusions accurate.

As any science undergraduate can tell you, it takes more than simply being aware of the existence of reputable resources to construct a coherent argument. The oil alarmist sites mentioned so far know about the reosucres but they haven’t utilised the information to construct a scientific argument. Nor has the Time Cube guy.

The pageXXXX in particular has counterexamples for all the ideas you mentioned.

That’s nice. And if you would like to start another thread in Great Debates I will try to find the time to address those claims. Other certainly will do so.

This forum however is supposed to be for commenting on Cecil’s columns, not alarmist websites.

Was there a specific debunking of that site among the posts you linked? Again, the effort is much appreciated.

There were several. In fact all the non-uranium threads addressed either that site or the claims made by that site. For example your claim, lifted from that site, that you need oil to build nuclear power stations was discussed at length in the “Peak Oil: The Real Scoop?” thread. And that thread links to your hysteria site in the opening post. I get the impression that you didn’t even read those threads.

[RSVP]

Blake, you seem to have a high regard for scientific reasoning, and rightly so.
As such, I ask you to consider the possibility that one of the so-called alarmist sites is actually right. In this case, http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html .
Now how would one go about verifying its validity? Check its sources and how they are being used by the site.
Additionally, find other known reputable sources that reference the site. In this case, there is the example of Dr. Roscoe Bartlett, Congress member for Maryland’s 6th district.
If still not convinced, keep digging into the references, conduct first-hand experiments, attend conferences.
Now having done all of that, I see Cecil making the case that things aren’t so bleak. Meanwhile, here I have a highly-supported, referenced, concise, accessible site that makes it plain why he’s wrong in this case.
You keep pointing to the USGS study, which itself has been debunked. Even if it were true, they themselves say the following:

“Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development.”

If they are saying we need to act -now- when the problem is 50 years away, what should we be doing if it’s only 5 years away?

Where do the resources for building and utilizing the “Electric draglines and other electric machinery” come from? They have to be scooped out of the ground by oil-powered bulldozers, or melted down and remade from existing machines and transported to their site of use. Until our fusion reactor comes online in 40 years, we can’t make materials out of water.
What is used to make hydrogen fuel cells? Platinum.

What will construct our electric rail lines? Steel and more bulldozers.

There is not enough waste biomass, with enough energy density or ease of collection, to offset the oil expenditure needed to gather it.
Even if a nuclear plant only cost $1 million, we still need to build 10,000 of them. We can’t pour concrete for cooling towers using solar power, coal electric power, or nuclear power without building vehicles and batteries for them.
There will of course still be oil around in 50 years. But it will be prohibitively expensive and impractical to extract. No other fuel source has such a high energy return on energy investment.
The main issue with Peak Oil isn’t running out, but losing the ability to get oil cheaply. And when the entire banking system and most of our food production is predicated on the continual growth of a diminishing, increasingly-expensive resource, there’s an urgent problem.

After my third read through of each of these threads, I still don’t see a reference to the specific site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net :

The end of the oil era: The fall of civilization, or just a bump in the road?
Human Population & Natural Resources
What the world thinks of America
How much nuclear power do we have left
What sustainable technologies exist or nearly exist?
Which threads did you mean by “non-uranium”? Do you have a link for the “Peak Oil: The Real Scoop?” thread, since I can’t search?

[Snag]

@Blake

The biggest reason why it isn’t adressed is that it’s unreasonable. It’s the precautionary principal at its most extreme. Yes, there could be some technovirus that stops all technology from working or something as imagined in countless sci-fi stories, but it’s terribly implausible. We might just as easily speculate that a massive combustion of fossil fuels in the Earth results in a catastrophe and use that as justification for burning all the stuff as soon as posible.

It’s the precuatuionary principle gone nuts. Think of the most extreme scenario, no matter how implausible, and work to avoid it. Unfortuntaley if we actually lived by this principle we could never do anything, ever. It is far more likely that we get into a war with China next than that civilisation collapses 1000 years hence. So by the principle you are espousing we need to mobilise right now and damn the fossil fuel expense.

Thanks for your responses, Blake. But remember, I’m thinking on time scales of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. I’d think that statistically it’s not unreasonable to consider that a number of things are likely to happen that would cause worldwide civilizations to fail and need to be rebooted. These could be plagues, environmental destruction, good sized rocks falling from the sky, wars, ice ages, political upheavals in an ever more interconnected world, as well as stuff we might not yet conceive of at this time.

In fact, IMO I’d think the chances unlikely that humans would not have to recreate civilization a few times over thousands of millennia. That’s a long time to go without dropping the ball.

To wit:

@Blake

So it takes 10 years to build a power station. We have 150 years to do it in so what’s the problem? That was cecil’s primary point. The oil peak will lead to a gradual decline in production, but the decline will take place over decades, not months.

I’d like to think that we could be more sophisticated and forward thinking than the Easter Islander outlierrn cites as he cuts down the last tree. Maybe not. The problem is at this point the glass is half empty and going down the longer we continue to suck up oil without regards to tomorrow. Why do we keep thinking that we should have the rights to every last drop of fossil energy?

[Snag]

@Patty O'Furniture

Here’s the column.

Thanks.

[Blake]

RSVP you seem to be mostly interested in simply repeating the catechism of your alarmist websites ad nauseum rather than actually engaging in any discussion of Cecil’s columns. As I said, if you wish to start a new thread over in Great Debates I’m sure you will get plenty of takers, but this is not the place for it.

Additionally, find other known reputable sources that reference the site. In this case, there is the example of Dr. Roscoe Bartlett, Congress member for Maryland’s 6th district.

This is exactly what I mean.

Dr Battletthas “majored in theology and biology and minored in chemistry” and earned “a Master’s degree in physiology” and “a Ph.D. in physiology”. He has no experience of or qualifications in the geological sciences whatsoever. He is not, repeat, not a reputable source on the issue of oil supplies.

This sort of thing is precisely why I say that the oil hysteria site you quote has been thoroughly debunked. The simple fact that they claim that a biologist/farmer/theologian is a reputable source in a scientific debate in the field of geology is ever so typical.

Now having done all of that, I see Cecil making the case that things aren’t so bleak. Meanwhile, here I have a highly-supported, referenced, concise, accessible site that makes it plain why he’s wrong in this case.

Well no, you don’t have that at all. You have a thoroughly debunked site whose support consists of physiologists rather than geologists. You can find a million similar sites all over the web touting any number of similar doomsayer predictions ranging from GM foods to the coming of the antichrist.

These sites are certainly accessible and concise, they have to be given their intended audience. But they are not highly supported. A physiologist is not a high support for an issue in the field of geology. He is no support at all.

That is why Cecil prefers to stick with material published by actual geologists such as the USGS work. Preferably stuff that has been peer reviewed.

You keep pointing to the USGS study, which itself has been debunked.

What, debunked by a physiologist? You will understand if both Cecil and I trust the USGS geologists over a biologist/farmer/theologian on this issue.

If they are saying we need to act -now- when the problem is 50 years away, what should we be doing if it’s only 5 years away?

And if I call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have? It isn’t 5 years away so it’s a pointless question. The dog has 4 legs. Now if your physiologist told me that dogs have 5 legs I might be inclined to listen to him, since it as issue of physiology. But when someone is debating how much oil we have left we listen to the geologists.

Where do the resources for building and utilizing the “Electric draglines and other electric machinery” come from?

The same place that all material for machinery comes from.

They have to be scooped out of the ground by oil-powered bulldozers, or melted down and remade from existing machines and transported to their site of use…

No they don’t. As I’ve already said They can be scooped out of the ground using electric draglines that already exist all over the world. And transported in electric trains and lorries that already exist all over the world. Have you bothered to read a single word anyone has posted?

Are you trying to dispute that “Electric draglines and other electric machinery" already exist?

until our fusion reactor comes online in 40 years, we can’t make materials out of water

What are you talking about? What fusion reactor? Who mentioned a fusion reactor? The fact that you confusion FBRs with fusion reactors leads me to believe that you have little actual understanding of this subject. I’ll stick with Cecil, He demonstrates that he understands.

There is not enough waste biomass, with enough energy density or ease of collection, to offset the oil expenditure needed to gather it.

Well it’s a good thing that nobody at all in this thread mentioned biomass as an energy source isn’t it. Once again your ability to confuse biomass as an energy source and biomass as a means of producing petroleum using nuclear energy leads me to believe that you have little actual understanding of this subject. I’ll stick with Cecil, He demonstrates that he understands.

We can’t pour concrete for cooling towers using solar power, coal electric power, or nuclear power without building vehicles and batteries for them.

Yea, we can. As I have said at least 3 times previously in this thread we can manufacture petroleum directly form coal or vegetation and pour it straight into the gas tanks of existing vehicles. We don’t need to build a single new vehicle or a single battery.

There will of course still be oil around in 50 years. But it will be prohibitively expensive and impractical to extract.

All I can do is point out that, the EIA economists, the USGS geologists says that is bunkum, the WEO geologists says it is bunkum and the University of Oklahoma geologists say it is bunkum and I will trust them over some physiologist quoted as the highest reputable source on an oil hysteria website that has been thoroughly debunked.

No other fuel source has such a high energy return on energy investment.

Nonsense. One ton of natural uranium can produce … equivalent to… 80,000 barrels of oil

when… our food production is predicated on the continual growth of a diminishing, increasingly-expensive resource….

And as I already pointed out above, our food production is in no way predicted on the use of even a single drop of oil. RSVP there is no point repeating statements that have already been debunked on these boards. The folks here just don’t buy it because you say it loudly and often.

Do you have a link for the “Peak Oil: The Real Scoop?” thread, since I can’t search?

My bad. That thread is linked to in one of those threads, but never mind here it is.

[Blake]

@Snag

But remember, I’m thinking on time scales of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. I’d think that statistically it’s not unreasonable to consider that a number of things are likely to happen that would cause worldwide civilizations to fail and need to be rebooted.

Yes but it is even more reasonable to assume that a disease or meteor strike or something else will totally eliminate humanity on Erath within that time. By that argument we are remiss if we don’t; do everything in our power to advance technological and economic progress and get off this rock. And that includes maximally exploiting fossil fuels.

As I said, this is just the precautionary principle gone mad. We can imagine almost any possible scenario occurring on time scales of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Very few species actually manage to last that long so extinction is far more reasonable than something wiping out civilisation.

And this is the trouble with the precautionary principle. You can use it to justify or condemn anything at all. Trying to imagine the worst case scenario millions of years in advance is a futile exercise and not a way to decide how to invest our resources. It is as silly as trying to predict condition in 50 years time so you can invest in your unborn grandchildren’s college funds. You can’t accomplish anything that way. Instead you invest according to the likely short term future and move your resources as and when conditions change.

I’d like to think that we could be more sophisticated and forward thinking than the Easter Islander outlierrn cites as he cuts down the last tree.

The trouble with this of course if that the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree didn’t have any hope at all of getting off the island. Nor did he know with absolute certainty that all life on the island was doomed. As such the analogy makes no sense at all. We have a hope of getting off the Earth one day, and we know that all life on Erath is doomed.

In those circumstances refusing to cut down trees to study canoe building is far more blinkered and backward looking. The only reason not to cut down the tree is because we look backwards at the Erath as our cradle and want to stay there even as the fire sweeps towards the house. The real forwards looking people are trying to get out of the house before the fire reaches them. If that requires cutting down a few trees then it’s a small price to pay. The trees will be burned anyway.

Why do we keep thinking that we should have the rights to every last drop of fossil energy?

The only real question is why anyone else could possibly have any more right to it. This is a found resource. It will vanish eventually no matter who uses it or if no one ever uses it. It won’t last forever. The only choice is who uses it and to what end.

Really, it’s like asking why you think you have a right to a warm spot out of the wind. You have the right simply because no one else has any more right to it, but rest assured the wind will shift and the warm spot will vanish whether you use it r nobody does. Makes no real sense not to be warm in the meantime.

[What_Exit]

Blake: Thank you for addressing my questions.
My much more limited reading on FBR’s left me believing there were still many obstacles. It sounds like many should read as only a few instead. This is indeed good news.

Do I recall correctly that FBR’s produce less or no weapon grade material?
What are the Waste and issues?
Greater or lesser than current Fission?

I think you are underestimating the potential impact of solar. It cannot cover all needs but when nearly every roof eventually becomes a solar roof it could take care of Rural and Suburban energy requirements.
This leaves power generation being required for industry and cities. I think Nuclear is the only long term answer for this.

Why such a pessimistic prediction for usable Fusion?
Articles I have read point to anywhere from 30 to 100 years. I don’t recall reading 200 years. Of course 100 will probably be too late if we don’t find other alternatives sooner.

**We can also by some time by conservation of course. **
I hope we can push harder for more compact fluorescent lights to be used. Maybe even begin phasing out or taxing incandescent bulbs.
Require higher Mileage cars and Hybrids.
Improve housing codes for insulation and smart building. (this includes taking advantage of Southern facing)
Requirements for higher efficiency appliances. This would have to be from Furnaces and water heaters down through TV’s and Computers to Digital Alarm clocks.
etc.

Jim

[Blake]

@What Exit?

BlakeDo I recall correctly that FBR’s produce less or no weapon grade material?

No, they produce considerably more weapons grade material. They are designed to create plutonium from what is essentially depleted uranium. Plutonium is all potentially weapons material. In that sense they increase the amount of wepaons material availble form uranium by 10-20 fold

What are the Waste and issues?

Pretty much the same as for nay reactor AFAIK.

I think you are underestimating the potential impact of solar. It cannot cover all needs but when nearly every roof eventually becomes a solar roof it could take care of Rural and Suburban energy requirements.

No, it couldn’t really. Solar isn’t availble at night or on rainy days and there is less available in winter. IOW it is least available when it most needed. To make solar even somewhat viable every house would need to have a battery shed about the same size as the house itself, and costing about about the same as the house. The batteries would require at least 3 times the expense of the house to maintain. That just isn’t practical even in the suburbs. It is barely practical in most rural areas.

Why such a pessimistic prediction for usable Fusion?

Because it is like artificial photsynthesis. It has been just 30 years away ever since it was discovered. HG Wells predicted artifical photosynthesis within 30 years 120 years ago and it is still just 30 years away. Workable fusion was predicted within 30 years 60 years ago, and it’s has always been just 30 years away.

The problem with these sorts of projects is that we have the bare minimum knowledge to allow us to know they exist, but absolutely no way to apply it. If we had a working prototype fusion device at any scale I would accept 30 years to commerical implementation. But when we have no idea how to get this to work at all we are simply making wild guesses aboyt when it will become available. We might just as easily predict faster than light travel within 30 years and with just as much credibility.

**We can also by some time by conservation of course. **

That would be worthwhile if we actually needed to. But we don’t. As Cecil points out, we have no shortage of energy. We can waste as much enegry as we like floodlighting our yards 24/7 if we wish. We have enough Uranium for the next 1000 years. Anything after that is pointless to speculate on and just as pointless to save for.

[What_Exit]

@Blake

No, they produce considerably more weapons grade material. They are designed to create plutonium from what is essentially depleted uranium. Plutonium is all potentially weapons material. In that sense they increase the amount of wepaons material availble form uranium by 10-20 fold

This is a little scary, but probably a necessary danger.

No, it couldn’t really. Solar isn’t availble at night or on rainy days and there is less available in winter. IOW it is least available when it most needed. To make solar even somewhat viable every house would need to have a battery shed about the same size as the house itself, and costing about about the same as the house. The batteries would require at least 3 times the expense of the house to maintain. That just isn’t practical even in the suburbs. It is barely practical in most rural areas.

We would need peek potential for 2-day blizzards and hurricanes but the battery requirement with efficient appliances could be done today for around $15,000. This is estimated for a family of 4 in a good size house. (Mine to be precise).
I am looking at an investment of around $3500 to allow me to power my Refrigerator, lights and laptops & light usage of our very efficient LCD TV through a long night.
Batteries are getting smaller and cheaper. The current ones last 10-20 years, 12-15 on average, no maintenance Lead Acid for now.

The Nuclear Plants would have to have the capacity to handle severe weather conditions.
I understand your point on Fusion and I cannot disagree with it. I can only hope you’re wrong.

Jim

[lokij]

@RSVP

Nuclear power, sidestepping the waste storage issue, isn’t the savior Cecil paints it to be.
Consider crop growth and food distribution. How do you fertilize and control pests on crops with nuclear energy instead of petrochemicals?
How do you distribute food in tractor trailers powered by nuclear energy?
How long until it’s peak uranium instead of peak oil?
Please take a look at http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ with an open mind and get back to us.
(I’d wager that’s the site the article questioner was referring to - it’s the first one that Google returns for peak oil).

Umm, you synthesize fertilizers from hydrocarbons… any hydrocarbon source really, some are of course more trouble and more expensive than others but the supply will always be there and if cheap plentiful electricity from nuclear/solar/wind/hydro plants is available it won’t be much of a problem at all.

How do you distribute food? Electric trucks perhaps? That means we might lose some cargo capacity to batteries but… again, that depends on technology and the impact on prices would depend on the economies of scale involved.

It will be peak uranium time when we start reprocessing nuclear fuel. It’ll be peak plutonium/uranium time when we finally get those fusion/solar satellites/zero point energy plants going. ;>

Or you could you know, just go live life at the technological/energy consumption level of a pre-industrial society… enjoy if that’s your thing. ;>

[UselessGit]

Hope I’m not going off-topic but what do (does?) people have against Hydrogen? Some of us have been using hydrogen for some time now and it works fine; we just need to add more hydrogen refuelling stations around the country before hydrogen cars can become a viable option outside of the capital. I, personally, think that our plan to be an oil-free nation by 2050 is needlessly pessimistic–we should be able to make the switch sooner, at least with cars. Ships might take a little longer but not much, I’d think.

[What_Exit]

@UselessGit

Hope I’m not going off-topic but what do (does?) people have against Hydrogen? Some of us have been using hydrogen for some time now and it works fine; we just need to add more hydrogen refuelling stations around the country before hydrogen cars can become a viable option outside of the capital. I, personally, think that our plan to be an oil-free nation by 2050 is needlessly pessimistic–we should be able to make the switch sooner, at least with cars. Ships might take a little longer but not much, I’d think.

Someone else can and probably will answer this better:

You have to produce and transport the hydrogen. This takes energy. Unfortunately there is no reservoirs of hydrogen to tap. If we had cheap electricity we could produce it from water. At a lower cost but a more costly raw material fuel cells separate hydrogen using propane. A very clean energy but still using up a finite resource at this point.

They are pursuing Bio-mass fuels for Fuel cells but are years or decades or longer away. They are making progress with designed bacteria to assist in the more efficient production of hydrogen.

Hydrogen cars require a new infrastructure. The Hydrogen still needs to be produced. We still need the energy to produce it.

Jim

[RSVP]

@Blake

RSVP you seem to be mostly interested in simply repeating the catechism of your alarmist websites ad nauseum rather than actually engaging in any discussion of Cecil’s columns.

Blake, is not the act of showing counterexamples to Cecil’s column, in the form of a reputable and referenced site, a discussion?
Somehow I knew you would choose to zoom in on Dr. Bartlett’s credentials. He is but -one- example, as I said, of a supporter of the Peak Oil site and movement.
So you’re telling me that a trained scientist, Dr. Bartlett, who has taken the time to become familiar with the issue, is of no use at all? I don’t buy that for 1 second.
Geologists can’t tell you the whole story any more than a physiologist can. But they can both be familiar with the issue and address it with scientific rigor.
The absolute multitude of references on that one site alone give ample supporting coverage from all fields, including geology.
The USGS and EIA have both been wrong before. Recent Kuwaiti reserve adjustments (downward) and the continued lack of solid information about Saudi Arabia’s fields put their work into further doubt. Saudi Arabia already has problems exercising its full production capacity to meet worldwide demand.
Again you seem to lump this particular site into the category of alarmist. If you don’t trust what it says, you look at the references more closely. It is not just one physiologist (he being a convenient and prominent example).

The methodology of the USGS report is itself useful for getting the real numbers, but the numbers used in the report were not accurate. See here: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/usgs2000.htm

The geologists you’re listening to (including WEO and OU) don’t have accurate data. Furthermore, they are only telling how much oil exists, not how much can be economically extracted before alternatives need to step up.

You seem to be under the assumption that material for building, maintaining, and powering the alternatives is available on a large enough scale to be instantly ready to meet the oil shortfall.

There is no confusion of breeder reactors and fusion reactors on my part. Fusion can be used to create the building materials that you think are conveniently available, which they are not.
You point to existing electric draglines. That’s the problem, they already exist and are being used at one location. We would need to build many more if we start digging for more coal and uranium.
Again, you assume the existence of electric trains and lorries in locations where there are none. We can’t rely on phantom trains and mining equipment to dig up coal and uranium in untapped mines.

@Blake

Biomass petroleum, hydrogen fuel cells and electric trains for transport.

Well it’s a good thing that nobody at all in this thread mentioned biomass as an energy source isn’t it.

Yea, we can. As I have said at least 3 times previously in this thread we can manufacture petroleum directly form coal or vegetation and pour it straight into the gas tanks of existing vehicles. We don’t need to build a single new vehicle or a single battery.

Is it me or is vegetation biomass?

Nonsense. One ton of natural uranium can produce … equivalent to… 80,000 barrels of oil

Where do you think the energy to build and operate the equipment to extract uranium comes from?

On that same site: World uranium production in 2001 was 35,767 metric tons or 78.9 million pounds.

The world uses more than 80 million barrels daily. An entire year of uranium production would result in 35 days of energy.

Fertiliser and pesticides just use petrochemicals as a feedstock. The feedstock is just a convenient source of carbon and hydrogen atoms, nothing more. You can obtain the same carbon and hydrogen atoms from plant biomass or directly form the air if you wish to.

Consider the uranium example. Where will all this surplus carbon and hydrogen come from without oil as a feedstock, in the scale needed for continued operation?

Coal liquefaction requires energy and coal. If we scale up coal production and usage, we have lots of carbon dioxide in the air, and peak coal within a generation.
The problem with hydrogen is that it is hard to contain, requires energy to make into a usable form, and doesn’t scale up to the numbers needed to replace oil (think of hydrogen as peak platinum for fuel cells).

[UselessGit]

We have all the water and energy we could ever need over here… if we hold our cards right and produce cheap Hydrogen, maybe we could be a little like the new Saudi Arabia? Except without, you know… the evil?

Seriously, though: without having a cite on hand, the last time I knew, the hydrogen production (which we started around 1960) was around 2,000 tons of liquid hydrogen per year with 13 MW. Producing hydrogen isn’t rocket science, so if you can make as much cheap, clean electricity as needed, it really doesn’t look like much of a stretch to switch, to the untrained eye at least. Of course not every nation can do that but, then again, not every nation can drill for oil today.

It’s clean, efficient, inexhaustible and easy to make, given enough electricity. So what if we need new cars? Renewing the car fleet shouldn’t take too long, especially if people got toll/tax discounts on hydrogen cars and the price of oil kept rising, right?

[RSVP]

Blake, you wrote this in http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=324104&page=3&pp=50 :

But the tar sands, at least the easiest layers to extract, are a net source of energy.

Exactly. I look forward to seeing s a refrence (with an actual quote) from someone who claims otherwise. I have neverheard even the most rabid anti sand or shale activist claim otherwise. I was quite surprised to see the claim made here.

If you absolutely must hear from a geologist on this issue, look no further than these pages:

http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/youngqu1.html

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

-Retired Professor of Geology at the University of Oregon, Dr. Walter Youngquist

[Blake]

RSVP this forum has rules. One of those rule sis that youpost in the approriate forum. This forumis appropriate for discussing Cecil’s columns, not conspiracy websites. I will not engage you on this point here. If you wish to debate the topic start a new thread in GD where I and others have free reign to defuse your paranoia.

The fact that you still do not undertsand that there is a difference between sinking enegry into biomass to manufacture fuel and using biomass as an energy source really tell us all we need to know about your understanding of fuel economics.

@What Exit?

We would need peek potential for 2-day blizzards and hurricanes but the battery requirement with efficient appliances could be done today for around $15,000. This is estimated for a family of 4 in a good size house. (Mine to be precise).

But as you point out your house is not typical. You have reduced your fuel demand excessively. You do not for example use electric heating nor do you presumably use air conditioning. For solar to meet current suburban demand it must be able to do both thise things as well as being able to cope with a house full of teenagers hosting an allnight LAN party and living in the fridge all night, microwaving food and so forth.

It is all well and good pointing out that electricity can make some small contirbution under ideal circumstances, but if it can’t replace coal under conditiuons of peak demand then it is no replacement at all.

The Nuclear Plants would have to have the capacity to handle severe weather conditions.

They would need to handle all conditions where people who can not or will not spend $100, 000 on a bettery shed will cope with. That means all night LAN parties, hot weather conditions when air conditioners are runs 24/7 and so forth.

Kudos to you for spending money on solar and installing high efficiency products (BTW whgat size [i[is* your battery shed?). But to believe that solar will make a sizable impact when all renewable energy combined can’t take up more than 50% of the slackeven with massive environmental destruction seems hopelessly optimistic.

[What_Exit]

@Blake

…snip…
Kudos to you for spending money on solar and installing high efficiency products (BTW whgat size [i[is* your battery shed?). But to believe that solar will make a sizable impact when all renewable energy combined can’t take up more than 50% of the slackeven with massive environmental destruction seems hopelessly optimistic.

I am on grid. I am only looking into a small emergency battery system. Even this will cost around $3500 today.

@ME

I am looking at an investment of around $3500 to allow me to power my Refrigerator, lights and laptops & light usage of our very efficient LCD TV through a long night.
Batteries are getting smaller and cheaper. The current ones last 10-20 years, 12-15 on average, no maintenance Lead Acid for now.

**The hope and expectation is both the Batteries and the Panels will drop in price and increase in efficiency. **

Solar panels does not equal being off grid BTW.
In NJ at least the rebate is to be part of the grid and generate power during the day that we feed into the overall system and then we pull power at night and when home from the Power Grid. This is all automated of course.
Having a 6700 watt system does not meet the needs of my family when home.
All it does is reduce our Power Company consumption by a little over half averaged out over the year.
Our big draws are the Electric Water Heater, The Central Air and the Clothes dryer. Our biggest savings is the compact Florescent light Bulbs and having a newer very efficient Energy Star refrigerator.
My electric bills average less than a third of my neighbors. This should be a combination of Solar and efficient appliances.

So Solar right now is a very small and expensive drop in the bucket.
The future should be a lot closer than Fusion however.

To go off grid without radically reducing my energy needs would cost me another $12000 in panels. That would be with the state paying $38,000 via the 70% rebate. I would then also have to invest $15,000 in batteries and lose a good chunk of my usable basement or setting up a shed as you mentioned.
The $3500 worth of batteries would require a 4x6 area. So the full $15000 should require after installing racks an 8x6 area. A nice shed so for shed and racks I am sure I would be out another $1000 to $2000.

Jim

[RSVP]

@Blake

RSVP this forum has rules. One of those rule sis that youpost in the approriate forum. This forumis appropriate for discussing Cecil’s columns, not conspiracy websites. I will not engage you on this point here. If you wish to debate the topic start a new thread in GD where I and others have free reign to defuse your paranoia.

Please point out which rule in the stickied rule thread for this forum applies here. Oh wait, none of them do.

Take a look at the reader question that Cecil answers in the column. It refers several times to Peak Oil sites on the net.

In my first post, I commented on Cecil’s belief that the nuclear option will save the day. I pointed out a particular site which disagrees with his assessment.
Explain to me how this is not a discussion of Cecil’s column, and I will create the thread you seek.

[Blake]

@What Exit?

To go off grid without radically reducing my energy needs would cost me another $12000 in panels. That would be with the state paying $38,000 via the 70% rebate. I would then also have to invest $15,000 in batteries and lose a good chunk of my usable basement or setting up a shed as you mentioned.
The $3500 worth of batteries would require a 4x6 area. So the full $15000 should require after installing racks an 8x6 area. A nice shed so for shed and racks I am sure I would be out another $1000 to $2000.

These are getting closer to the sorts of figures I have seen quoted. I have seen figures that quote around $120, 000 for a full solar system on a $120, 000 house. IOW the power supply costs more than the house, and maintainence is a sizable chunk of house maintainence. I know you say that your battery system is zero maintainence, but does that include theprice of replacing the batteries? How long do the batteries last? How often do the penels need cleaning etc? And of course an investment in solar has effectively zero investment value. The house will increse in value whereas the solar system will only depreciate over time.

That’s not exactly economically practical, and of course many houses simply don’t have the space required for a working solar system…
I appreciate that you have hopes that one dya the prices wil come down and so forth, but that seems unreasonably optomistic to me. As things stand solar simply isn’t a viable option as an energy alternative to fossil fuels. An energy supplement certainly, but not an alternative.

[What_Exit]

@Blake

These are getting closer to the sorts of figures I have seen quoted. I have seen figures that quote around $120, 000 for a full solar system on a $120, 000 house. IOW the power supply costs more than the house, and maintainence is a sizable chunk of house maintainence. I know you say that your battery system is zero maintainence, but does that include theprice of replacing the batteries? How long do the batteries last? How often do the penels need cleaning etc? And of course an investment in solar has effectively zero investment value. The house will increse in value whereas the solar system will only depreciate over time.

Your numbers look okay but the housing cost more like $400,000 here.
The Batteries have no rebate and are very expensive. You can subtract the cost of roofing but this only knocks off around $10,000.
The Batteries are good for 15-20 years as I mentioned earlier.
They are also not required for the system to work.

Overall Peak usuage is in Daytime but not at home.
So the Houses with Solar add power to the system at peak hours and then pull power at off peak hours.

@Blake

That’s not exactly economically practical, and of course many houses simply don’t have the space required for a working solar system…

They are definately not economically practical yet. Despite good intentions, I would not have done my system if New Jersey did not pay 70% of the cost.

@Blake

I appreciate that you have hopes that one dya the prices wil come down and so forth, but that seems unreasonably optomistic to me. As things stand solar simply isn’t a viable option as an energy alternative to fossil fuels. An energy supplement certainly, but not an alternative.

The cost are going down and the technology of both the panels and the batteries are advancing quick. Expect in 10-20 years for batteries to be ½ the size and Panels to be 1/5th to 1/10th the current cost. Batteries will still be the expensive part but they are optional.

Your last sentence is 100% true. I don’t deny, I have even said it, in different words. Solar can never meet all our needs. In can only supplement.

**Blake ** you care a lot about energy issues and appear to be extremely well read on Fission in particular. I have learn more about Breeder reactors from you than anywhere else.
Advocating Solar and Wind and research into Biomass and Ethanols should not be taken as detracting from the value of nuclear power. I understand we will need more nuclear power to move off fossil fuel. I think we can do all these things over the upcoming decades.
New Nuclear plants, Solar, Wind, Ethanol, Hybrids, efficent appliances and Lights, Diode lighting, Hydrogen cars, etc.
You name it, I would probably encourage it.
My next car will be a hybrid. This will be in about 3 years.
Hopefully I’ll drive that one for 7 years and be able to buy a plug-in Hybrid that runs on Ethanol-85 for the next one after that.

Jim