Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waxing Crescent (15% of Full)


Advanced

Re: SC32

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

December 12, 2006 07:35PM
http://energyandcapital.com/editorials.php?id=319

.....................Assessing the Alternatives

For the last five years, recognizing the enormity of the threat that peak oil poses to life as we know it, I have made an intensive study of the options. What mitigation measures might work, and to what extent? How much additional energy might we hope to produce, from any and all sources? What new technologies might come to our rescue?

What I have found is this: as long as current population trends persist, and as long as all of the world's major economies depend on constant growth, then all the energy alternatives, together, add up to about fifty cents on a one-dollar tab. It just isn't there. First and foremost, our immediate problem is a SHORTAGE OF LIQUID FUELS, but most renewable energy technologies produce electricity. (And converting our existing liquid fuel-based infrastructure to one that runs on electricity just isn't feasible-there isn't even enough energy, let alone raw materials, available to remanufacture all that stuff and still provide for daily needs!) In my wildest dreams-and I say this as one who has made my living in retail solar for several years now-I don't see solar and wind together achieving more than perhaps 15% of our total global energy mix in the next 30 years.

Biofuels are promising, but as soon as we start producing them at scale, we run straight up against food supply. Consider this statistic: To produce enough ethanol to fill the tank of a big 4WD SUV, you would need enough grain to feed one person for an entire year. Nowhere in the world is there enough unneeded, arable land and water to grow the requisite feedstock for the immense volume of biofuels we will need, no matter which feedstock you choose-and the energy returned on energy invested (EROI) is so low that in most cases it's simply not worth doing. As Dr. Tad Patzek of U.C. Berkeley, one of the top experts on the feasibility of biofuels, has said:

The vision is to capture in real time most of net growth of all biomass in the US, while at the same time mining soil, water, and air over 72 percent of our land area, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. This biomass would then be devoured to feed our inefficient cars. We would have little food production, as well as little wood for paper and construction. In effect, the brave new US ECONOMY WOULD BE DEDICATED TO FEEDING CARS, NOT PEOPLE. This vision has been enthusiastically embraced by some in the US science and industrial establishment.

According to Patzek, the EROI figures in the oft-cited DOE/USDA report of 2005 are "laughable," requiring impossible crop yields and impossible levels of residue recovery. He adds sardonically, "To utilize all residues, I suggest to also process fresh corpses into biofuels."


Another trenchant commentator, Robert Hirsch (more about him later), has famously quipped that making ethanol from corn is a process by which a certain amount of energy in the forms of natural gas and diesel fuel are used to create an equivalent amount of energy in the form of ethanol, with the primary output being money from government subsidies.

The well-known alternative ways of producing liquid fuels, such as coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids, are neither ready to scale to the huge volumes we need nor likely to attract the immense capital needed for such an undertaking within the required time frame, due to the uncertainties and risks of the global commodities trade. ("The ability and willingness of major oil and gas producers to step up investment in order to meet rising global demand are particularly uncertain," according to the IEA report.)

Further, even if those problems could be somehow addressed, there would remain the problems of how to keep all that additional carbon out of the air and how to mitigate the horrific environmental cost of massively upscaled coal mining. And don't think that carbon sequestration technologies are going to solve those problems. "Clean coal" is strictly for sound bites-don't expect to see it happen in real life. If making our coal plants clean today is deemed too expensive, when the economy is healthy and energy prices are high, what will make it seem affordable tomorrow?

More recent and exotic alternatives for producing liquid fuels include recovering usable hydrocarbons from oil shale and tar sands. Unfortunately, there are immense hurdles to making either resource accessible in any real volumes. Oil shale is still very much in the research and testing phase, but it is clear that the energy invested will be very high, and there are many technical challenges that remain to be solved. The tar sands of Alberta are currently producing about 1 of the world's 85 million barrels per day of oil production, but "as North America runs short on natural gas to cook the tar out of the sands and water to move the mess to processing plants, very large increases in production from the tar sands seems less and less likely no matter what the price of oil." And this assumes that Canadians will continue to tolerate the enormous environmental destruction that tar sands operations entail. Suffice it to say it's unlikely that either of these lesser quality sources of hydrocarbons will ever provide more than a few percent of the global mix.

Nuclear energy, likewise, is also not the right solution to the problem, because it neither creates liquid fuels nor is it feasible. Nuclear power has earned the support of environmentalists who recognize the benefits of its lack of greenhouse gas emissions, but it has been estimated that if we were to meet our anticipated electrical needs over the next 30 years with nuclear power, we would have to build some ten new plants each year in the U.S. alone-a highly unrealistic outcome. And in the same way that we are about to pass peak oil, WE ARE PAST PEAK URANIUM.

All the other approaches to our energy dilemma, from tidal energy to biofuels from algae, are either so far off in the future that they don't matter, or just not scalable enough.

In short, THERE ARE NO SUPPLY-SIDE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE WITH OUR WAY OF LIFE. The solutions, such as they are, are all on the demand side: first by increasing efficiency to stretch out the remaining fossil fuels we've got, and second by decreasing overall demand, both through reduced consumption per capita (e.g., growing food locally instead of shipping it halfway around the world), and by REDUCING OUR POPULATION......................
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

SC32

Wizard 819December 11, 2006 09:26PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 484December 11, 2006 10:12PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 513December 12, 2006 07:22PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 513December 12, 2006 07:35PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 540December 12, 2006 07:58PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 524December 12, 2006 08:07PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 563December 13, 2006 09:01PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 626December 16, 2006 10:58PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 508December 16, 2006 11:55PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 548December 17, 2006 12:27PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 534December 19, 2006 07:56PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 595December 21, 2006 08:19PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 532December 21, 2006 08:50PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 554December 21, 2006 09:29PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 497December 27, 2006 10:26PM

Re: SC32

mojavegreen 539December 28, 2006 12:22PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 525December 29, 2006 10:02PM

Re: SC32

Wizard 922December 29, 2006 10:48PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login