Electric cars are a pipe dream

Don't need it all, Don't need but a small fraction of it actually, and as we become ever more efficient, the energy needs per-capita to maintain the same living standards continue to drop.

Given time renewable energy may easily turn out to be cheaper than any other source we have ever had. A combination of solar thermal and Solar PV (very long lasting, to the tune of 50 years or more), Wind, Nuclear, Geothermal and finally Biofuels made from bioengineered algae for instance, may be done not only in huge scales, in currently unproductive areas of the globe, but ultimately the combination of energy sources may be just as cheap as drilling for oil a mile deep in the ocean, or digging up a mountain top for coal.

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
Don't need it all, Don't need but a small fraction of it actually, and as we become ever more efficient, the energy needs per-capita to maintain the same living standards continue to drop.

Given time renewable energy may easily turn out to be cheaper than any other source we have ever had. A combination of solar thermal and Solar PV (very long lasting, to the tune of 50 years or more), Wind, Nuclear, Geothermal and finally Biofuels made from bioengineered algae for instance, may be done not only in huge scales, in currently unproductive areas of the globe, but ultimately the combination of energy sources may be just as cheap as drilling for oil a mile deep in the ocean, or digging up a mountain top for coal.

Arthur
Click to expand...

From what I understand the lack of a solar infastructure is what's holding solar engery back. You're right, we can supply all of our energy needs by only capturing "1 10th of the Earth's sunlight". However mass distribution seems to be a real challenge.
 
Ganymede said:
... However mass distribution seems to be a real challenge.
Click to expand...
Correct, but the capital investment to make solar even 1% of the US energy supply is a greater problem. See analysis below.
adoucette said:
Don't need it all, Don't need but a small fraction of it actually, and as we become ever more efficient, the energy needs per-capita to maintain the same living standards continue to drop. ... Arthur
Click to expand...
YES, BUT THE POPULATION IS GROWING. In fact, US energy demand is growing about 1/3% each year if the recession years 2008/09 are excluded.

With data from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html we find:

In 2008 US total energy use in quadrillion of BTUs is 99.438 a slight (2%) decrease with the recession from the 101.502 of 2007, which was slightly more than 1% higher than three years earlier. (Annual growth in demand of 1/3% per normal year.)

Solar Thermal/PV Energy is increasing. Combined they provided only 0.081 & 0.097 in 2007 & 2008 for a growth rate of less than 10% per year but still provided less than 0.0001 part of US energy requirements. A 10% growth rate will double the supply in 7 years but lets be generous and assume only 5 years needed to double the supply. Then here is how much of US energy demand solar energy can meet as the years go by (assuming no increase in need, which is silly as the need is growing more than solar can add for decades):

In 2013 meets 0.0002 of need
In 2018 meets 0.0004 of need
In 2028 meets 0.0016 of need
In 2038 meets 0.0064 of need
In 2048 meets 0.0256 of need
In 2058 meets 0.1024 of need
In 2068 meets 0.4096 of need And
by about 2075 solar alone could be able to supply US energy needs. BUT,
Less than 3% by 2050 when oil is about $500/ barrel as China can afford that. US & EU are in a "heap of trouble" even if 1 dollar bill has not become toilet paper.

Above is also assuming US can afford the increasing annual capital investments, which IMHO is very doubtful, and that there is no growth in demand.

SUMMARY: You need to be a little more realistic about how quickly solar can grow to replace now static and soon declining oil production.
As China is locking up a lot of available oil in 20 to 30 year delivery contracts, the amount actually available to the market has been declining for a few years now.
Only the recession reduction in demand has prevented this fact from already being quite painful to the US and EU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adoucette said:
Don't need it all, Don't need but a small fraction of it actually, and as we become ever more efficient, the energy needs per-capita to maintain the same living standards continue to drop.

Given time renewable energy may easily turn out to be cheaper than any other source we have ever had. A combination of solar thermal and Solar PV (very long lasting, to the tune of 50 years or more), Wind, Nuclear, Geothermal and finally Biofuels made from bioengineered algae for instance, may be done not only in huge scales, in currently unproductive areas of the globe, but ultimately the combination of energy sources may be just as cheap as drilling for oil a mile deep in the ocean, or digging up a mountain top for coal.

Arthur
Click to expand...

Yes, delusional thinking is quite common here at the end of the age of cheap energy.
 
No Billy.

Can't look at just 3 years and deduce trends.
One can't look at just Solar and make judgements on Renewable energy.

In 1990 we used 70,869,979 Billion BTUs of Energy,
In 2009 we used 72,970,019 Billion BTUs of Energy
Or a 0.15% growth rate over 20 years.
Which is VERY impressive, considering that our population went up by 60 Million since 1990.
But then we hit 73,036,802 in 1998, so one could say energy use is flat since then.
Clearly not going up 1/3% per year as you pessimistically suggest.

As to renewables, why pick on the laggard PV, which is just now becoming cost effective?

For instance see: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/kaneka/kaneka60.html

Solar panels are now getting down to $1 per watt, (~$2 Watt installed, with a grid tie system (no batteries) and that makes it competitive in many markets).

Or consider that in the last 5 years, which is a reasonable horizon to determine future growth of Renewables:

Solar grew by 13% per year.
Wind grew by 58% per year.
Biofuels grew by 5% per year.
GeoThermal grew by 2% per year.

Pretty remarkable growth, and no sign that this will slow, indeed Solar will likely be a major growth market this entire decade and wind will as well.

Or consider our Crude Oil use, it was 15,571,185 Billion BTUs of Energy in 1990 but by 2009 it was 11,241,142 Billion BTUs of Energy.

Then we are once again starting to build new Nukes.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/aer/overview.html
Primary Energy Production by Source, 1949-2009

So no Billy, the future is not bleak on the energy front, the US has managed to grow its population by 60 Million people over the last 20 years and essentially keep its energy use flat, at the same time it has reduced its use of oil and has robust programs to increase the amount of renewable energy that we use.

Arthur
 
spidergoat said:
Yes, delusional thinking is quite common here at the end of the age of cheap energy.
Click to expand...

Not delusional at all, look at the figures I just posted.

Since 1990, our per capita use of energy had dropped 17%

And in 1990, Oil represented 22% of our energy use, 20 years later it is down to 15%.

What is going away is cheap OIL, not cheap energy.

Big difference.

Arthur
 
This link will not print but is worth a look as provides decades of data* graphically in 6 graphs: http://www.eia.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_12.pdf
It gives a more clear understanding of US energy use than my recent three years or adoucette's lower use and growth rate data which includes recession(s).

Only energy use per unit GDP declines but a large part of that is, IMHO, fact that many workers now sit in front of computers instead of factory machines. The two cost graphs (total and per capita) both were basically linear as were the two energy use graphs (with minor dips during current and 1980 recessions) but in last dozen years the two cost graphs are more like exponential rising curves. I.e. the low cost energy era is over.

---------------
* Some start in 1950, others in 1970 but all go to the present.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adoucette said:
Not delusional at all, look at the figures I just posted.

Since 1990, our per capita use of energy had dropped 17%

And in 1990, Oil represented 22% of our energy use, 20 years later it is down to 15%.

What is going away is cheap OIL, not cheap energy.

Big difference.

Arthur
Click to expand...

Per capita? Are you kidding me? Oil IS the cheap energy. Natural gas is close, but we won't be running the interstate highways on it.
 
I don't question the technical aspect of any alternative energy source, but just because something is possible doesn't mean it's going to work as a practical or (this is very important) scalable solution.
 
You don't think that Wind, Bio, Geo and Solar PV and Solar Thermal are not practical and scalable?

To put the massive amount of energy they provide in perspective, these energy sources, along with Hydro, produced more than 10% of our energy needs in 2009, which is also equal to 70% of the energy we get from oil.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
In view of the more complete data of link in post 1069 I see no reason to change my post, at least not the summary of it, which was:

Billy T said:
... SUMMARY: You need to be a little more realistic about how quickly solar can grow to replace now static and soon declining oil production.
As China is locking up a lot of available oil in 20 to 30 year delivery contracts, the amount actually available to the market has been declining for a few years now.
Only the recession reduction in demand has prevented this fact from already being quite painful to the US and EU.
Click to expand...


adoucette said:
You don't think that Wind, Bio, Geo and Solar PV and Solar Thermal are not practical and scalable?
Click to expand...
Not on the times scale needed to cope with oil's availability and rising prices. Making solar, of all forms, meet even 5% of US energy needs will take at least a decade and a lot of capital. Can you show some plausible growth rate model tha gets all renewable energy to 5% before 1025?

If not, then as I said, US and EU are in a "heap of trouble" as China can afford to out bid the US for available oil supplies it does not already have under long-term, paid-up-front contracts, such as 200,000 barrels / day from PetroBras for 20 years, signed two years ago with 10 billion dollars paid then.

Not only this but also in a couple of years, four at the most, US will lose at least 15% of its current oil, now supplied by Mexico and Venezuela. See:http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2667151&postcount=62 and note Mexican oil field production is declining (as is the US's Alaskan field's)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, you just use ONE of many renewable energy sources, and you use the one that is just beginning to become cost competitive with current technology, why not instead pick Wind, which is more mature technology and is undergoing a major global ramp up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WorldWindPower.png

Which over the last 5 years has ramped up like this:
2005 59,024 +24%
2006 74,151 +26%
2007 93,927 +27%
2008 121,188 +29%
2009 157,899 +30%

So we don't need to get 5% from Solar in 10 years, since we will also be getting much more from Wind, Geo and Bio over that timeframe as well and rising oil prices will simply drive the adoption of these new sources as well as substitution for other processes in favor of use of oil (for instance making of plastics without using oil feedstocks).

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
After you edited your post Billy.
Sure, the EIA projects that in 2025 we will get 9.5% from renewables....
Again, Billy there are no "show stoppers", it's just that pessimists always see the problems, never the solutions. Arthur
Click to expand...
My edit was to add the last paragraph fact that US is soon to lose all of oil now imported from Venezuela - it took time to find the link to that as I first searched the BRIC+ news thread.

If 15% of current supply is lost in less than 4 years, how will 9.5% from renewables by 2025 help?

If that and the fact China is locking up the available supplies of oil, and can afford to pay higher prices the US can for what is still available to the market, are not "show stopper" what is and how does the US cope? Address these problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
My edit was to add the last paragraph fact that US is soon to lose all of oil now imported from Venezuela - it took time to find the link to that as I first searched the BRIC+ news thread.

If 15% of current supply is lost in less than 4 years, how will 9.5% from renewables by 2025 help?

If that and the fact China is locking up the available supplies of oil, and can afford to pay higher prices the US can for what is still available to the market, are not "show stopper" what is and how does the US cope? Address these problems.
Click to expand...

Oil is fungible, if they sell their oil to someone else, then those buyers won't be buying the oil they do today, so we aren't losing anything, everyone buys it on the open market, and yes one can pay upfront to secure the right to a supply, but 200,000 barrels a day is but ONE PERCENT of our daily oil use and less than 3/10ths of a percent of global use, so it is a tiny drop in a big bucket.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
adoucette said:
Oil is fungible, if they sell their oil to someone else, then those buyers won't be buying the oil they do today, so we aren't losing anything, everyone buys it on the open market, and yes one can pay upfront to secure the right to a supply, but 200,000 barrels a day is but ONE PERCENT of our daily oil use and less than 3/10ths of a percent of global use, so it is a tiny drop in a big bucket. Arthur
Click to expand...
Not very accurate. China will be buying what it does today from same sources AND all it can get from Venezuela too in a couple of years as China's demand is so rapidly growing. I.e. fungible yes, but freed up suppliers, no.

Also the 200,000 barrels per day is a small fraction of what China has locked up. I just mentioned it as I happen to know the details. Much larger Chinese investment have been made in Venezuela, and ironically the nearby and promising field just north of Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico will mainly be developed by China (perhaps with some help from PertroBras); but as you point out oil is fungible, so China probably will sell it to the nearby US and buy oil now coming to US from places like Saudia Arabia to lower shipping costs. Anyway you slice it, China using more means US getting less. They can pay more than the US can. Hell US spent billions on the Iraq war, but China is getting more of their oil fields under contract! Not only can they pay more but they are! China is also moving in on Nigerian, Angolan, and other west coast Africa suppliers, big time now. China pays big bribes to corrupt leaders.

I'm still waiting for your comments on the two "show stoppers" I asked about in post 1078.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of the arguments above mean simply that oil and oil products will get a lot more expensive in the years ahead.

OK. We all knew that. What I suggest is that this will create a massive economic incentive towards alternatives, and those alternatives will appear.
 
Skeptical said:
... What I suggest is that this will create a massive economic incentive towards alternatives, and those alternatives will appear.
Click to expand...
True, but not on a scale and as fast as the problems of high cost oil will. Rich China is also locking up a lot of the alternate energy production too. World's largest producer of wind machines, Danish company Vestas has main plant in China and will now only sell its production to China. There is the neodymium problem too - Wind machines badly need it and China is the main source for at least a decade - see footnote *** in post below.
Billy T said:
"... China announced a $736 billion investment plan for clean energy in the next decade. New private and public sector investments in core clean energy leapt by 53% in China last year, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. It added 37 gigawatts of total renewable energy power capacity, more than any other country. ...
Danish wind turbine maker Vestas, the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, ... announcing an order (for 58 turbines with total capacity of 49.3 megawatts) from Chongli Construction Investment Huashi Wind Power Company Ltd. ... said last week that its orders from China last year reached a record high. "In 2010, Vestas has announced almost 1,000 megawatts (MW) worth of orders in China alone, which is a record high order ...

-----
*** "... export restrictions combined with rising demand have caused the price of neodymium, used in Toyota’s Prius hybrid car, to surge four-fold to $80 a kilogram from $19.12 in 2009, according to Lynas ..." From: http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aF6YAwm4MRYc&pos=6
And as they say, "You ain't seen nuffen yet" as DoD needs it too.
I think the typical Rare Earth mine and processing releases 1000s of times more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant is allowed too:

"...A four-story tailing dam containing radioactive waste 12 kilometers (7 miles) from Baotou has been “a serious problem” and polluted rivers, Chen Zhanheng, director of the academic department of the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, said in an interview. Baotou Steel Group, which operates the Baiyun Ebo mine, has spent 500 million yuan ($75 million) with the local government to relocate five villages after seepage from the dam polluted agricultural land and drinking water, China’s official Xinhua News Agency reported on Nov. 7. ... “All rare earth ores contain uranium and thorium, which could pose a danger if not disposed of responsibly,” said Dudley J Kingsnorth, who managed Australia’s Mount Weld rare earths project for Ashton Mining of Canada Inc. for 10 years. ..." From same Bloomberg link just given.

When California's environmentalists learn this, "more than 1000 times a power plants radioactive release", it could be decades in the courts before MolyCorp's mine in CA is operating on a large scale.
Click to expand...

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2671237&postcount=362

Rich China is also locking up western production capacity for nuclear power pants for about a decade with 511billion dollar order for 245 of them.
See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2657306&postcount=334

To understand that it is not just for economical advantage that China wants to destroy the west but a stronger and deeper motivation,
See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2668027&postcount=358
adoucette said:
... there are no "show stoppers", it's just that pessimists always see the problems, never the solutions. Arthur
Click to expand...
Then help me out and tell some solutions or at least respond to my two "show stoppers" in post 1078 or a few of those mentioned above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top