The Oil Drum | Numbers and the State of the Union Energy segment

264 comments on Numbers and the State of the Union Energy segment

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

LJR on February 1, 2006 - 2:39pm

Switchgrass doesn't require much in the way of fertilizers.

I want to say this respectfully but I think you are engaged in non-productive naysaying. It's easy enough to do.

We simply must make a switch to biofuels and/or nuclear power. From what little I've read about Switchgrass it sounds like a wonderful plant for the production of cellulosic ethanol. The carbon and hydrogen extracted from the plant mass leave behind the trace minerals required for keeping the soil viable - they can be recycled. We may well be able to genetically modify Switchgrass to fix nitrogen itself or we can intersperse legumes with the Switchgrass. If not that then something else. It's a tractable problem.

The point here is that we've got a major problem and when a suggestion like Switchgrass comes up I think we can do better than wring our hands and talk about why it JUST CAN'T WORK IN THE LONG RUN. Hell, in the long run we're dead. If we can get something going that gets us through the next twenty years I'll be fine with that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 3:09pm

Switchgrass doesn't require much in the way of fertilizers.

It will require fertilizer if you harvest it and turn into biofuel. In the wild, it dies and grows back, endlessly recycling nutrients. As most farmers grow it, it's forage - again, recycled.

If we can get something going that gets us through the next twenty years I'll be fine with that.

I won't. I take a longer and broader view. Sure, we could live it up for the rest of my life. Heck, we could probably take food from the mouths of children in Africa and make into fuel for our SUVs. We probably will. But I'm not fine with it. I will never be fine with it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 1, 2006 - 3:33pm

Please check your sources. Switchgrass requires no fertilizers; it grows like a weed and is hard to get rid of no matter what you do. Most of the soil bank is in switchgrass, and were we to use that acreage to meet GWB's ethanol goals we might be roughly half way there without planting any more acreage. There is a superabundance of stinking animal manure in the U.S., loaded with nitrogen; that could efficiently be used to boost switchgrass yields even higher--maybe get as many as four cuttings a year in temperate climates. That stuff grows darn near as fast as bamboo.

If you do the numbers on the efficiency of capturing sunlight through switchgrass and ethanol, I think you'll find out that it is way better than photovoltaics, at least in temperate climate. And the beauty of ethanol is you can store it indefinitely and use it for an extraordinary variety of purposes. And when all else fails . . . chug-a-lug.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 3:39pm

I did check my sources.

If you do the numbers on the efficiency of capturing sunlight through switchgrass and ethanol, I think you'll find out that it is way better than photovoltaics, at least in temperate climate.

I don't doubt that. I'm not in favor of photovoltaics, either. At least, not in the long run.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 1, 2006 - 4:10pm

Please cite your peer-reviewed sources relating to switchgrass potential.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 4:21pm

Cite yours, and I'll cite mine.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fallout on February 1, 2006 - 4:28pm

Sounds fair.

Seriously Don, you should probably try to be at least a little less confrontational. This is a casual blog.

Back when I worked for the USDA, they were experimenting with growing switchgrass and other perennial, warm-season grasses were being tested as an optional forage crop (and for other reasons). I'll see if I can dig up some numbers for you guys to jaw over.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 5:40pm

That would be great. Seems switchgrass is the crop du jour, what with the SOTU mention and all.

My dad used to work for the USDA, too. He's got a PhD in plant physiology. I remember him bringing home those blocks of surplus cheese - one of the perks of working for the USDA. :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on February 1, 2006 - 6:15pm

Boy we go from a rare mention of switchgrass to a veritable grassfire!

FWIW, here's a link I picked up a few days ago:

http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/biomass/switchgrass/

It seems to be a good jumping off point ...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 6:43pm

Thanks for the link. It sounds much like any other crop to me:

Cooperating producers and the project field coordinator oversee more than 4,000 acres of switchgrass, and have learned many ways to improve establishment and management of this crop. In general, the use of frost seeding, relatively high rates of pure live seed per acre, and early season weed control have contributed to improved switchgrass establishment. They also hope to show the benefits of combining the production of a corn crop during the initial year of switchgrass.

The use of fertilizer varies with soil, yield and time of harvest, but has commonly included at least 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre and maintenance rates for phosphorus and potassium. Some work has been done to grow legumes with the switchgrass crop as a source of nitrogen.

Harvest typically begins after the first killing frost in October when the grass moisture content is 15 percent or less. Yields can be 30 percent greater at this time than if harvest is delayed until later in the winter or spring.

And harvesting no doubt takes heavy equipment, too.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on February 1, 2006 - 8:15pm

By stoichiometry, it takes perhaps 2 pounds of biomass to fix a pound of nitrogen by gasification and the Haber process. 200 pounds/acre of grass is 1-2% of typical switchgrass yields.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fallout on February 2, 2006 - 2:36pm

Okay, here's what I was able to dig up from my old contacts at USDA/ARS:

1) Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) does not require nitrogen fertilizers. It will grow without it in almost any appropriate soil, even marginal soil.
[My commentary: Note that this is not "anywhere", as some have argued. It is a prairie grass, and will grow where any prairie grass will. Marginal soils are often used for the growing of non-food crops, such as cotton].

2) Switchgrass yields were very dependent on nitrogen fertilizer applications (475lb/acre typical), as well as recommended amounts of phosphorous (30lb/acre typical), potassium (40lb/acre typical), and lime (varied by field pH) and pesticides.
Herbacide (atrazine) was also sometimes used.
Some plots were grown without any of the above.

Yields from adjoining plots ranged from around 1.5 tons/acre for untreated plots to nearly 6 tons/acre for fully treated plots.
Initial trials suggest that 79 gallons of ethanol can be produced per dry ton of switchgrass grown.

This info came from:
"Cultivar and Fertility Effects on Switchgrass
Biofuel Production in Southern
Iowa. Lemus, R., Iowa State University, Ames. 2000.

"Economic Feasibility of Growing Herbaceous
Biomass Energy Crops in Iowa," Park, Iowa State University, Ames. 1996.

"Management Guide for the Production of Switchgrass for Biomass Fuel in Southern Iowa", Teel, Barnhart and Miller, ISU Extension, PM 1710, Ames, Iowa. 1997.

"The Conservation Reserve Program as a Means to Subsidize Bioenergy Crop Prices." Walsh, Becker, and Graham. 1996.

"Field Scale Evaluation of Switchgrass Grown As A Bioenergy Crop In The Northern Plains.", Vogel, Schmer, Perrin, Moser, and Mitchell, (conducted by the North Dakota State University Central Grasslands Research Extension Center). 2002.

"Building on Biomass", by Larry Reichenberger, 2003. (Article in 'The Furrow', John Deere magazine on ARS biomass energy research at Lincoln, NE).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enviro attny on February 2, 2006 - 11:48pm

Based on that, I estimate that we will need about 700,000,000 acres of land to replace our petroleum for transportation. Heck, that is only 37% of the continental United States.

What are we waiting for?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fallout on February 3, 2006 - 10:58am

Unfortunately, there is not anywhere near that much farmland available in the US (375 million, 1997 figures), and the amount left available is shrinking daily, thanks to the suburban building boom.

For example, metropolitan Atlanta claims more than 50 acres A DAY.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that in just the five years between 1992 and 1997 the nation lost 12.8 million acres of agricultural land: cropland (5.3 million acres), pastureland (6.1 million acres), rangeland (1.4 million acres).

Agricultural land also succumbs to forces other than urban development. Arable land is subject to manmade and natural phenomena such as soil erosion, salinization, and waterlogging that can rob its productivity and eventually force its abandonment.

Much of these losses are due to over-exploitation by intensive agricultural practices needed to constantly raise agricultural productivity (yield per acre) in order to provide ever more food for America's and the world's growing populations."
Source:
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/farmland.html

"Ohio is losing its productive farmland at an astonishing rate. According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, Ohio had approximately 21 million acres of land in farms in 1950. By 2002, there were 14 million acres of farmland in Ohio." - Ohio Department of Agriculture

"Our food supply is threatened by development. Eighty-six percent of our fruits and vegetables and 63 percent of our dairy products are produced on the edge of urban areas. The United States is losing two acres of farmland every minute, according to the American Farmland Trust. The rate of loss was 51 percent faster in the 90s than in the 80s. Washington State lost nearly 10,000 prime acres a year between 1992 and 1997 at a rate 30 percent faster than during the previous five years. We're losing the most fertile and productive land most quickly." - American Farmland Trust

Oh well.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enviro attny on February 3, 2006 - 11:44am

my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I pretended like it was at all possible to convert that much land to switchgrass production.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fallout on February 3, 2006 - 12:25pm

I saw that, and you're right on point.
I just wanted to make it clear for the die-hard Greens who see switchgrass as our salvation when the oil runs out. Biomass will play a role, to be sure, but a fairly small one, primarily on a local level.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enviro attny on February 3, 2006 - 12:50pm

My personal expectation is that we can sustainably produce biofuels with an energy capacity equal to about 10% of current usage. With hybrid technology, we may be able to drive 20-30% of the miles we now drive.

I forsee a hell of a lot of coal to liquid facilities being built in the next 10 years. And of course, since they will be cheaper than biofuels (ignoring the environmental costs as we always do), biofuels will only survive because of subsidies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pstarr on February 3, 2006 - 2:58pm

Your energy expectations for biofuels are based on public relations and hyperbole. Haven't you read anything written here? To replace 10% of our gasoline would require our entire current corn crop. That leaves us without livestock feed or pharmaceutical ethanol; much less high-fructose corn syrup for softdrinks and modified corn starch for our microwave-ready entrees.

As for your coal-to-liquid plans, do you think ten years is a reasonable timeframe? How many such plants do we have now? Even if we could build the infrastructure in 10 years (which is doubtful) where would we get the designing engineers, the management, the operations staff, and the experience to put it together?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

peakearl on February 1, 2006 - 4:23pm

Do you have any peer-reviewed sources suggesting it is possible to sustain high productivity with switchgrass, harvested regularly, without fertilizer application? My plant physiology background leaves me skeptical.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LJR on February 1, 2006 - 4:22pm

Here's what I found relating to fertilizer - from your source.

Because it is native, switchgrass is resistant to many pests and plant diseases, and it is capable of producing high yields with very low applications of fertilizer. This means that the need for agricultural chemicals to grow switchgrass is relatively low. Switchgrass is also very tolerant of poor soils, flooding and drought, which are widespread agricultural problems in the southeast.

So tell me, what's not to like here?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 4:24pm

It didn't say no fertilizer. It said low applications of fertlizer.

That's good, but it's bound to up as we keep harvesting it. That's what happens with any crop.

As ever, scaling-up is the problem.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LJR on February 1, 2006 - 4:28pm

It said very low applications of fertilizer. Are we supposed to stop growing food because the crops use fertilizer? I'm trying to figure out what your workable solutions are. The fertilizer being referenced is most likely nitrogen and that can be fixed with legumes or nitrogen fixation nodules on the roots. With that addition Switchgrass may well require no fertilizer other than the trace minerals restored from the byproducts of processing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 4:39pm

Are we supposed to stop growing food because the crops use fertilizer?

No. But we will be forced to choose between fuel and food. And I know which I'd choose.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on February 1, 2006 - 7:24pm

Since your negativity appears irrational and is getting on my nerves, I'm going to ask you to show your reasoning here:

... we will be forced to choose between fuel and food. And I know which I'd choose.

Please list the following sources of bio-fuel which threaten to leave you without food:

Corn cobs and stover.
Switchgrass or Miscanthus Giganticus grown on marginal or erodible land.
Woody or herbacious material harvested from bioremediation crops (e.g. contaminated with heavy metals).

For that matter, chicken takes 2 pounds of feed per pound of bird to beef's 8; switching to chicken would save 3/4 of the grain input and allow it to be used for other things. You could get twice as much chicken for half as much grain, assuming that you consider chicken to be food. You could convert the excess grain to fuel, or use the freed land to grow biofuels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 7:42pm

I've already addressed this, in my first post to this thread.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on February 1, 2006 - 7:44pm

I suspect the beef industry would resist, but, yes, in a perfect world, we could make a lot of efficient moves to drive our fuel and eat it, too.

What I worry about is whether the market, such as it will be, will induce farmers to plant large tracts of potential vehicle fuel at the expense of potential heating fuel or food.

Will Trump refrain from flying his helicopter just so others can have a ration of beans?

We haven't prevented spot famine and deprivation during a half-century of plenty, how can we expect it post-peak?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pstarr on February 1, 2006 - 7:44pm

Currently there are 72 million acres, 112,500 square miles of land devoted to corn (equal to the entire surface area of Iowa and Illinois.) To grow corn for all our gasoline needs would require 562,500 square miles, 1/6 of the country. To replace our all crude petroleum needs would require 1,200,000 square miles of corn, all the land east of the Mississippi. (That is all the land. No more roads, homes, shopping centers, theme parks.) Cellulosic material such as you mentioned has less, not more inherent energy, and so would take more land i.e. most the country.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on February 1, 2006 - 8:23pm

The 2004 corn crop (11.8 billion bushels) was harvested from 73.6 million acres, out of 80.7 million planted. (Source: USDA.)

To grow corn for all our gasoline needs would require 562,500 square miles, 1/6 of the country. To replace our all crude petroleum needs would require 1,200,000 square miles of corn, all the land east of the Mississippi.

Why are you harping on grain from maize when I was talking about crop byproducts and material unfit for food? Neither your grammar nor reading comprehension are up to par.

I'm on record as being opposed to fuel ethanol because of the low conversion efficiency (read the blog). I am in favor of conversion of biomass to charcoal, which is harder to transport but has far more potential as a high-efficiency fuel and as a chemical feedstock.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on February 2, 2006 - 1:28pm

Neither your grammar nor reading comprehension are up to par.

Nice personal attack.

I am in favor of conversion of biomass to charcoal, which is harder to transport but has far more potential as a high-efficiency fuel and as a chemical feedstock.

That model removes the carbon from the soil, not to mention all the micro and macro nutrients. And because you like combining the carbon with zinc in many of your models, the price of zinc would go WAY up, given worldwide populations and energy demand.

The plan works fine, until you try to scale it. Then, the plan breaks down - hard.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on February 2, 2006 - 3:54pm

Substitution of no-till for conventional moldboard tilling increases soil carbon nearly as much as removal of crop stubble by grazing reduces it (reference).

Using perennial biomass crops with large, deep rhizomes and root structures (such as switchgrass or Miscanthus) would increase soil carbon over cropping with annuals.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on February 2, 2006 - 8:42pm

Substitution of no-till for conventional moldboard tilling increases soil carbon nearly as much as removal of crop stubble by grazing reduces it

And this addresses the carbon that leaves the land in the 'make carbon fuel cells/make zinc-carbon batteries' to some processing plant model exactly how?

Because I've seen pointers to your carbon-power plan, but I've NEVER seen you work the numbers for the actual carbon loss from the LAND vs carbon taken from the air.

Using perennial biomass crops with large, deep rhizomes and root structures (such as switchgrass or Miscanthus) would increase soil carbon over cropping with annuals.

The REASON farmers cover crop with ANNUALS is to not have to have farm machernery work as hard as when they want a food crop VS have to try and kill off PERENNIALS when they want to change crops.

You make a broad claim about increasing the soil carbon, but is that due to recycling of the dead grass at the top, or is that Carbon from the air now placed in the roots? Please feel free to addess the actual carbon flow and the effect of removal of carbon to make fuel cells/batteries without ever replacing the carbon back to the land itself.

But - Is there a reason that you have chosen to NOT address the loss of other elements from the land in the 'lets make carbon fuel cells/batteries' model?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 2, 2006 - 12:24am

I imagine that as the Titanic was sinking there were some shrill voices raised to protest the launching of any life boats, because there were not enough life boats to save everybody. The same shrill voices probably kept harping on the negligence of the Cunard line executives, the fact that the Skipper was drinking too much that night, and furthermore, the band was playing out of tune.

All a matter of perceptions and perspectives . . . .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on February 2, 2006 - 1:33pm

I imagine that as the Titanic was sinking there were some shrill voices raised to protest the launching of any life boats, because there were not enough life boats to save everybody.

Offering up 'the plan' as 'save us all' IS EXACLTY the issue.

Plans like 'carbonize the plants, there is enough land' or 'make booze for cars' or 'the hydrogen economy' is usually offered up as 'save everyone'.

The diet of cheap oil has made the chief consumer a pig, and have created a set of unsutainable demand profile.

The cheap oil is comming to an end and a fear for how our fellow man will react is why most of us are here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 2, 2006 - 9:49pm

Dear George Orwell,
Thank you writing your "Politics and the English Language Essay." Where are you, now that we need you?

Were I on board the Titanic at dinner in the First Class section with the Captain, and had I noticed the messages he was getting from the radio room in regard to ice bergs, I would have punched him in the nose or stabbed him with a fork or done something else to disable him, because the guy was criminally irresponsible. For one thing he had the engines going flat out, despite pleas from the Chief Engineer to let them be broken in at lower revs. For another, he would have known better (had he been sober) and reduced speed to "Slow ahead" or stopped for the night, had he been in his right mind. He was not.

Once the ice berg sliced open the hull, it would have made sense to man the life boats immediately, even before a call to abandon ship. Note that by the time the berg was sighted, there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER to save everybody on board. Sometimes we must recognize unpleasant facts and deal with them as best we can. Rhetoric does not make reality go away.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

kjmclark on February 2, 2006 - 11:01am

I think you will all be interested in this report: Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply

Sorry I'm so late with that reference. That report is referenced in the Science article reconsidering whether ethanol is energy positive or negative. I have to say, having read the study and report I'm still quite skeptical. To see why, do a search in the report for "drought". You'll find one hit, "None of the scenarios consider the possibility that technology could overcome yield limitations caused by drought and pests or increase nutrient use efficiency." This sounds to me as though they are completely ignoring the climate change predictions of more drought and heavy precipitation events. But, as usual, technology will solve these drought problems.

I can imagine a day in the future when we have moved a significant percentage of our transportation fuels to biofuels, only to be hit by a multi-year drought that drastically reduces biomass production. We already have farmers giving up irrigation because the high cost of natural gas to fuel their pumps makes it uneconomic.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on February 2, 2006 - 1:22pm

Since your negativity appears irrational and is getting on my nerves,

The 'getting on your nerves' is because he is right, and others have tried to point out to you and all the others 'lets grow grass' or 'lets use tree waste' proposals is:

WHEN DO YOU RETURN THE 'WASTE' TO THE SOIL?

At the point where one can obtain/use one of the grass->liquid fuel processes on 40 acres so that the waste doesn't leave the land AND be able to turn a profit in 5 years, then it is a viable idea.

Otherwise - it is a bad long-term plan.

You feel your nerve being pinched because part of your brain KNOWS it is a bad long term plan.

Please list the following sources of bio-fuel which threaten to leave you without food:

1. Corn cobs and stover.

If the cobs are shipped off to a large processing plant and the 'cob waste' is not returned, after years of doing such you WILL have 'no food'.

2. Switchgrass or Miscanthus Giganticus grown on marginal or erodible land.

What a great plan! Lets base the energy resource on marginal crop yeilds! Marginal land means marginal energy production.

In such an energy proposal, erodable land won't survive the mechnical harvesting of the grasses.

If the energy crop on the land doesn't come in, the taxes on the land are STILL due, and tax demands will result in poor planing over time in many cases.

3. Woody or herbacious material harvested from bioremediation crops (e.g. contaminated with heavy metals).

Now HERE is a workable idea. So long as society decides that the energy needed to seperate contaminates from useful product in the output is worth the energy. Thus far, the track record when there is abundant energy to do such hasn't been so good.

Your three points are nice grass-straw men.

What will end up happening in a grass->liquid fuel model is:

Farmland farmed for corn/soybeans while cutting present supplement rates by farmers who have no heirs who want to carry on the farm (strip mining the land for cash) The 'corn stovers' and 'crop waste' - shipped off the land.
After yeilds drop far enough on food/food waste->energy model, the grass->energy model will be used.
Once the grass->energy strip mining is done, the farmer will 'get out of the busines' and sell the land, having maximized the cash profit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 1, 2006 - 9:21pm

O.K., you want a few sources for a primer on switchgrass, here goes:
www.maproyalty.com/stanford/6-15-05.html
www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR"archive/feb01/bank0201.pdp
www.nrpb.org/papers/034.pdf

The above sources are all free and reputable and provide links to other respected sources of infomation.

Now, I would like to see some sources that claim to refute the well-documented findings cited above. And if there are none to be found, that will be as interesting as the dog that did not bark in the night.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 10:13pm

????

Two of those links are 404. The one that does work does not lead to a peer-reviewed study, but to a "news abstract" of a report written by politicians, George P. Shultz and R. James Woolsey.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pstarr on February 1, 2006 - 10:19pm

man am I ever convinced

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The Interloafer on February 2, 2006 - 11:59am

Don, you need to fix your links. The usda and nrpb links are nonfunctional. You've charged through a few threads and cast doubt on many people's legitimate comments by demanding peer-reviewed sources with an air of righteous indignation. But I haven't seen you provide any sources of your own, until now, sort of. Tremendous effort.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

kjmclark on February 2, 2006 - 12:23pm

The USDA article is actually at "Depositing Carbon in the Bank: The Soil Bank, That Is"

It's an article on sequestering carbon in agricultural soils. It doesn't say that much about switchgrass, except this paragraph:

Vogel and Follett are measuring the amount of carbon stored in the soil when switchgrass is grown as a biofuel crop to determine if it is equivalent to that stored on CRP grasslands. They chose switchgrass because DOE identified it as a promising candidate. DOE found that one of the first areas where switchgrass can be economically grown as a biofuel crop is the Northern Plains. Vogel estimates that switchgrass could yield 500 gallons of ethanol per acre there.

It's interesting, but since that estimate is based on R&D in progress, it doesn't amount to more than an educated guess (along the lines of "someday, fusion will solve all of our energy problems.") That is also only one location, so it doesn't really say anything about the overall resource or whether it could be managed sustainably.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ChrisPhoenix on February 1, 2006 - 5:26pm

I did the numbers a while ago. I don't remember them exactly. But switchgrass wasn't too much higher than other plants: a few percent efficient, and that's before ethanol conversion. Photovoltaics are about an order of magnitude better.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 2, 2006 - 12:19am

The problem with using solar energy to generate electricity is that the sun does not shine all the time, and there are no reasonably good ways to store electricity in large quantities. That is a damn shame, and I wish some of the creative ideas of the 1950s (such as huge very fast spinning fly wheels) had panned out--but none of them have. Thus, you run into the problem with both wind and solar power that backup facilities (e.g. natural gas turbines) are needed, and once you start adding up the capital costs, take account of the extremely expensive initial cost (both in terms of money and fossil fuels) of photo voltaic arrays, costs of maintenance and cleaning, limited life (probably less than 20 years; nobody really knows), it becomes clear that with present-day technology photovoltaic power generation will have only niche uses.

Wind power is pretty good up to supplying about 15% of total power to a grid, after than you run into huge problems from interruptibility.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

light299 on February 2, 2006 - 12:58am

Have you seen the projects in the mojave? Instead of converting solar directly to electric, reflecting troughs concentrate the sun onto a tube filled with... was it molten salt or oil... well here's the source http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/parabolrinnenkraftwerk-e.html (since you are so fond of them). Anywayz, the heated salt (or oil) then heats another closed loop of water (though other systems have been suggested). The water spins a turbine... you get the idea. The unique idea for energy storage was to dig into the ground, and store large amounts of the fluid in said ground overnight. During the night, the fluid could still be pumped out allowing continuous power generation. If nothing else, the turbine could be a hybrid which would also run of NG, or ethanol, or hemp depending on who's numbers you believe. Either way, the system will operate for just about forever, and has much better conversion factor than photovoltaics.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

StigDK on February 2, 2006 - 8:17am

Don wrote:

Wind power is pretty good up to supplying about 15% of total power to a grid, after than you run into huge problems from interruptibility.

For your information:
In 2005 wind turbines produced 17% of the electricity consumption in Denmark. On a windy day the turbines would produce maybe 50% of the total power with no problem. Within a few years the wind energy production is expected to increase to 25% with 50% as a longer time goal. The problems from 'interuptibility' are not considered 'huge' but as a technical challenge :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

StigDK on February 2, 2006 - 8:31am

Sorry, the numbers for 2005 are not out yet. I really meant 2004. However, I just checked and found to my surprise that the official number for 2004 is 18.5% wind share of Danish electricity consumption.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 2, 2006 - 9:33am

You are also connected to the Swedish grid where we have lots of easily regulated hydro power. 50% wind power in Denmark is no problem if some more new high tension lines and HVDC links are built. This is easy to finance if you sell wind power for a lower price then you buy hydro power using Swedish hydro dams as energy storage. So build as much as you can if you can finance the wind powerplants.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on February 2, 2006 - 1:39pm

The problem with using solar energy to generate electricity is that the sun does not shine all the time, and there are no reasonably good ways to store electricity in large quantities.

Perhaps the model of 'electrical power all the time' is the issue?

Perhaps the level of expectation is unacceptable?

That is a damn shame,

Yup. Damn broken models.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LJR on February 1, 2006 - 4:14pm

Well then, I eagerly await your positive, workable energy alternatives - short of waiting for the dieoff. Do you really think that growing Switchgrass in areas of the US that won't support other crops has something to do with taking resources from Africa? One scarcely knows what to do with such comments - they make no sense. As a matter of fact it is arguable that energy grown here lightens the load we place on other countries.

Apparently if we have a less than perfect solution you're not interested in even considering it. You'd better start looking around because that's not the world we live in. Every solution produces new problems - it's in the nature of things. The best we can do is try to come up with practical solutions that create immediate and manageable problems (read Switchgrass) vs: long term and expensive problems (read conventional Nuclear). I'd much rather we move toward biofuels than nuclear energy but I think we'll need both if we wish to make a gradual transition to lower energy utilization.

I assert that we all should heartily endorse and encourage the use of alternative, hardy crops like Switchgrass and Hemp. With Hemp we can solve our natural fiber problem and the Marijuana problem in one stroke. Hemp cross breeds like crazy with Cannabis (Marijuana) and diminishes its potency. Put one field of industrial grade Hemp next to a field of high grade Pot plants and you'll turn them into rope material in two generations. Takes a lot of selective breeding to make good drugs.

It ain't perfect or even a very pretty world but it's what I have to work with and work with I shall. Energy harvest is the name of game where life is concerned. If we want to live in a world of plenty we're going to have to work very hard and keep a good attitude toward the many challenges. Stuart, to my way of thinking, has exactly that kind of approach. Quantitative, analytical, practical and modest.

If we assume nitrogen fixation is handled by legumes or genetic mods and that the trace minerals left behind after distillation or burning are returned to the soil, do you have any further objections? What about that approach is not long term? The only things we are extracting are hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. Those do not come from the soil. The hydrogen comes from water. Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen come from the air.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 4:36pm

Do you really think that growing Switchgrass in areas of the US that won't support other crops has something to do with taking resources from Africa?

I think growing more biofuel means growing less food. We will not be able to produce enough of both. Unless we import crops from other countries.

You'd better start looking around because that's not the world we live in. Every solution produces new problems - it's in the nature of things.

Exactly. Complexity has an energy cost. In the long run, we are going to have reduce our level of complexity.

FWIW, I'd be more inclined to support nuclear power than biofuels. The numbers are better for nuclear.

Though in the long run, I don't think nuclear is sustainable, either. Mining in general is going to a lot harder without cheap oil, uranium mining included.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ChrisPhoenix on February 1, 2006 - 5:35pm

"Complexity has an energy cost."

The energy cost is barely related to the amount of complexity. Look at computers--the most complex things we've built. They use so little energy that we'll still be able to use them post-peak.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/10/121435/96#8

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 5:55pm

That's not what I meant. I meant complexity in the sense Tainter uses it. Basically, the overhead of maintaining a complex society.

IOW, not just the power to run the computer, but the energy it takes to support the societal complexity that allows computers to be made and used. The energy it takes to the mine and refine materials, educate the people to design and manufacture it, all the other industries that have to support it, the coordination between the all the different people working on it, the military that protects the overseas factories, etc.

For most of human history, people more or less produced what they ate. Few people had the luxury of specializing in something other than foraging or farming. A hundred years ago, 97% of Americans were farmers. Now it's the opposite: 3% of Americans are farmers, and they support the rest of us. Oil made that possible.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pstarr on February 1, 2006 - 10:22pm

consumers do not understand such complicated notions: complexity? Things come out of boxes or TVs. period.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on February 1, 2006 - 5:55pm

How long will your hard drive last, post-peak? What about the energy required to make replacements? And to make the machines that make them? How much energy does it take to build and maintain a clean room?

How fast can you pedal?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ChrisPhoenix on February 1, 2006 - 8:25pm

Post-peak, energy won't vanish entirely. It will get more expensive. Maybe a lot more expensive. And barring a comprehensive global crash of the 90% dieoff kind, technology will not disappear either.

Suppose that energy gets ten times as expensive, and drives up the cost of products in proportion (which is pessimistic). Then the price of a cheap computer will go up from $500 to... $5000, which is probably less (in adjusted dollars) than a PC cost when they first came out. And the cost of energy to run that cheap computer will go up from $.02 per hour to $0.20 per hour. And after a few years of $5000 computers, someone would come out with a 500-MHz machine running an efficient operating system that cost a lot less to make because it was built with 1999 requirements and 2009 technology.

Think about how valuable Wikipedia would be in a post-crash scenario. Think about how valuable email will be if the postal service starts charging $3.00 per letter. (Oh, wait, no one sends "snail mail" letters anymore; computers are already saving resources.)

Think about the fact that Intel only sells $10 billion a year of computer chips, compared to a US GDP of $12 trillion. Computer chips are even more super-cheap than $20/barrel oil in terms of the value they can generate. At the same time, if you took 50% of the transistors out of a computer, you'd hardly notice unless you were a hardcore game-player.

Heh, while researching this post, I found this great factoid: "Power dissipation can be reduced as much as 50% simply by designing the chip to operate 10% to 20% slower."
http://www.linleygroup.com/columns/nikkei0104.html

In one of the previous threads where I've discussed this, I pointed out that a single grain of rice could purchase hundreds of transistors. Someone responded that they didn't want to be in a position of choosing between transistors and grains of rice. That's a pointless comment, because it completely misses the point that only a hardcore apocalypticon would predict a future where people can't afford to buy a few million transistors. You don't sound like an apocalypticon. If you don't want me to decide that you're a crypto-apocalypticon, please either quit arguing or argue with numbers. (But first read the previous thread; the numbers are already there, and they agree with me.)

Sorry if I sound pushy. I really want to avoid a long drawn-out discussion that would pit doom-ism against optimism. The alternative is to have a discussion with actual numbers. That's already been done; see my link above. Either confront the numbers, or quit the discussion--or I will.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 8:58pm

I think it's misleading to discuss costs in isolation that way. It's the whole system - the matrix of complexity - that will become too expensive, not just one particular item.

Sure, Wikipedia is worth a lot. But as the economy slows and we all become poorer, people will start dropping off the Internet. They can't afford the ISP fees, say, or their computer breaks or is stolen, and they aren't going to pay $5,000 for a new one - not when they're having trouble paying for food and heat. Maybe the power system becomes unreliable, and you're never sure you'll be able to get to a given Web site. People who have been hosting Web sites at their own expense can no longer afford to do so. Companies who were dependent on banner ads go belly-up. Eventually, so many people and Web sites drop off the net that Internet access becomes worth less and less. Wikipedia goes dark. Or is taken over by the government and filled with propaganda. Even the people who can afford Internet access don't bother with it. ISPs start dying. Computers don't sell very well, so companies who make them go out of business. Sure, the knowledge of how to make them remains, at least for a few generations, but computers are considered toys by then.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ChrisPhoenix on February 3, 2006 - 7:37am

Please either:

Explain how your scenario does not lead to massive dieoff;
Admit that you're talking a massive dieoff scenario.

While you're asking me to consider the big picture, you consider it too. If we don't have the know-how and technology to make even minimal computers, then we probably can't make and ship fertilizer either. And we probably don't have weather forecasting. Or any of the other things that allow mass agriculture to feed six billion people.

I agree that in a massive dieoff scenario, we probably wouldn't have computers or infrastructure. In fact, we'd probably Easter-Island several of our continents on our way down.

Now, what about a muddling-through scenario? Can we agree that if we manage to keep enough technology to avert more than, say, a gigadeath, then we will also have computers--and the computers will be affordable and useful?

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 3, 2006 - 10:22am

I'm not necessarily talking about a massive dieoff scenario. If I had to bet, I'd say massive dieoffs would happen in areas already prone to them, like Africa. We would merely suffer a drastic drop in our standard of living. Best case scenario, we slowly reduce our population, over decades or centuries.

No, I actually believe the opposite. We will be forced to choose between maintaining our population and maintaining our technology. Stanton caused a ruckus, but I think he is essentially right. We can maintain a lot of people in abject poverty, or a few people with a decent standard of living.

In short, I think it's likely we will lose our technology in order to avert a dieoff.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 3, 2006 - 1:07pm

It is our technology that allows us to maintain our population. Low technology gives low population. One of the quickest ways to mass death would be to abandon technology.

But advanced technology is not the same thing as a high rate of resource consumption. A fraction of todays factories could build repairable gadgets and tools that lasts for generations before recycling. But they will produce much more then that as long as we can afford it. It is mostly up to individual people to buy things that last and can be recyceld.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 3, 2006 - 1:48pm

It is our technology that allows us to maintain our population. Low technology gives low population. One of the quickest ways to mass death would be to abandon technology.

I understand that. But it's cheap and abundant energy that supports that technology.

My idea of the best-case scenario is that we gradually scale back - population and technology. So there's no dieoff, just a gradual decrease.

I don't see us "abandoning" technology so much as relinquishing it, little by little, as we no longer need it or can no longer afford it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 3, 2006 - 3:29pm

Universities, development laboratories, pilot plants, chemical synthesis plants, small batch steel manufacturing, etc do not need especially large ammounts of energy. It would not be hard to run such institutions and industries on hydro power and biomass power, and then we have nuclear power, wind power and solar power.

Cheap and abundant energy supports the massive use of technology for mass manufacturing of goods. We do not have to give up technology if we for instance give up mass manufacturing of SUV:s for distribution trucks and scooters. Or railways and bicycles.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 3, 2006 - 4:05pm

Universities, development laboratories, pilot plants, chemical synthesis plants, small batch steel manufacturing, etc do not need especially large ammounts of energy.

I think they do. Again, I'm not talking about just the energy they consume by existing, but the larger picture.

A hundred years ago, 97% of Americans were farmers. Today, it's reversed: 3% of Americans are farmers, and they feed the rest of us. It's oil that has allowed that. For most of human history, it has been very difficult to support the kind of societal complexity that allows a lot of people to work as specialists who do not directly produce things.

I'm reminded of my old high school, which was in what used to be a very rural area. The old-timers remembered when the school was open through summer, and closed for three months in the fall. The kids were needed to work the farms during harvest, so the school changed the usual vacation time to accommodate the farmer's schedule. Nevertheless, many kids ended up dropping out. They were needed to work the family farm, and a lot of families saw school as a waste of time.

Now, I don't think we're all suddenly going to go back to the land. But we'll be gradually pushed to it, by socioeconomic forces.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 3, 2006 - 5:37pm

All of those 97% non farmers are not needed for supporting the 3% farmers.

Only a small fraction is needed for the farming equipment manufacturers and so on. You probably get more work done if you grow feed for methane fermentation tanks then for horses.

I suspect that at least 3/4 of all people is not needed for anything at all for our technological culture exept keeping each other company and at best producing company and culture for the other 1/4. Having more people also increases the ammount of random bright or genious people but that may not make much of a difference when there is billions of us and we have good communications.

On the other hand, farming by hand could be a great way to keep those 3/4 busy with work and thus increase their quality of life. Perhaps by keeping the weeds out of vegetables? During wintertime people can for instance make hand crafted furniture and other things where precission and identical results is not essential.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 3, 2006 - 6:09pm

I think there's probably an optimal balance, that gets you enough people maintain a certain amount of complexity, but not so many we are facing Malthusian limits. Getting there and staying there is a whole different question, of course.

On the other hand, farming by hand could be a great way to keep those 3/4 busy with work and thus increase their quality of life.

That's it exactly. The economics will change. It will become more reasonable to use manual laborers than to buy farm equipment and fuel for it.

During the Great Depression, the U.S. suffered the most because we were the most industrialized. Many of the people living in the city fled to the country. They went to live with relatives who farmed, because on a farm, you at least had food, and wood for heat. I think we might quickly reach the point where a job on a farm in exchange for food and board seems like a good deal.

I think Tainter is right: we are already facing diminishing returns on technology. That is, we are getting less and less return on our investments in science and technology. This is natural; the lowest fruit is picked first. I'm sure there are still lots of new discoveries to be made, but we will have to work a lot harder for them, and they will give us fewer benefits than previous discoveries have. Over 90% of the scientists who have ever lived on earth are alive now, but we aren't making the kind of technological "progress" we did in the first half of the 20th century. I just don't see how we will be able to continue on this path when the cheap oil is gone.

Now, that doesn't mean we're suddenly be back to the Stone Age. It does mean we will have to make some choices. In fact, I think we already are. The Bush adminstration has slashed funding for scientific research - except for military-related research.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 3, 2006 - 6:39pm

is India low or high tech country/culture? I would say high tech.

75% work by hand and then we have tractors, internet, electricity, nuclear powerplants, satellite weather forcasts and nerds running supercomputer climate simulations. It might even give healthier lifestyles.

I think most farmers rather have one tractor then 50 people doing the work by hand and methane fermentation equipment powering the tractor is much easier to feed. But getting rid of weeds replaces pesticides that may have bad side effects and you might even put the weeds into the fermentation tank.

Tiny little Sweden will probably choose to build infrastructure, technology demonstrators and do research. A ramp up of weapons research and production and defence force build up will probably not happen untill we get more immediate threaths. This is a little sad from a pure tecnology nerd perspective since Gripen is probably the last Swedish jet fighter. It is very nice to have USA as a friend and if arms is your speciality you better be good at it. We will be happy to sell iron ore, speciality steel (Swedish steel exports were almost unhurt by the US tarrifs since most of the export were extreme high performing steels not manufactured in USA. ), telecommunications equipment and other technical stuff including weapons from the arms manufacturers you own in Sweden. We will probably do our best to not use any oil at all thus leaving more for other countries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 3, 2006 - 8:06pm

is India low or high tech country/culture? I would say high tech.

I would, too. But I greatly fear a dieoff in countries like India as oil gets scarcer. I don't think they will be high-tech for very long.

I think most farmers rather have one tractor then 50 people doing the work by hand and methane fermentation equipment powering the tractor is much easier to feed.

Probably, but eventually the day will come when there are no tractors available.

I could also see the government confiscating farmland, and putting the poor to work on it. As a replacement for welfare and food stamps.

Some countries will definitely do better than others. European countries might do fairly well. A lot of their infrastructure was build before oil, and they could go back with relatively little pain (compared to the U.S.). Many European countries have very low birthrates, even shrinking populations, which will probably help, too (unless there's a war). And there's the more socialist outlook in general.

I think Japan may do well, too. They are very aware of environmental issues. Though the population is much higher than it was in the pre-industrial days, they have a low and falling birthrate. Being an island will probably help. (I have a feeling immigration is going to be a huge issue in the early part of the post-carbon age.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 3, 2006 - 8:24pm

> Probably, but eventually the day will come when there are no tractors available.

But why? The farmer can produce more with it and can thus pays for it and its spare parts. Having a tractor on the farm makes more resources available and that supports the tractor manufacturer. Why should all the tractor industries, nuclear powerplants, etc curl up and die when they make stuff usefull? These machines can not be replaced with bare hands. (Well of course, the tractor can be replaced with bare hands if there is a lot less people to feed. )

If our technological economy contracts with an outragous 90% I assume that the remaining 10% will be extraordinary valuble and anything will be done to keep it going. About 10% would not be that hard to run on hydro power, nuclear power, biomass, etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on February 4, 2006 - 12:54pm

I suspect that technology will endure, but will be frightfully expensive.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on February 1, 2006 - 6:06pm

Ahem. Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your kind attention for just a moment? Please cast your eyes on this new tractor I have here. Note the big hopper on the back of it. That is where you put the bales of straw, hemp, switchgrass or whatever you have around for the engine to run on. Please keep in mind that a 20 kg compacted bale of any of those will do the work of at least 8 liters of diesel for this engine, and as you all know, costs a LOT less. The engine munches up the straw, etc, and stuffs it into a very hot burner that heats the ends of 4 cylinders having pistons that are running up and down. These pistons are not cranking a crank, instead they are pumping the gas they work on (helium at about 50 atmospheres) over a fast spinning turbine that is driving a compact very efficient 50kW alternator. The alternator is running everything else you want with electric motors. So there you have it, a biomass energy generator for your farm. NO oil anywhere, in or out, and of course it is made in a factory that is run the very same way with just a much bigger such engine, or windmills or solar or what have you.

The engine takes in any kind of plants, and puts out electricity, heat, ashes, water and carbon dioxide. The ashes go on the ground which is grateful to get them back, and the rest goes into the atmosphere from whence it came.

We will guarantee this hermetically sealed engine to last your lifetime with NO MANTENANCE and not terminate either itself or you prematurely. Note the nice forest green color. Very symbolic if you get my meaning. What am I bid?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 6:50pm

Sounds like the turkey parts plant to me. It sounded great in theory, but in practice, it cost three times as much as planned, and instead of $15 dollar oil, it produced $80 oil. And really stunk up the joint. To the point that it was ordered closed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ChrisPhoenix on February 1, 2006 - 8:57pm

Yeah, it was so stinky, it continued to produce complaints even when it wasn't running--I've read that in a couple of places. Funny how that works. Don't suppose those complaints might have been motivated by something else?

There's an interesting un-referenced claim over at Wikipedia right now: "Although there were complaints of a "smell" coming from the plant, complaints were still being placed even when the plant wasn't operating. The complaints stopped when the complainers were identified. Investigators are looking into the case believing that the tipsters were biofuel competitors to the TCP plant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 1, 2006 - 9:05pm

Possibly, though at least some of the complainers were named by name in the local articles I've read.

In any case, I think the inefficiency is more of a problem than the smell. They could always put the plant out in the middle of nowhere. If it could really produce $15 a barrel oil, it would be worth it. But for $80/barrel oil - probably not. At least, not yet.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 1, 2006 - 7:07pm

I would be more tempted to buy it if it came with a maintainance schedule instead of a no maintainance claim. No real farmer believes that something mechanical can be run withouth maintainance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on February 1, 2006 - 7:37pm

Note that wiley salesman was only talking about the ENGINE. Since you can't get into it, you can't maintain it. Just like my fridge. I have had that old clunker for about 30 years, and it's still clunking. As for the rest of that tractor, he says you can go ahead and maintain it to your heart's content.

Did you know that one of the causes of failure of tractors is over-maintenance?

No sale anyhow? Curses, foiled again. Maybe should learn Mandarin

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 1, 2006 - 8:02pm

How often is it to be sent to the factory for refurbishment?

If I had money and I could see your engine work, test it and read thru your documentation I would buy a distribution licence and a couple for resale. I would probably rebuild it for wood pellet fiering as a miniture stationary combined heat and power engine.

No, I have never heard about over-maintainance of tractors. But I know that sloppy work letting dirt get inside hydraulic systems is a problem.

I would recommend you to scrap your fridge and buy a new one that uses far less electricity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on February 1, 2006 - 8:25pm

You probably just tell them that it's a Stirling-hybrid. At least I think that's what you're talking about.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dipchip on February 2, 2006 - 9:22am

Doesn't a Stirling use hydrogen?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on February 2, 2006 - 1:42pm

Doesn't a Stirling use hydrogen?

You can use any working gas, but hydrogen 'raises' the engine efficency is all.

One 'plan' had a 1hp engine, made from pressed metal and using Nitrogen and costing $89 in container load quanities existed.

http://www.omachron.com/ was the designer but blames events of 2001-09-11 on why the engine didn't happen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

HTevC on February 1, 2006 - 8:06pm

I understood the amount of helium available for use on our planet was extremely finite. Once the helium escapes into the atmosphere it is not possible to use again. If this is correct, any future dependance on a device that uses helium would be questionable. Is there another gas that can be used in the proposed tractor?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on February 1, 2006 - 11:44pm

Friends, I am grateful to be able to respond to such insightful questions, you are quite right to note that dirty maintenance is indeed a more accurate description of the problem than over-maintenance. And it is so true that my old fridge should be terminated with extreme prejudice, albeit with due care to capture the devil dwelling inside (freon). It has after all served its purpose of demonstrating the possibility of life of a no-maintenance mechanical device. And I have again been caught out in attempting to sell a stirling while cowering behind the misleading moniker of tractor engine. And while we salesmen usually get away with the helium caper, we are fully prepared, when pressed, to aver that these marvels can and do run well on just plain nitrogen, or even, if you will, just even plainer air. That makes the engine fatter, but not much else. But as a proud owner you will get greater gasps of admiration if you will accept a svelte and lively helium one, and may assuage your conscience by the thought that even at 50 atmospheres, there is less helium in it than in a bunch of party balloons. One can with confidence assume that there are and with luck will remain a lot more parties than tractors.

Now, would you prefer racing stripes, or no?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sacerdos on February 2, 2006 - 10:42am

So, how big is this engine, how much can it haul, and how much does it cost?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

scorned by the cockroach on February 2, 2006 - 3:57am

Speaking now for my nephew the active farmer in the family.

Sounds wonderful, but I can't afford it. Also, aside from my old New Idea manure spreader and a grain auger, there is no equipment on my farm that this tractor can handle. So, how much bigger would one that can produce 110kW have to be and what would it cost?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on February 2, 2006 - 9:44am

Do I sense some progress in my little sales effort here? These machines (you can call them stirling turbine in your search engine) are easily scaleable to any size commonly occupied by diesels, that is to say you name it. 110kW no problem, just a bigger appetite.

And it is quite true that hydrogen works well. Indeed, best. However it tends to wander thru the hot metal, one proton being much like another. On the other hand, this process is slow,and a little juice diverted to pulling water apart will more than make up for the leak.

As for cost, one piece of iron is also much like another one, except that these things need some high temp metal, but not much of it, so multiply your diesel cost by maybe 1.3 and you have a generous estimate. (mass production, of course). then you factor in the fuel, global warming, government actions on fossil fuels and so on as we all know so well, and you are way ahead.

And just for you, kind customer, the racing stripes are free!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

scorned by the cockroach on February 2, 2006 - 3:27pm

Well, it really does sound nice and I do like the whole Stirling concept. But, I've just overhauled two of my big diesel tractors. I also have two diesel combines and a diesel pickup. It would be orders of magnitude cheaper for me to set up a small lab in my workshop and cook a few gallons/week of biodiesel from my soy beans. Maybe I'd even try growing a little rape for the biodiesel.

Thanks anyway and good luck.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on February 2, 2006 - 6:39pm

It is with sincere gratitute that I accept these words of encouragement. Thus propelled, I shall now scoot off to the local beady-eyed venture capitalist to see what can be done in furtherance of this great crusade. Meanwhile, back on the farm, I too cook up the local grease and corn for the nourishment of my diesel, my Toyota and myself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on February 1, 2006 - 7:32pm

Hemp is a great plant, even though potheads tend to confuse the kind that produces a lot of THC with the more common kind that is great for rope, fabric, and all sorts of other things. Again, it is called weed because it grows like a weed--does not need fertilizer.

For the information of those who have not had Botany 1 or the equivalent in college, lots of plants do not require any nitrogen fertilizer at all, e.g. legumes. Others will yield more if you add more nitrogen (like switch grass), but they do not really need it. Corn and some other plants that produce a lot of protein (which is nitrogen rich) do require a heckuva lot of nitrogen. But holy smokes, we are drowning in manure in many rural areas. Also a historical note: Soils fertilized with natural manures have retained their fertility for up to 5,000 years of intensive cultivation in some cases. The trick is not to ruin your topsoil with salinization from improper irrigation or use inappropriate soils for plow agriculture, as was done before the Dust Bowl era.

Sustainable agriculture is something that many human cultures have figured out how to do.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fallout on February 2, 2006 - 1:37pm

I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but peanuts (a legume), grown in large quantities here in Georgia (the land of Jimmy Carter himself) ARE most certainly fertilized. They also require regular sprayings of pesticides and fungicides, and significant drying time.
Drying uses copious quantities of natural gas.

"While peanuts require less nitrogen fertilizer in the field, the harvested crop does require the use of natural gas in the drying process. Boyd said the cost of drying peanuts has increased nearly $4 per ton costing their operation an additional $4,000 in drying costs last year."

I used to work for USDA/APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), and guess what we did there?

http://www.gfb.org/gfbnews/april_05/april3.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 2, 2006 - 12:25am

IMO, what Leanon fears from is using new resoure-intensive remedies which may produce unpredictable results if scaled in future.

In this case the key is the resource required - the land. Currently it may seem a good idea to devote some land to ethanol and biofuels. Ok, I'm for that, the economics looks OK, even the EROEI should be higher than 1.34 IMO (more like 3-4). But you can not envision what type of problems this could lead to, in a post peak society if things start getting desparate... Can you guarantee for example that we will not cut down our forests to grow switchgrass? I can not... That's why I'd rather encourage us emphasizing on the other alternatives while we still have the resources to do it, instead of betting huge amount of them on a potential timebomb. If we are going to make biofuels and ethanol they must be a part of the solution, and we must make sure that they remain only a part of it, and also a controllable part.

P.S. Disclaimer: as a person that grew in a village I am brought up with... you may call close to a religious attitude towards land; using it to grow fuel instead of feeding people feels to me as a sin. Hope I'm wrong about that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dipchip on February 2, 2006 - 9:42am

Back in the 30's & 40's when my Father farmed 160 acres with 5 or 6 horses, 40 acres were dedicated to feeding the horses. Even if EROEI of bio fuels is 2 rather than 1.34, Half of the farm would be dedicated to Next years energy requirements.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TJ on February 1, 2006 - 3:11pm

Seeing as it's going to take longer than twenty years to switch to biofuels you better be really sure that it works. If peak oil is here or close you're only going to get one shot at a replacement. Eliminating anything is a bad idea.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davidsmi on February 1, 2006 - 3:48pm

In the long run YOU may be dead, but what of your children? your grandchildren?

I'm all for transition strategies, but ultimately the only solution is a massive reduction of our consumption to a sustainable level.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on February 1, 2006 - 3:58pm

Massive reduction of resource consumption. Consumption of culture can remain very high, consumption of 99% recycleable trinkets can remain high, not all luxuries need to use up a lot of resources.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Subkommander Dred on February 1, 2006 - 9:03pm

"The point here is that we've got a major problem and when a suggestion like Switchgrass comes up I think we can do better than wring our hands and talk about why it JUST CAN'T WORK IN THE LONG RUN. Hell, in the long run we're dead. If we can get something going that gets us through the next twenty years I'll be fine with that."

Isn't that the type of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

264 comments on Numbers and the State of the Union Energy segment

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.' The former will win every time.”

—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006