118 comments on Energy Grades and Historic Economic Growth
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
118 comments on Energy Grades and Historic Economic Growth
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base.”
—Bruce Sterling
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I disagree with Reynold's claim that solar thermal energy is difficult to store over long periods of time. A simple coaxial pipe extending hundreds of feet underground through which heated oil or molten salts circulate could store useful heat for many months. It may take many months to build up the thermal charge but once charged the heat could be used whenever needed. If the water table is too close to the surface then a mound of cheap sand and gravel could be built and thermally charged.
It Aint So Bad
There is a central flaw in this energy analysis of history. That is the lack of depth in recognizing solar power, and other alternatives. The PHEV, nearing reality with each passing day, will result in radical reductions in fossil oil demand. Our existing power grid is up to the task, as PHEVs can be expected to re-charge at night, when demand is lower. Meanwhile, solar offers the ability to bost grid output in sunlight, and effectively. We have nukes too.
Since the PHEV promises to be a reality before China and India acquire large fleets of cars, the expected increases in fossil oil use in those countries could in fact turn out to be decreases. India is moving heavily into jatropha, an oil-bearing shrub.
World oil consumption rose just 0.7 percent last year, after a 1.4 percent hike in 2005, and a 3.1 percent bump in 2004 (BP stats). It appears the world is already de-linking economic growth from fossil oil use, even though the price signal (higher oil prices) is rather recent. It is worth noting that the 0.7 percent increase in demand is far below the 2,2 annual increases in fossil demand most modelers use. We can expect more effective conservation and fuel-switching going forward.
OPEC a few days back released a report saying it expected less, not more, oil demand in 2008. Okay, they could be hiding their inability to produce more, or they could be posturing, or they could be telling the truth.
Whatever OPEC intends, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The good news is that fossil oil demand may recede more quickly than declining oil output, and certainly could with minimally clever government policies.
Likely, we are seeing Peak Demand in 2007, and a surprisingly easy transition to a Post-Fossil Economy, one in which oil demand decreases every year, even though economic growth is okay.
Viewing history through technological lenses is valuable, and I wish history courses were a little more oriented that way. But, one must be careful to anticipate innovative responses to "shortages," which has propelled technological breakthroughs time and time again.
Itaintsobad
Are you smoking pot this morning? Solar doesn't work except in the middle of the day, and you are talking about the time when photo electric vehicles are in use.
Wind Turbines are a different matter.
Bob Ebersole
Oilmanbob, you would agree that increases in battery techonlogy such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery
Adding these to the grid could store this solar power during the day for use at night. I wouldn't count solar out yet, as I say think 3 dimensionally.
theantidoomer
I didn't count out solar, which I wholeheartedly support, along with wind. What I did was criticise a stupid statement for being stupid. How can anyone expect to win an uphill argument against the inertia of America with arguements that don't make sense, or poorly researched data?
Bob Ebersole
I understand where you are coming from, Bob, The first thing I can think of to rectify the discord is called "extra battery pack". That way, the batteries are charged during the day, switched out when you drive into the garage, and you are ready to go for the next day.
If an easily swapped battery tray under the car is too difficult, then think about simply getting 2 cars. One would charge, and one would be driven.
The cheapest solution (and the most sensible to me) is to only work 4 days a week, and charge the car the other 3.
We have to stop thinking that we NEED to replace the current auto-oriented sytem with another wasteful system. Most people aren't driving to jobs where they operate machines any more. They are driving someplace to sit on their arse and punch keys or look at each other in meetings. That can easily be done at home now. Those that do have to go to a particular place can be picked up by their employer if they are so valuable, and be charged a fee by the employer, or coordinated by all local establishments (schools, churches, employers) to create a convenient system, including rental car pools for emergencies and errands.
Meanwhile a lot of cars can be idled to get charged for occasional use.
The cheapest scheme is to move the energy from where it's being produced to where the car happens to be parked, thus eliminating both the need to swap batteries and the capital expense of another set.
I understand that this is possible with a great invention known as the "electrical grid", combined with another really neat product called "extension cords". I'd love to live in a world where everyone has heard of these things.
I could see swappable batteries for fleets, like taxis, which rarely get parked for 10-20 hours per day.
Otherwise, too much trouble. Batteries are charging faster & faster these days.
And indeed the Modec - a commercial delivery van - notes it has easily-swappable batteries.
A 53kWh battery (like in Tesla's car) hooked up to a regular 220V, 20-amp circuit could theoretically recharge from dry in about 13 hours, adding ~18 miles/hr of range. From the sounds of it, it's a little slower than that, but not much.
Considering that the average commute to work in the US is just 16 miles, that's only 2 hours of recharge time per daily commute.
The typical dryer circuit is more like 30 amps.
If you're not afraid of welding cable, it's certainly possible to feed 500 amps or more over reasonably flexible wires. The Tesla Roadster battery pack operates at 375 volts nominal. If you could push 500 amps into it, you could put 53 kWh into the batteries in 17 minutes.
"Solar doesn't work except in the "middle" of the day????????
Can we have a source on that one?
RC
Roger, how can solar work when the sun is out of sight? And its a heck of a lot more effective when the sun is directly overheadT.hat seems pretty self-evident. I'm sure solar cells work a little with from sunshine at an obliqe angle, but all the concentrators and motore adjusting the angle of many solar cells to a 90 degree agle seems to argue that design engineers want the sun where there are smaller shadows and the sun's rays don't go through as much atmosphere.And thats the middle of the day.
Even a liberal arts major is capable of observation.
But, I was on a tear yesterday. I apologise for being a horse's ass, and that means to It Ain't So Bad. I get worried about other things sometimes and have been known to take it out on others, and that was bad manners.
Bob Ebersole
Solar works ALL of the time:
I write at night and my office and computer are solar powered, running on batteries. By 10 AM the next morning my batteries have recharged from the night's work. During the rest of the day, the office runs directly from the panels until sunset, then it is back on batteries. They also charge my electric car and pump water from my well. The primary purpose for this solar system was to provide emergency power during a blackout, but it is always available, so I use it.
The key is solar tracking: My eight panels are set up on a refrigerant-powered tracker that works from solar heating to cause the tilt to change- always looking at the sun. A tracker increases collected energy by approx 40 percent, and extends the solar day from sunrise to sunset, and does not require additional energy for operation.
I can also judge cloud cover by the collector current. It decreases during a rain storm, but fog is hardly discernable. During heavy cloud cover, charging may take until noon to complete.
The location is west of the Cascades in central Oregon. If solar will work here, it should work nearly everywhere.
I can also measure a small collector current during a full moon, by reflection from the sun. The tracker doesn't work without solar heat so this current is only available when the moon passes over the collectors- whatever their position.
Yes Solar works!
I have written two books on this system: Emergency Electricity From Solar Energy- Vols 1 and 2. by Ralph W. Ritchie,
Vol 1 is how it was designed and built and Vol 2 is operation and applications. They are my proof.
Questions? ralph-ritchie@comcast.net
The PHEVs re-charge at night. In the United States (and, I assume, all over the world) electrical grids reach peak loads in the day. The PHEVs, largely, at that time will be in use, on the road or parked at work. We need solar to boost the capacity of our grid for other uses. Wind power too, and nukes, I don't really care what, as long as it is not fossil fuel (sorry, anti-nukies, everything has a cost).
The main point is that we can obtain economic growth, even while fossil oil use declines. We are close to doing so now, on a worldwide basis, and PHEVs have not even been introduced yet. If oil rises in price, you can be assured they will be (although I contend automakers should first introduce PHEVs as luxury cars, not enviro-mobiles).
Between biofuels (read up on E3's ethanol plant, and jatropha) and PHEVs, we can easily obtain radical reductions in fossil oil use, while decreasing pollution, and enjoying economic growth. Indeed, if oil ever crosses over $100 a barrel, this will be a likely outcome.
The real problem is that the United States does not want to tax gasoline consumption. That would really put the nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel use coffin.
Already, reductions in fossil oil demand are threatening to collapse oil prices, as has happened many tims before. OPEC is cutting production, even while so many oil nations are run by unstable governments which effectively reduce production (think Libya, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, even Russia and Mexico) anyway. Thus, the successful introduction of PHEVs could be retarded for a decade or so.
Some Peak Oilers are saying 95 mbd by 2012 will be the peak, others say 2005 was the peak. Who knows? In any case, demand will probably fall even more quickly than supply.
With PHEVs, the reductions in demand will be steady and continual, as they replace non-PHEV vehicles.
The point of this observation is that we have broken the link between fossil fuel use and a growing economy.
I've been saying the same thing for some time. A quieter car, which requires fewer trips to the gas station and can start its climate control at full bore with the flick of a switch (even a remote switch), is a better car and ought to command a better price.
"A quieter car, which requires fewer trips to the gas station and can start its climate control at full bore with the flick of a switch (even a remote switch), is a better car and ought to command a better price."
PHEV's also have better performance (initial acceleration is much better at most speeds), and much greater range. They'll need much less maintenance. Designers will have much more flexibility (batteries can be placed much more flexibly than gas tanks, and electric motors & support equipment take less space).
I think GM is starting to realize just how big a hit the Volt could be in 2010, but I think they'll imitate the Prius: moderate base pricing, with mandatory expensive options as long as demand exceeds supply.
The Saturn Vue plugin isn't getting much attention, but GM is promising it for 2009. I'm not sure if that's model or calendar year, but either way it's pretty close. Toyota has vowed that no one will beat them to li-ion hybrids. It's getting interesting...
Jim Strange
In your comment, I think you may be mistaking PHEV (plug in hybrid ev) for photo-electric or photo-voltaic. PHEV is more or less an extension of HEV technology that uses onboard plug-powered charging and discharging for V2G (vehicle to grid) power exchanges. A dramatic example of lead time and incentives required despite promising technology.
PHEV is especially useful in load management, distributed renewable sources and standby power applications, but early days yet. The promise is resilience and significant efficiencies that may (even) offer the prospect of overall payout if charging cycle lifespans are sufficient. The following link is a good and fairly current resource:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/presentations/presentatio...
Jim Strange
For clarity, my comment regarding PHEV was to oilman Bob.
What you are talking is nonsense. The "thermal charge" will be dissipated in the surrounding rocks, unless you provide some way to isolate them. Even then the thermal losses will be huge. Consider that an insulated molten salt heat storage in solar thermal is only enough to provide heat for several hours after sunset.
The Drake's Landing solar subdivision in Alberta has a solar "Borehole Thermal Energy Storage" system for 52 homes. The borehole is 37 meters in diameter and 35 meters deep. It will take 3 years to fully charge, is insulated mostly with silica sand, and will provide 90% of space heating needs.
It will store sufficient heat for nearly an entire heating season.
Wow laurence, cool stuff, thanks for the link.
Clearly nonsense!
/facepalm
PartyGuy = Hothgor?
That's a great idea Laurence. Wonder what it cost to set up?Do you know how groundwater affects the system? Bob Ebersole
The system was paid for with a $5 million (Canadian) grant, which equals $40,000 (Canadian) per home. The system will pay for itself in savings from heating costs over the lifetime of the homes, or in a shorter period if the cost of heating fuels rises significantly.
The borehole is lined with a polyethylene sheet, so I assume it must be protected from groundwater intrusion.