The Oil Drum | Energy Grades and Historic Economic Growth

118 comments on Energy Grades and Historic Economic Growth

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

It Aint So Bad on August 24, 2007 - 12:54pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oilmanbob on August 24, 2007 - 1:44pm

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

theantidoomer on August 24, 2007 - 3:22pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oilmanbob on August 24, 2007 - 4:26pm

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

auntiegrav on August 26, 2007 - 8:45pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on August 27, 2007 - 11:44pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nick on August 28, 2007 - 1:22pm

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Pitt the Elder on August 29, 2007 - 10:01am

I could see swappable batteries for fleets, like taxis, which rarely get parked

And indeed the Modec - a commercial delivery van - notes it has easily-swappable batteries.

Otherwise, too much trouble. Batteries are charging faster & faster these days.

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on August 30, 2007 - 10:44am

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ThatsItImout on August 24, 2007 - 8:28pm

"Solar doesn't work except in the "middle" of the day????????

Can we have a source on that one?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oilmanbob on August 25, 2007 - 4:42am

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

OldRalph on August 25, 2007 - 11:24am

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

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

It Aint So Bad on August 25, 2007 - 1:11am

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on August 26, 2007 - 10:37am

(although I contend automakers should first introduce PHEVs as luxury cars, not enviro-mobiles).

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.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nick on August 26, 2007 - 1:58pm

"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...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jimstrange on August 25, 2007 - 2:59am

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...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.