263 comments on When Is "Global Peak Energy?" According to Publicly Available Data, Probably Sooner Than You Think
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
263 comments on When Is "Global Peak Energy?" According to Publicly Available Data, Probably Sooner Than You Think
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
If this projects until 2200 why isn't fusion power included at least as a plausible estimate. And how exactly does solar power peak and decline? In 2030? What exactly happens to the Sun in that year that suddenly drops off the power output? Does this refer to the ability to manufacture panels? Because we certainly aren't going to run out of mirrors and salt.
It wouldn't take that much to do all of this with solar already.
Honest questions. Not trolling. Just not getting the peak in solar.
That's the Uncertainty.
Nassim Taleb has made a recent career highlighting this kind of thing, but uncertainty was also the theme of the GAO peak oil report.
For what it's worth, Taleb observes that you can't make a projection to a year like 2030 (or 2200!) without knowing all the inventions between now and then. You'd really have to sit with a blank piece of paper, invent everything, and then stitch it together into a future-history.
You ask about fusion and solar. Those might break through, or not. And so might some inventions that reduce our need for energy. Or not.
The GAO's conclusion was that uncertainty argued for action, insurance against possible negative events.
I think that's rational. A "pick" for a far future peak ... IMO less so.
One could ask basically the same question about the entire renewables category--no growth at all from 2050 to 2200 for solar, wind, wave, tidal, and geothermal? I could (almost) buy hydro, biomass, and biofuels topping out, for the commonly cited reasons, but not the others.
Actually, in 2200, we'll have almost no fossil fuel at all: probably just a little dirty, expensive coal. Producing all kind of metals (steel, copper), silicon, concrete will be much more expensive than now. I suspect that windmills will again be made of wood, and produce mainly mechanical work to grind corn and pump water. We have really no good alternative to fossil fuels for some key usages !
With all due respect. No one knows anything about what life will be like in 2200.
What? Really? The coal we burn now is burned to make electricity, which you can get from solar power; a great alternative to coal.
"Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8%). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites." Note that current solar panels have an efficiency higher than 8% (more than double that, in many cases). For more info and details on the sources, see http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/
So what?
If you put together all oil and NG wells, coal mines, hydro and nuclear power stations in the world they will result in a dot which will not be even visible on this map. Yet these provide 99% of the energy we use in this planet.
You're not thinking? Oil and NG are FFs, non-renewable. Used once, they're gone. The energy's in the bond. We break the bond to get the energy. All the king's horses and all the king's men won't put hydrocarbons back together again.
So are there renewable sources of energy on order of what we are using today? Yes, and the chart gives an estimate of what area it would take. Can we do it?
We'll see.
Don't preach on me please.
I just pointed out that this picture proves nothing. It does not prove that solar power world can be done, even less that it will be done. There are many technical, economical and infrastructural problems of doing it - even more than against fusion.
Painting a picture with dots on it makes it look way too easy. Humans are not some kind of gods, painting black dots on Earth from space.
duplicate
Sorry I won't preach.
More problems than fusion? okay, if you say so. Gotta go to a meeting.
Oh yes, they're very comparible...
Solar technical: Available off the shelf today. Basic electrician stuff to put some on your roof.
Fusion technical: They've been promising break-even, in the lab, for decades. It's way past rocket science.
Solar economics: 2-3x too expensive roughly. Predicted to reach equivalence with retail electric rates by 2015.
Fusion economics: You can't buy it today at any price.
Solar infrastructure: Distributed power actually simplifies infrastructure. Fewer cross country high voltage lines needed because the power is produced closer to the usage.
Fusion infrastructure: Besides the continuing need for the HV lines, the rest is truly unknown: waste disposal, security concerns, economics, scaleability,...
Kind of cranky, aren't we? He answered your question and last I knew, dots on a map had no particular theological connotation.
So hypothetically, if crude oil were to completely disappear off the energy map in 2020, what's your answer to filling that energy void? Surely someone who has such strong anti-this and anti-that points of view must be pro-something?
So far noone has explained how we are going to run a solar society at night or shall we say after 6 pm. Large scale and efficient energy storage is the major bottleneck of both solar and wind.
The bottlenecks of fusion are mostly economical (cost-related). There are some technical problems but nothing that would stop it from working. Hell, there are working fusion reactors now. If they pour several trillions in it we could have it in a decade or two... but I don't recommend this. Fission and solar energy would be cheaper and are more promising at this stage IMO.
Molten salt heat storage:
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/thermal_energy_storage.html
Electrical storage:
http://electricitystorage.org/tech/technologies_technologies.htm
Fission & solar: That seems like a reasonable medium term approach.
Working fusion reactors: That's true, but nothing break-even, as far as I've heard.
Solar at night: off-grid systems manage that now with batteries. Of course then that makes the costs higher than grid-tie systems. I'd hope there'd be a better storage solution if we went much more heavily into solar.
Interesting to note, by the way-- solar and fission have similar problems with regard to needing a good storage solution. Fission is good for base load, but if fission were to provide more than base load, we'd need storage. I don't know if fusion will have that (hard to quickly ramp-up and ramp-down) characteristic or not.
The problem with all alternative energy sources is that their costs will creep up as the higher cost of fossil fuels makes its way through the economy - which makes EROI the most important factor. Nevertheless, solar, wind, and thorium breeder fission reactors may be the only realistic alternatives we have for the medium term (20 to 100 years out).
"The problem with all alternative energy sources is that their costs will creep up as the higher cost of fossil fuels makes its way through the economy "
"Report to Congress on Assessment of Potential Impact of Concentrating Solar Power for Electricity Generation"
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pubs_research_development.html
Excerpt:
"The cost of electricity from CSP was currently in the range of 10 to 12.6 cents/kWh, and costs could be reduced to 3.5 to 6.2 cents/kWh by 2020 without new research breakthroughs."
Duplicate
We have been spoiled by having all of the energy we want available 24 hrs/day. As solar becomes the main thing available, we are going to have to adjust our lifestyles and our economy around its availability.
First and most importantly, we are going to have to adjust our lives to accomplish as much as we can during daylight hours. (Daylight is one form of energy not included in the above analysis, by the way. It won't be depleted, either.) Except for hospitals and emergency services, it just might not be possible to provide much artificial light after dark. Forget about shopping after dark. Industry will have to go back to a single daytime shift unless it is a continuous process that is so expensive and infeasible to shut down that the cost of nighttime lighting is worth it. Much industry will convert to daytime batch processing, though, powered by concentrating solar reflectors.
Households could use those wind-up lanterns to provide a minimal amount of interior lighting during the early evening hours, and people could use those wind-up flashlights if they have to be outside after dark.
We are also going to have to match a whole range of other tasks to available sunlight. Laundry and dishwashing and bathing will have to be done in late afternoon or early evening after solar water heaters have warmed the day's batch of water. The main hot meal of the day will be ready at the end of the day, after it has been cooking in the solar oven all day; we'll mostly be eating soups and stews and casseroles, too, because that is what works in solar ovens.
Rail transport will run during daylight hours and be idle at nights. If you are traveling a long distance, your trip will be a series of daily hops, staying each night in the "station hotel".
There will be rechargeable batteries to allow operation of electrical devices after dark, but these will tend to be device specific, just as they are now: radios, laptop computers, shavers, cordless power tools, etc. PV panels will supply the power to recharge the battery packs each day, and then battery packs are swapped out each night. The cost of a battery bank to keep an entire house running all night will be prohibitively high for most people. Maybe a small battery pack to keep the refrigerator running would be affordable; or maybe people will just have to adjust to keeping the refrigerator door closed after dark.
(What about wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, biomass, etc.? I am assuming that they will be needed for all the other essential things not mentioned above, plus to provide backup on cloudy days.)
Obviously, what I am describing is a less prosperous society with a much lower per-capita GDP. At this point, I take that as an inescapable given for our future. The above is probably as good a way to cope with that fact as we are likely to get.
I suppose people could just go on a rampage and kill each other instead. The above seems to me to be a more reasonable and desirable alternative, though. . .
And we might find living with nature is okay, and we may in fact be happy...
Below quote from the excellent Mother Jones article Reversal of Fortune yields a clue:
"A sampling of Forbes magazine's "richest Americans" have identical happiness scores with Pennsylvania Amish.
LevinK, you might give it a look.
It's practical to heat a house with solar thermal in today's world. It's cheaper than using oil or electricity. Of course, that's a fact which is not widely known, but which will become much more obvious as the oil runs out. If humanity were to stop wasting oil running around in big gas guzzlers, we could easily make use of the oil which is left to build solar systems. You are correct, however, that the main reason this is not being done is economics. There are so many subsidies toward continued use of oil and other FF's that the advantages of solar thermal remain hidden to the average guy--including you.
E. Swanson
My question is how do you chage people's behavior to stop using non-renewables before peak production? This is one qustion that I can't figure out and everyone here seems to have an answer soooo...