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.
| Show without comments | PDF version
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.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
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 - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
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
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...