You can't logically ignore the capital costs of solar and wind. Both are around $3/watt and work only 20% of time so you need $15/watt. You lose atleast 20% energy during the most efficient storage (batteries) so the cost is $18.75/watt. Then add the maintenance cost which would be atleast 12.5% of the capital cost, so the total cost is %21/watt. Then add the cost of the battery which would be atleast 12.5% of the cost above. This takes the total cost to about $24/watt.

This system work for 30 years before total replacement and produce:

30 years x 365 days/year x 86400 second/day = 947 MJ energy

Each one dollar in gdp consumes 10 MJ energy (divide world/country/province gdp by world/country/province energy consumption) so each watt capacity above contributes $94.7 over a period of 30 years.

This is a ROI of less than 400% in 30 years or a linear 13.16%/year or an exponential 5%/year. Thats ROI in overall GDP of country. Given that each barrel of oil contributes about $600 in gdp and maximum per barrel oil price in history is $150 which is 25% of its contribution in gdp we can assume that the owner of solar cells or wind mill will only get at maximum 3.25% linear ROI per year.

In hot areas it has even been found that people are prepared to pay enough for shaded parking that it can pay for a solar covering to the car park!

A great example of how limited our predictions for the future can be. Perhaps it has been mentioned before on TOD but I, like many others I'm betting, had typically thought of EVs being recharged at home because the recharging cycle could be scheduled for off peak generation. Recharging during working hours has its problems in stressing the electric grid and peak generation capacity.

Solar generated electric has a long way to go with regards to cost per watt. (I think that is the measure:) Home solar is still a niche market and more of a good faith effort to move solar forward than to save money. By taking advantage of the commercial scale of solar installation and integrating it into the company's workplace as either a cost free benefit (perhaps the IRS would be willing to not tax the value of that benefit:) or a low cost benefit that helps to subsidize the installation costs is a win win situation. Not to mention a huge shot in the arm for the solar industry.

Let's take it one step further and consider the problem of compressed natural gas replacing a significant portion of gasoline usage. That problem being distribution of refueling facilities. Let's put in natural gas fueling facilities on company parking lots. Again, you have the advantage of scale (if the number of work vehicles is large enough). It will be a balancing act between the number of pumps vs the number of vehicles and how many need to fuel up each day. Still, think of the huge number of gas stations throughout the country that don't have the customer volume to add natural gas. Medium to large companies can help considerably in achieving the critical mass of fueling stations for natural gas to take off.

The thought of using canopies as a dual system to reduce heat buildup in cars and as a platform for solar panels solves the not insignificant problem of protecting the users of a charging station from being electrocuted during a rain storm. You also solve the square footage limitation on company building rooftops to install solar panels on.

I don't want to imply this is a done deal. I'm saying there are a significant number of ways to think a bit outside the box and some will be home runs. Leaving many of us to slap our heads and say "why didn't I think of that!"

Hmm, parking garages?

think you will find that the agricultural equipment, road transport, agrichemicals, fertilizer, natural gas etc used in the manufacture of ethanol from corn are ALL fossil fueled and manufactured and mined using fossil fuels, and ethanol from oil refineries definitely comes from fossil fuel!"

That's not completely true. A fair bit of mining machinery(draglines, pumps, crushers, conveyors, slurry pipelines...) used in mineral fertilizer production, rail roads(not so much in the US), grain elevators etc. commonly use electrical power. Much of grid power is derived from fission and hydro; that which is derived from coal can quite easily be replaced with fission without any technological breakthroughs or inventions(ask France or Sweden).

I know you are, but what am I? (a schoolyard taunt or a Shakespearean Zen koan?)

Hmmm ... I've tried thinking for myself, but I can't answer these questions perhaps you can explain (or anybody else, please), especially bearing in mind that all other things will NOT be equal, ie. the number of barrels being produced for net export is already declining?

EROEI is not instead of peak oil, it is AS WELL AS peak oil, each declining barrel will contain less energy ... a double whammy.

How are you going to make all the world's hundreds of millions of cars that currently do 25 mpg do 37 mpg or much more, increasing year on year?

... and why chose E=4? ... when will/did E=4, and when it did/does =4 how much affordable oil will there be to import - your math only answers a part of the question?

.... how many mpg do you need when E=1?

... when will E=1?

... how many mpg will you need when net exports =0 ?

... how many mpg will you need when net exports=0 and E=1, and when will that happen?

It is wrong to pull rank; just because you have been at TOD longer than someone else does not make your argument stronger. Also, if hysterical people on this forum upset you so much, you could just leave...

>> I am no economist, but it is easy even for me to attest that the authors know nothing more of economics than lay people do. And yet, they don't refrain from calling the collapse of the economy! Are you kidding me?

Weren't economists saying $100/barrel oil would kill the economy? How does the global economy look to you lately? If oil/energy became more expensive than it is now, what would happen?

FuturePundit, you are correct in citing the problem of re-tooling our workforce. Since I joined this forum, I have furthered my fledgling career, and learned quite a bit about the power industry from the inside out. Pertaining to the current (well, future) situation my thoughts are as follows:

We DO have a liquids problem comming down the pipe. I live in a small apartment. My apartment uses roughly 1 MWhr per month during the peak summer months. The car I drive uses roughly 3 MWhr per month, reguardless of the season. If liquids run out, or become too scarce to rely on, transportation will switch to electricity. (All of you reading who are ready to jump on me about hybrids and just increasing effeciency, calm down; I'm talking LONG term, like 20 years here). So lets be nice, and assume I purchase a new vehicle, and due to various circumstances it is 3 TIMES more effecient (getting somewhere around 70mpg) than my current car. The grid still has to double. This is a problem, good thing there are electrical engineers!

Doubling the grid presents manifold challenges. The current swing seems to be toward DER and microgrids, though the IEEE has only finalized 2 of the 6 standards they are drafting on those... I would suggest TOD readers brush up on great technologies like micro-turbines, the logistics of DER, absorption chillers, and perhaps supercapacitors.

The problem still comes down to the logistics for generation. Even if one assumes NIMBY issues go away and people allow construction of transmission lines (which we desperately need, see New York Blackout, 2003), we still need to generate power to transmit.

In California they have been planning a certain wind project for 10 years. It is supposed to be the largest wind farm in the United States, with 300 MW of installed capacity. Anybody in the wind game knows that translates to about 100 MW of continuous capacity. Cool. Except, it has already taken 10 years and final plans have not even been issued. It also will cost over 1 Billion dollars. Let me summarize; 100 MW of generation capacity, for 1 Billion dollars, with 10 years of design, and quite likely another 10 years of construction. The United States has a generation capacity around 1 TW.

Quite honestly I don't think peak oil will result in the destruction of the United States economy. I think it will result in the creation of another Gates, Rockerfeller, or Carnagie.

Hey again Luis,

I'm actually all in favour of people making do with less (apart from a fairly decent home cinema, I myself am very much the minimalist). Indeed, I quite fancy the thought of solar-powered golf carts and putt-putting around. And for most of the past year, I'd have more or less sided with you.

However, now that I have my head around the notion that crude oil is finite and realising that the vast majority of Joes and Janes like me haven't a clue; that global consumption is growing; that crude is getting harder and harder to find/extract/refine; that there's no alternative on the horizon that delivers anywhere near the energy return; and that, most importantly, MSM isn't discussing these issues, I must conclude that at some point, pressing on with current practices must come under serious question.

As such, change of some sort must be inevitable. Certainly I agree with you that total collapse seems quite extreme. Rather a slow fade (to a better, friendlier, more balanced world? Hey, I can remain a little optimistic!) seems far more realistic - Mad Max will remain a movie.

Whether the fade has started, is still a decade or two down the track, beats me. But certainly there's not the energy for BAU indefinately.

What still worries me today is that MSM, with seemingly plenty of indicators, very rarely discusses PO, growth and other such matters. And as a result, little is being done to prepare for a future without abundant and affordable energy. Like GW, shouldn't Joe Public at least be made aware that a serious problem "may" be just around the corner?

Regards, Matt