A Real Time Example of Energy Quality- How Wind Turbines are Subsidized by Fossil Fuels
Posted by Nate Hagens on April 28, 2008 - 7:10pm
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: energy quality, eroi, grangemouth, wide boundary, wind [list all tags]
Global oil depletion is not immune to the Law of Receding Horizons, the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, nor it seems to the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Grangemouth refinery shutdown has apparently caused work on a new wind farm in Scotland to shut down for lack of diesel fuel. Though at this stage this is a short-term snafu, it's a real time example of how lack of systems analysis of our energy problem will lead to unanticipated problems.
Tomorrow we will highlight another in a series of analysis on Energy Return on (Energy) Investment. Though measuring an energy projects profit and cost in terms of energy is very important, all energy sources are not the same, and the word 'alternative' does not connote 'equality'. In effect, quality matters. Despite some attractive substitutes to oil and gas from an energy return perspective, ALL fuel sources are now heavily subsidized by an infrastructure built and maintained by cheap and constantly available liquid fuels.
In the comment section of theoildrums coverage of the Grangemouth refinery shutdown, we find that a diesel shortage has caused construction to stop on a $300 million wind farm.(hat tip to Undertow)
MORE than 100 construction workers could face the dole after the fuel crisis brought their project to a halt.
The drivers for Glasgowbased AB2000 were grounded at the new wind farm at Fenwick Moor, Ayrshire, on Thursday after contractors Morrison Construction were unable to find more diesel.
The job was restarted on Friday but bosses fear the limited fuel supply will soon run out and lead to job cuts.
Ted Reilly, of AB2000, said: "We have 70-odd vehicles stuck there because we are hiring men and vehicles to a contractor which can't supply diesel. That situation can't go on any longer.
This highlights an ongoing theme discussed on this website about wide boundaries and energy quality. We need energy to perform work. How we define 'work' is dependent upon how our society is structured. A handful of decades ago, crude oil, despite being extremely powerful and right under their feet, would not have meant much to Saud tribespeople in the Arabian desert, who valued fast, healthy horses as the 'energy quality' that powered their society. Similarly, today we are utterly dependent on crude oil and its refined end products of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and heating oil.
The global flux of fossil and renewable fuels. (Source: Smil, V. 2006. "21st century energy: Some sobering thoughts.'' OECD Observer 258/59: 22-23.)Click to Enlarge
Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink
There are large amounts of solar energy hitting the planet. The potential scale of alternative energy is massive (at least when measured in its unharnessed state). It IS possible to replace a fossil fuel infrastructure with nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc. but we will need a 20 year headstart and a change in the demand system. Just like most people were unaware of how much systemic risk existed in the financial markets until recently, there is similar unquantified systemic risk in the energy markets. We need diesel fuel, cheaply and consistently available to move parts and components around for wind tubines and solar panel production. We need large amounts of natural gas and electricity to produce crude oil. We need well maintained asphalt roads and clean drinking water and municipal infrastrucuture to keep employees moving to their jobs at alternative energy manufacture. We need hospitals and healthy insurance companies for employees to feel secure and safe in their jobs, etc. There are many many interconnected threads within modern society that all link back to cheap oil and gas.
A great concern of mine is the likelihood of falling into the "Tragedy of the Energy Investing Commons". As the energy crisis deepens, more money, expertise and resources will be thrown at any energy alternative that produces energy, irrespective of its quality, density, energy surplus or environmental impacts. Many of these technologies will be dead ends (energy sinks). Many will produce some energy. Some will procure new forms of energy valuable to future society, and at meaningful scale. However, all will drain resources, both liquid fuels and non-energy inputs away from non-energy society. If their energy contributions are marginal, or of differing quality than we depend on, this will accelerate the usage of our remaining high quality fossil stocks. The wind farm in Scotland will undoubtedly restart once the shortages are over, but this example highlights how systemic our energy systems are. If energy production/consumption was well-diversified, and/or redundant, a shortage in diesel would not lead to problems with wind turbine construction.
At what point does time become as limiting an input as crude oil? Until we can make wind turbines from wind, this civilization may be increasingly subject to Murphy's Law.
(for an excellent primer on the importance of energy quantity and quantity in human energy transitions, see Professor Cutler Clevelands Energy Transitions Past and Future)
Thanks for a timely reminder that energy density is important.
This again indicates that a mix of energy sources is desirable, and it would be an interesting exercise to calculate what the relative proportions of nuclear and renewables would have to be to maintain a similar energy density to today in the absence of FF, taking into account the superior density of uranium to FF.
Solar in many regions would seem to nicely cover many of the peak power requirements which are more difficult with nuclear power, and the costs are now getting fairly reasonable for peak use.
The other thing we could do with is liquid fuels, and although it is by no means clear that the technology will be successful the fuel from algae programs are perhaps the only ones which potentially could deal with that.
I bet those guys in the UK wish they had just a little biodiesel now. In any case, if we are going to see solutions to the problem we're going to need alternative fuel heavy transport and manufacturing equipment ASAP. And we will still need the wind farms...
IMO, this piece strengthens the case for a crash switch to electrified transportation. Nate's stated need for a diverse fuel base fits electric quite well. You can input any generating capacity to power the grid.
I also agree that we will scramble for new energy and make some bad choices along the way. Among the worst choices, IMO, include sinking massive amounts of energy and money into diminishing returns FF infrastructure. Simmons' shiny new oil industry makes no sense to me in view of a post peak oil world. What will the shiny new pipes pump?
As for Simmons' OTEC -- sounds like a great idea if we could rapidly develop a heat to ammonia conversion infrastructure in our oceans. Now I'd like to see some shiny pipes on that! Simmons is the investment banker after all -- hint, hint.
In any case, I think wind, solar, nuclear, and possibly OTEC are potential solutions. The obvious problem at the moment is FF scarcity. Wasting energy to squeeze more oil from increasingly unyielding FF rocks seems like a quick way to cascading failure.
"Wasting energy to squeeze more oil from increasingly unyielding FF rocks seems like a quick way to cascading failure."
Yes agreed in spades.
While we could continue to extract negative EROEI oil (as measured only using barrels of oil to get barrels of oil) by using higher EROEI renewables at some point it will surely dawn on us that we'd be better off just using the electricity directly!
The same argument could be applied to low EOREI biofuels. We could easily grow sugarcane in big greenhouses with heating powered by windmills, but WHY???
Electric streetcars, trains, cars and trucks are all much more efficient than diesel powered ones.
I think the issue is that we're only nearly there for it to be dollar for dollar equivalent.
We don't, for example, currently have a 200 mile range electric SUV for $30,000 or a subcompact 4 seater electric car for $20,000 yet but we're certainly within an order of magnitude.
Personally I just hope we can get electric transport mass market before 2012 or thereabouts because it looks like afterwards things are going to be a lot harder.
The whole energy / economy / resource management problem we are facing reminds me of trying to fix a bug in a million lines of code - there is rarely ever a single line of code you can pin point and fix to solve the problem. You have to approach it on a higher level.
When you combine a multitude of simple operations the resulting beast is far more complex than our minds generally imagine. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
And herein lies our problem. We were educated to look at the parts of the world - to define, dissect, study the bits - sometimes combining a few together to see how they interact, but never really understand the full complexity of the whole system. And so we try to fix the parts that don't look like they are working. And we scratch our heads in wonder as the whole does not change in the way we think it should.
It's not Murphy's Law - it's our general lack of understanding of complex systems.
I agree, we have to think in "food chains" of companies. If I was Richard Rainwater, I would purchase a whole ecology around wind power, and co-locate them. A construction company. A blade and turbine manufacturer. Fields for bio diesel. Etc. Such an ecology could survive (or still have growth) while the rest of the economy declines. It might not be profitable at first, but in true OPEC fashion, when you are the last provider standing, you can name the price.
But I don't think you have to be a billionaire to form the relationships needed post peak. Some are very close to existing. A coal power plant could help pay to electrify the rail lines from the mine to the coal plant. The coal plant could work with local farmers coop's to implement a B20 program for the mine machinery in exchange for a non-interruptible contract on the grain silo's (or something like that).
Hospital administration could work to get a combined heat and power plant sited near the hospital. I am sure there are many ways. It just needs work and effort that was not needed before.
In the "collapse Gap" Orlov points out that the Soviet Industries that best survived the collapse were those that had created mini-economies. They were mostly self sufficient.
In my own reading of annual reports of companies that provide nat gas related drilling products, those that are vertically integrated are better surviving the high prices of steel and other commodities.
Excellent, NZ. The part about Murphy's Law is brilliant.
Though, strictly speaking, civilization is not a stable complex system. Examples of stable, self-organized complex systems would be the human body, or a tribe of humans.
Civilization is an unstable chaotic system. Its instability is continually and increasingly shored-up through the taking of resources outside of civilization, through the appropriation of resources not yet under human domination and exploitation. First we dominated the plants and animals for food production. Then the natural resources like trees for wood. Then the minerals and ores, and later fossil fuels. And all along the way, we were attempting to exploit each other.
The cacophony of civilization is chaos incarnate. It is inherently unstable and will collapse in a rather magnificent and decimating way.
An understanding of complex systems will be useful in rebuilding a self-organized and stable society post-collapse. This will be a neat magic trick, given that people currently don't understand self-organized complexity while we're still all awash in cheap energy.
Why don't we understand complex systems? Here is only a partial answer which is, in and of itself, complex.
1. Vanity. Chaos and complexity stand in stark defiance to (a) the illusion of human control and (b) the illusion of human independence from the system in which we reside.
2. Being overwhelmed. Understanding chaos and complexity requires a great deal of time to take long looks into the bowels of the universe. Time which we don't have, because (a) we're too busy addressing current crises created by our previous linear and incomplete "solutions" and (b) too tired after the 8-, 10-, and 12-hour workdays during which we implement the solutions which don't work.
3. Functional isolation. On many levels, the cohesion of civilization is an illusion, because the cohesion is not self-organized along evolved tribal lines of family, shared environments, or shared experiences. We lack connection with our fellow humans and with the living environments around us. If you live in a metropolitan area, what I call an ecological dead zone, there are almost no opportunities to connect with other non-human living things besides disease vectors like birds, rodents, and insects. The structure of civilization is held together by (a) increasing flows of food, resources, and increasingly cheaper energy, (b) the illusion of money, and (c) incomplete social relationships and distractions a.k.a. "synthetic entertainment and plastic crap".
If I weren't too tired and overwhelmed myself, I would now flesh this out and begin to string this unstable chaotic system together through our illusions and our environmental exploitation. Maybe later. For now, though, maybe this is enough for other complex system thinkers to chew on. :)
Nate, what you point at here is pivotal!
We must make wind turbines FROM wind turbines, energy wise that is. And THIS is the very time for trial and error for these efforts as there is still much fossil energy around to “lend a hand from” in the learning process. The fact that companies and governments are not seeing this value-point today is because we are still in the state of BAU - stock exchange and revenue are running the game - and the “bogyman“ Climate change is blurring the energy-issue further! (I believe in CC though, but it’s a bogyman in this regard)
Since most of the world is busy with CO2 handling and such …….. all new green/renewable systems are argued and commissioned due to this – and NOT the energy-problems themselves (peak fossils) Murphy is already lurking around here.
I have been trying to “spam” various discussions in the Norwegian press where REC (a big Norwegian PV-solar cell company) is hailed as the savior for our energy future world-wide and beyond ….. to little avail. Much of my spamming goes towards the idea that REC immediately should install a large PV-manufacturing plant in one of them Saharan countries with all-day-sun 365 and thereby run all they’re needed processes with own-made PV cells …. At least as far as possible….
Where would that take them? The answers from such a test-facility would give THE-WHOLE-WIDE-WORLD a very important answer IMO : Should it stay or should it go…. PVs that is ?
PS : The REC-company is in the initial stages of building new plants in the high cost country of USA and the costly-mini-state-lack-of-land-place Singapore ,of all places. (freedom from taxation for a few years was the driver for this stunt) All energy-processes will be run the traditional way … fossil, nuke, gass .... NO SOLAR-ENERGY USED BY THIS SOLAR-COMPANY (NO sarcanol added)
Personally I believe that PVs are an EROEI-fatamorgana ! from what I’ve read so far
The fantasies some people indulge never cease to amaze me.
I take it some genius in Norway has come up with the plan of siting solar resources in politicly unstable regions which we can't yet build economically, backing it up with barely-proven technology, then building massive transmission lines to the far north of Europe to power Norway?
Heath-Robinson is not in it.
As a more general point though, it is clear that PV power is now reaching an economic breakthrough point, where it can make a massive contribution to peak power load in hot climates.
The idea of using it in utterly unsuitable circumstances and transporting it vast distances for round-the-clock power just illustrates that you are dealing with ideologues, not sensible people.
There are more scams in renewables than anything else I have come across.
A lot of people feel that a renewable energy scam bubble will replace subprime securitization scamming (and before that the internet scam companies bubble).
Hi Dave. Ehh.. I dunno, but your first paragraph, was that for me ?
Secondly you say "....it is clear that PV power is now reaching an economic breakthrough point..." possibly so, but if PVs are not EROEI positive it is a scam... although not "on purpose" B/C they never bothered to analyze EROEI for that process nor did the various governmental energy-safety board’s demand so, so there we go. Renewable today are there to serve Climate Issues (only IMO) !
PS: Norway is the lucky land , even after PO .... we are still 100% served by hydro-stations for el. (minus some rare peak situations), some reshuffling within industry and we could be served the next 100 years on tha same amount (120 twh/year at 4,7 million people)
Nope, the first paragraph was directed at those you were critiquing.
I don't really think that PV is in trouble from EROEI calculations, just from people trying to site it in daft places without sunshine or store it for baseload or transport it thousands of miles.
Let's get the darn thing working where it is most suitable first.
What I'm seeing in Seattle are incremental additions of PV into the urban infrastructure, notably:
mini-meters
and SpeedInfo radar
It's interesting that PV is being deployed to enable new scenarios, instead of retrofitting existing ones.
Well don't overlook the thousands upon thousands of Highway Info Signs that are now on PV/Batt instead of running off a little, probably dirty as hell 2-cycle generator. Portable, Durable and Programmable (ie, countless messages in one piece of hardware)
It does enable new applications, with the access to truly independent power. Some will be as nuts as the times we live in. It's inevitable.. but the PV can be salvaged for better uses down the line.
Bob
Here, in Switz. PV is being touted to light gardens, lovely and scenic amongst the plants; entryways, walkways, commercial signs, forest paths, at night. (Previously unlighted, on the whole.) All the stores are filled with small solar devices and they are selling like hot cakes. Most (all I saw) are made in China. It is the new cool green - acid green - thing.
My neighbor bought some and already threw them out. Had to pay recycling tax, ha ha.
Yarrrgghh.. you caught me on my favorite pet peeve. Those little solar "Pathway Lights".. Ok, my turn to kvetch! Instead of putting Solar into something actually needed, this is a 'created need'.. which might be ok, but for the cheapness of the construction and how many I see which have died and end up making the technology become equated with Nonfunctioning stuff floating around in the garden shed..
Useful alternates.. Maybe putting your TV/Stereo remotes with little panels into a holder on the windowsill, alongside the Ipod, flashlight, and the Indoor/Outdoor Thermometer.. all items I have recently had to deal with dead little batteries in.
Also, however, I have made my Voltmeter run on Solar charged AA batts instead of Mercury Watch Cells, and my Address Book, (HP 200LX) is also a new 'Window Chotchke'
Baby Steps!
Bob
Considering the PV is in the very early stages of exponential growth, the current power contributions of the existing PV is tiny and of little importance. What is important at this phase is that PV manufacturing is profitable enough to generate rapid progress. Looked at from that respect, these frivolous applications are actually doing us a big favor. In essence they are helping to subsidize the early development effort.
I've come round to the idea of solar PV on cars, which initially I thought was daft as the contribution to powering the car as it is driving would be tiny.
What I hadn't thought about was that it can run the air-con in hot climates, making the car cool when you get back into it and saving you leaving the battery working hard.
The EROEI of current PV technology is its Achilles heel. An enormous amount of energy is required to produce crystalline silicon; I hear estimates of 2 to 5 years of 365 use to recover that energy (citation needed).
Many current research efforts on the PV front (amorphous silicon, organic dye-sensitized, etc.) revolve around bringing down production energy requirements (cost), as well as complexity of processing--spraying on materials vs. CMOS processing, for example. Such cells are not expected to be terribly efficient (10-15% vs. 25-30%), but the reduction in production energy (cost) would more than make up for this.
But Pmike;
If you get a return of embedded manufacturing energy in 2-5 years, and the panel is pushing out watts for some 25-30 years just to get down to maybe 85% of it's initial rating, that sounds like a very positive energy return, doesn't it? Maybe 5:1, 20:1, depending on when you choose to stop counting the dwindling output.. (I've seen NREL numbers pretty close to what you stated) Many owners of older panels have attested to this lifespan, while some makes/models/conditions surely will fade sooner. I see this as it's strength, not it's weakness.
And then, the materials are recyclable, averting the need to mine and refine that much more PolySilicon..
The 'efficiency' really only relates to how much roofspace/acreage you need, at this point. The pricing is based more on the watts produced, while it does ultimately have a bearing on the amount of material required to produce the panel, too. As far as lifespan and the resulting EROI, I am unsure that the flexible thin panels will prove to be as durable as rigid ones, so unless they really ARE that much cheaper not only to produce, but for US to buy (you charge 'Watt' the market will bear, after all), the economy of them might be a wash. We'll see.
Bob (Edited to make the EROIE more Glowing)
I have run the numbers and I don't think solar panels are cost effective at all. Electricity here where I am is 14 cents per kilo-watt-hour. Solar panels are ten dollars a watt. That works out that if you get 5 hours of clear sky EVERY DAY, it will take 39 years for the solar panels to pay for themselves, before they start earning a 'power profit'. Until solar panel prices drop precipitously, or the grid fails, grid electricity is the only economical option.
Of course that figure doesn't take into account that electricity prices will rise (probably greatly) over that period, but it also doesn't take into account cloudy days, degradation of the panel's output over time, or some panels not exceeding their expected 25 year lifespan.
Where did you get or calculate the $10/watt figure? Most PV panels are running $5/Watt. And then there are locales that heavily subsidize them.
Look at http://solarbuzz.com/ this gives you the cost of the panels (& lots more) which are typically 50% of the total price. The panels have been around $4.80/watt for ages so an all-up cost of $10 seems about right. Subsidies are another matter.
Hans;
Solar Electric would surely have a tough run competing head to head against an industrial scale system that is fuelled by disarmingly cheap sources. The argument is not that it is a big savings today, but that you are 'locking in' at a price that will be a bargain tomorrow. It's a hedged-bet, no question, but beyond buying in at that higher KWH rate, you also get a power source that you control, you can carry from home to home, and turns on by itself as soon as the sun is up.
It is an investment, so we should look at it that way, and not talk about 'payback', but rate of return on investment, and real value.
Bob
Bob,
Certainly, if we assume a 30-35 year lifespan, then an EROEI of 5-20 could be achieved. And if power density is important, it will be very hard to do better than poly-silicon in the PV arena. Note, however, that your annual return is still very low, so a small scale operation in particular carries with it a good deal of risk.
Another positive aspect of poly-silicon PV technology is that it actually exists (!!). One thing that can certainly be said about research is that it is extremely resource intensive. I wonder how long it could be sustained in a world of EROEI = 10 (Nate's point above about running out of time).
That said, the hope with these newer cells is to bring production energy down by at least an order of magnitude. Assuming we can achieve comparable durability (an open problem, but tractable), this would put EROEI closer to 50-200. Now we're talkin'!
Let's hope for the best. M-
Current (2006) energy payback times for Southern Europe (similar to the average US solar resource) are 1.5, 2 and 2.5 years for ribbon, multi- and mono-silicon panels repsectively. Future (2009) payback times should be under a year for ribbon and multicrystaline silicon. http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/lce2006.pdf
Current silicon cells are about 19% efficient rather than 25-30% efficient. CdTe has lower efficiency but a better current payback time. 40% efficeint silicon substrate cells are being commercialized now by DuPont. http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html
For these, the method of concetration of sunlight will likely set the ultimately achievable energy payback time since the use of silicon is substantially reduced in these systems. Higher efficiency does tend to reduce the payback time for a given technology. The physical limit on efficiency is about 80% so we are already about half way there.
Field experience for silicon and accelerated aging testing for thin film has provided data to make the assumption of a 30 year lifespan of panels with less than 20% loss of original efficiency well supported. Thus, an EROEI of at least 30 should be assumed for solar power.
In terms of energy delivered per unit mass transported, silicon is about 200 times better than coal so that we'd be better off devoting diesel to installing solar or wind than to mining and delivering coal to power plants.
Chris
Thin Lizzy "Don't Believe A Word , cus' words can tell lies ...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fG8TCHccIU&feature=related
That's my stand on PV so far, referring to my reply hereunder.
Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do (!)
The EROI of PV is further compounded when you consider that much of the growth in the PV industry is in China, with some factories gearing up to produce 1GWp of arrays per annum.
Much of the energy input into the process is in the form of Chinese (or Australian) coal burnt in powerstations at about 28% average efficiency.
It can be calculated that about 3.5 tonnes of Chinese coal goes into the production of a 1kW PV array.
This appears to be an ideal method of exporting our pollution.
If PVs were made using hydro or wind power, in Norway for example, and then exported to replace dirty coal in China, then the situation would be very different.
Hypothetically, can you build a solar pV breeder factory?
A pV factory sited in a desert, that is built and started using a modest injection of fossil fuel, and then continues to run and grow using solely power obtained from its excess pV panel production.
The installation would eventually grow to the point where it would be converting desert sand and solar energy into pV, which in turn would become a net exporter of electricity, providing jobs and living space in a desert region. This is tera-forming in our own back yard.
Could you generate a whole new town economy around a PV breeder plant in a desert? Or are the losses associated with PV too great that the concept is unsustainable? Compare with early computer simulations of population sustainability - like Conway's "Life" from the 1970s.
paal myrtvedt said:
What have you been reading? The following source states that the EROEI is greater than one after 1 to 5 years in the field for mono, poly and amorphous silicon cells:
Net Energy Analysis for Sustainable Energy Production from Silicon Based Solar Cells, Joshua Pearce, June 2002.
The study does not include the energy used to recycle or dispose of the photovoltaic system. I think it refers to grid-tied systems, so it does not include the energy needed to manufacture, transport and recycle batteries for systems that use them.
My polycrystalline PV panels continue to output undiminished power after 17 years. I replaced my first array of batteries after 14 years. The mounting hardware, electronics and wiring have never been nor needed replacement.
As the paper states:
"The study does not include the energy used to recycle or dispose of the photovoltaic system."
And in terms of EROEI, wouldn't it be fair to say that the recycling energies would be applied to the Panel that this wasted one is turned into? This would be an interesting number to see, to compare PV's EROEI from mined materials or recycled PolySilicon. Disposal belongs to the first cycle.
This would also be applicable to recycled Nuclear fuel, as opposed to fuel that must be permanently disposed of AND protected, which is a cost on the initial use, I would say.
Bob
Edited
The energy needed to make a solar panel from recycled stock is about one third that needed to make it fresh. So, EROEI is boosted by about a factor of three upon recycling. One should therefor assume a solar EROEI above 90 starting around 2050.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has a pretty low energy yield and is quite complex because using uranium makes very dangerous waste that does not occur in nature and is difficult to handle.
Chris
Chris,
Please post some of your solar expertise and references in Charlie Halls guest post today if you get a chance.
Thanks Chris;
I only mentioned the Nuclear side (which I oppose, personally) to consider the aspects that should and should not be included in an EROEI analysis.. thought experiment and playing fair with the Nuke proponents, I guess.
Bob
BlueTwilight – The times are changing. Today is the most important point in time.
Your linked “truth” is way back from 2002 and those numbers are circulated ever since – if you look into the amazing processes that make-up the entire PV-production cycle, you will understand it takes a lot of energy. In short, crunching mountain, crunch further, during the purifying process the wafers were in the aggregate state of gas, thereafter frozen back into solid state according to an accurate procedure …. And so forth.
I’ve been reading some articles lately composed by university professors, and the like (sorry no link) which indicate the problems for PVs.
But, my take on the PV industry is strait forward! Why is there NO (to my knowledge) PV manufacturing plant in Sahara or in Arizona …… proving their EROEI-worthiness? B/C if there was such a plant, it could ultimately prove for the whole-wide-world that PVs could “re-produce itself - based on itself” …
THIS PROOF would actually "save the Planet" – think hard (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Until that happens I will be dubious to the idea of solar panels … based on abundant resource of silicon! You can agree or disagree , time will ultimately force us to see.
Paal;
That's a misleading proposition. The siting of PV factories is going to be based today on where the Labor, the Money, and the right Tax environment are to be found.. and probably in proximity to the 'equipment that supports the equipment' as well. Being near the Sun and the Sand will probably have some economies, maybe great ones.. but that won't drive a business model yet.
Maybe Silcon Valley or Phoenix-type loc's will come up with a CSP/PV powered plant through their power purchasing deals, but the real answer to that challenge is 'Can PV's provide a surplus?', 'Can PV be manufactured from Electrical Power (and Solar Heat?) to the degree that their MFR is effectively freed from fossil inputs? I don't think it's important at all that the power come directly from PV's.. Wind and Wave and Geothermal are just as valid. Making a truly 'Closed Loop' would be cute, but a bit of a parlor trick.
Bob
Why all this about PV solar. Surely a better option is thermal solar power using mirrors and a Stirling Engine. That is the way of the solar future.
In urban areas there is little room to locate the tracking systems required by concentrator systems. Do you want big parabolic dishes on poles in your yard replacing trees or do you want a new roof?
I'm not saying I believe there will be a "solar future" except in the sense that the sun won't go out soon, and it'll be what earth critters like us have to work with.
However, one thing which occurs to me - that I haven't seen discussed - is that the future may hold high-altitude nuke detonations which throw off EMP. I'm no expert at all, but it seems to me like PV cells would tend to be fried by such, while CSP could be hardened against it. Might even have a "good day" with that extra fusion energy. (kidding).
The thing I like about solar PV in small scale - and I have bought some this month - is that they're about like a time machine: in 25 years one will be able to get out the watts which were expended during the cheap-energy years to make them, and then some. Until then, they're a lot safer to store, and more stable, than barrels of gasoline. Probably best to consider them functionally a kind of storage battery: made now while 95% of energy is being wasted, used later.
And say, there's an EROEI-related consideration in there somewhere: anything made now which is temporally, materially, pollutionally(?) and energetically competing with NASCAR races and salad shooters has a very low bar set to justify itself. In that offbeat energy sense, PV made now is pretty much 'free' compared to PV made once bare-bottomed mad-max motorcycle fiends are after your energy.
ymmv
greenish,
Although I do not know for certain, I suspect that EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse) from an high altitude nuke detonation would not damage a PV panel because it is designed to emit power from the photovoltaic effect. X and gamma radiation would simply make more electricity. Since integrated circuits and transistors are vulnerable to EMP, the electronics in both PV's and concentrated solar power systems would be damaged rendering both of them useless except for DC applications running directly from the panels regulated by batteries (if available).
Well, this isn't the thread for it (sorry nate), but solar panels seem like the sort of thing which wouldn't like EMP much. Of course, anything with long wires wouldn't either. Still, one of the things I like about CSP is that it could probably be maintained and replicated with a 1920's tech base or earlier, not really requiring chip manufacture, etc. Doesn't matter now, but it may in 500 years. Wind turbines may not have to make wind turbines, but the level of complexity in all aspects of materials science and materials availability should be expected to drop pretty far. Designing something that could be maintained after a civilizational crash is a good standard to aim for... and would probably be a nice conceptual sieve through which to winnow new infrastructure buildout notions. (Might be an interesting notion to post around sometime. In terms of solar tracking, I'm reminded of B.F. Skinner's design using pigeons in guided missiles to track targets....)
paal myrtvedt said:
The idea of creating centralized PV arrays in deserts is not the best approach. The power output of mono and polycrystalline PV's decreases with temperature. It is better to find a cool, sunny environment. Taking property, construction of and losses from long distance transmission lines are undesirable. It is better to put grid-tied PV panels on people's roofs allowing the electricity to be produced and consumed locally. Terrorists would have more difficulty destroying our electric supply than flying an airplane into a nuclear fission power reactor.
Deserts are a better place to locate solar trough collectors and heliostats because they thrive on the heat. I think thin film PV's perform better in the heat, but their efficiency of about 5% is pitiful. Tree Hugger reports 19.9%: New Thin Film Solar Efficiency Record (March 26, 2008), so maybe there is some hope. If someone would combine PV's with a residential solar heating system, the EROEI would probably improve.
Before Solarex was bought out by British Petroleum circa 2002, the roof of their manufacturing plant was covered with PV panels that provided partial power to run the factory. That improves the EROEI of my PV panels manufactured by Solarex. I am not sure what BP did to the factory.
Now I will read part 4 of Nate Hagens's series.
you fail to see my gist BlueTwilight! Read your blockquote again (my words)
paal myrtvedt,
Unless I completely misunderstand your challenge, you are suggesting that a PV manufacturing plant should be located in a desert and powered 100% by its products located in the same desert as a proof that it is sustainable.
One does not need to locate a PV manufacturing plant in a desert. A desert is not the ideal place to locate a PV array. The energy required to manufacture, transport and install a PV array is not exclusively located at the manufacturing plant. Silicon, aluminum and glass are manufactured and transported to the PV manufacturing plant. The EROEI calculations include the energy to mine the raw materials and process them. They include the energy needed to transport the materials and mount an array on the roof of a house. The studies that found low EROEI's for PV's, studied large commercial arrays that included the energy embodied in the concrete piers for the tracking systems and used inflated energy estimates for workers and servicemen. Some questionably equated energy produced from different sources. You are wrong about the EROEI of a PV panel being less than one. The EROEI of residential PV systems is very likely higher than 8 without even considering the improvement gained from recycling the silicon.
Whether all of the processes needed to make, transport and install PV systems can be completely freed from dependence on crude oil, is a topic separate from PV EROEI. The raw materials needed to make chemicals, plastics and transportation fuel need to be completely freed from fossil fuels to make a system genuinely sustainable. For example, can all of the parts of a semi-trailer truck be economically manufactured from substitutes without crude oil? We will find out on the falling edge of peak oil.
Yes this is what I meant,
… but your understanding of that never came well across in your reply - you were talking of sunny deserts being the wrong place for such manufacturing , long transmissions, PVs are for private houses ..... and terror. So PVs cant be used in sunny desserts?....huh ?!? ... ohh yes shit (!) I was taking driving lessons when they gave that PV-briefing during science-class.
What has this to do with “my challenge” for the PV industry to come clean and prove themselves EROEI worthy? When is the time to start my stunt …. After fossils ? Or when fusion is ready ? Or maybe between those two ? What I say is of philosophical character and such is not everyone’s cup of tea..
I say it again and I mean it : PV manufacturing should take place in desserts ! silicon is all over the planet, so rawmaterials are always nearby ! so is THAT energy !
Your EROEI of 8 for PVs just saved the world, did you know that? Not only energywise but we can stop CO2 worries as well ! Double Thx mate, on behalf of mankind!
Please let your prime minister or president know tomorrow …. b/c they are deep into some wrong and scary woods … scratching their heads on this matter. And congrats beforehand with your statue in the park !
paal myrtvedt,
For the record I am located in Arizona, USA, but not in the dessert.
Have you considered the economic aspects of your challenge to the PV industry? Electricity from PV panels is still more expensive than from coal, nuclear fission and wind. A PV manufacturer would have to raise the investment capital to not only build the factory in the dessert but also manufacture and install all of the PV panels up front. The southern dessert of Arizona is electrically powered by the Palo Verde nuclear fission power plant, the largest one in the U.S. Currently a PV array can not compete with that cheap power. A PV manufacturer still has to compete with the rest of the world that is running on cheaper fossil fuels. Since your challenge can not currently pass a financial reality check, I think it will be time when the cost of fossil fuels rises high enough to allow it to pass the reality check. In the meantime manufacturers will use the cheaper fossil energy to manufacture PV's giving us an installed base to cushion the blow as we slide down the curve after peak oil.
Because the junction boxes on my PV panels are plastic and the backing behind the PV cells looks like some type of plastic, the PV panels presently available have a material dependence on crude oil. Durable electrical insulators that are free from crude oil would need to be used for all parts of the PV panels, the wiring and electronics. Your challenge is not economically feasible until crude oil becomes scarce and more expensive than today.
I am not convinced by the local production model advanced by some on TOD. Rail can be electrified, and ships can use sails to provide long distance transport of goods. Wind turbines located in nearby farm fields could be used to electrify the rail lines as they pass by rather than constructing transmission lines that extend to the coasts. Jet engines can run from liquefied hydrogen electrolyzed from water. The model assumes that some combination of population reduction, conservation, efficiency, walking, bicycling, electricity, ethanol and biodiesel are not able to provide the remaining transportation needs. The barriers seem more financial than technological.
BT , I can agree with all of what you here write. You are talking about little bit of this and little bit of that….. I came up with the philosophical concept of having the PV industry make their own stuff, based on their own homemade energy (after all their entire purpose of existence is to make energy no ? )
Whether this is possible or not based on financial ideas or cheap fossils today - IS NOT PART OF MY PICTURE – understand ? Or weather such a factory cannot be situated in sunny desserts for this or that reason is not interesting ….
They make energy, for God’s sake, so let them make their own energy … to reproduce - and let’s see if there is any surplus after they are finished! And yes, there must be a political incitement today to have it tested out, but in having this tested out today we are getting a head start for the future ….. At least we will know whether IT IS POSSIBLE OR NOT !!!!!! As said, I'm afraid it will fail. (Through-concentrators, Stirling are simpler tech. .... so I'll give that better odds)
PS! I am NOT swallowing your EROEI=8 ……. Those numbers are NOT including all energy-expenditures, that EREOEI is done with the $ in mind and NOT kWhrs
*) Also see memmel's reply hereunder, he got my point!
paal myrtvedt,
The EROEI for a PV array installed on the roof of a house is higher than a centralized array installed around the PV manufacturing plant located in a dessert. In the link that I posted in Charles Hall's other thread about EROEI for PV's:
Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells (Energy Bulletin, Colin Bankier and Steve Gale, June 16, 2006),
there is a comment that EROEI for a centralized commercial PV array is pretty low if not less than 1. The energy embodied in the concrete piers, buildings and permanent maintenance crew is high. Energy loss and energy consumed from constructing long distance transmission lines drags it down too. In your challenge the energy consumption related to long distance transmission lines is removed, but the concrete and steel need to install tracking systems is present. The energy cost of constructing buildings and maintenance workers is combined with the factory. To power a factory the efficiency of and energy embodied in electrical storage technology would have to be included.
When it comes to calculating the EROEI for grid-tied PV's mounted on the roofs of houses, the studies are counting the energy needed to transport and process the raw materials, the energy needed to run the factory and the energy needed to transport & install the finished product. They do not include the energy needed to construct the house. There is dispute about how much energy is embodied in the worker. Some of the studies improperly equate different energy sources, such as equating 1 Joule of gasoline to 1 Joule of electricity to determine the amount of work that can be done. I am not sure if the studies include the energy needed to construct the factory. There is an issue about how to calculate the energy needed to process the silicon. When the silicon is obtained from rejected stock from the manufacture of integrated circuits, most of the studies subtract out the energy used in extra processing steps required for IC's. They properly calculate the energy that would be needed of the silicon was processed specifically to make PV cells. These issues cause the wide ranging EROEI's for PV's.
I am arguing that your challenge to the PV industry to prove their sustainability contains preconceived conditions that place them at a disadvantage. It is not optimal in terms of EROEI to use PV panels as you suggest. I also dispute your criticism that the models with a high EROEI for PV's are not including all of the energy expenditures. The studies that report low EROEI's (long pay back times) are the ones making mistakes. Since you indicated earlier that you do not have any citations, it is hard to resolve our difference of opinion because we can not critique the assumptions of a particular model.
I found a presentation to critique: The Real Environmental Impacts of Crystalline Silicon Modules: An Analysis Based on Up-to-date Manufacturers Data, E.A. Alsema and M.J. de Wild-Scholten, presented at the 20th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, Spain, June 6-10, 2005.
In computing the energy pay-back time for a grid-tied PV array mounted on a house, they do not include the following:
1. the energy needed to construct and maintain the factory.
2. the human energy needed for installation, such as food and education.
3. the energy needed to make and transport the tools required for installation.
4. the energy used to construct the house which is part of the mount.
5. the energy for recycling or disposing.
Because they reference a previous study for the details of the energy related to the balance-of-system components, it is not clear whether they include the energy needed to transport the PV panels. I am undecided whether the energy embodied in the house should be included, in whole or part, as energy invested in PV's.
In southern Europe they indicate the following pay-back times:
Judging by the neglected energy investments these pay-back times are too low.
Duplicate post deleted.
Duplicate post deleted, sorry.
duplicate post deleted
Duplicate post deleted.
Blue Twilight then the PV plant can be located close to where cells are used.
Having two double or triple the size of the solar array before your self sufficient should not be a big issue.
Silicon is not a issue and geranium would have to be moved anyway.
Instead of hauling silicon around just haul a MUCH smaller amount of needed dopant around.
If a village can not afford its own small PV plant then you have just hit on the reason why PV won't work for most of the world. You need this massively parallel manufacturing capacity to build, expand and replace the PV cells.
If its not possible to develop PV in this manner than its not a solution.
As far as the plants themselves goes same rules apply all components that can be made local should be only a critical component kit should be hauled around.
Teach a man to fish.
Horses where not the world best form of transportation but they had something we have lost anyone could breed them with a very reasonable set of requirements. Post peak this bootstrapability if you will is in my opinion critical to any real solution. Real nanotech actually has a lot of these properties in fact the universal assembler concept is at the heart of nanotech.
Although nanotech is cool the ideas it embodies can be scaled up to village tech. If a solution does not meet this criteria then it is absolutely worthless post peak. Believe it or not the much maligned corn ethanol coupled with soybeans could meet these criteria. We would need to carefully balance how much land was allocated and how you purify/distill etc needs to be renewable but they can work in a post peak world. The technology is easy to master and meets this base criteria.
At the end of the day your talking about solar,wind,hydro,plants etc these resources are available in abundance in one form or another over the entire planet. A society really based of of them need not have wealth concentrated by refusing to design the way for any one to harvest the energy. Done correctly everyone has enough power for a nice lifestyle.
"We must make wind turbines FROM wind turbines, energy wise that is"
I think it can't be done. If it would be possible that is indeed the only way to achieve real alternative energy. Nate's real time example above, and the observation that the blades of windturbines are usually made of oil, and the rest of the raw material needed for its' construction is mined and processed by oil, makes me pretty doomerish though.
PaulusP I'm on the same page as you.
As oil dwindles and gets more scarce and expensive .... is that the time to start doing "real renewable" ? No sure not, but there is a window of opportunities right now but the timeframe of that opening is not particularly long, seen in a generational scale, PO and all that…
It is strange that, say the UN doesn’t have an IQ-panel looking into these matters IMO. Or OTOH maybe they have, but it’s not audible from my neck of the woods.
I think it CAN be done.
Even if the blades are derived from oil right now (they are some form of plastic) there is absolutely no reason whatsoever we can't make plastic from bio-stock and use renewable energy as the energy-feed to power the necessary chemical processes to transform the bio-stock into plastic.
My biggest concern is that we don't get the momentum going. If we don't build enough before serious depletion starts we may see a collapse and then all the output from our renewables would be used up and not enough devoted to "breeding" new renewable sources to make any kind of difference in the short term.
As other posters upstream have noted, the best way to get this going is by a "breeder" type of process whereby you use the energy of say a handful of windmills to power a windmill plant.
The compound interest of returned energy would enable construction of an entire economy's worth of windmills with only the investment in energy to build the original windmills.
Of course, we have yet to try something like that because it doesn't make a lot of sense from a financial investment perspective: there would be a huge lead time and payback before the investors got their money back.
Exactly Dan ! Who will break the ugly circle? you say these wise words ..
Capitalism doesn’t bother to let A meet B!
But ultimately, since the efforts towards A must happen at some stage in time (due to depleting/ed fossils), B must die at some stage in time. I think A and B will have to confluence, and that date will be the time shift for the next paradigm.
The world as a whole - regardless of time – would be better served in keeping all crude-oil ONLY as feedstock for plastic and other renewable/recyclable products.
But reality is different, and WE- the stupid tribe - , will fume it all away till the very last drop! After that someone’s grandkids (with a degree) have to sit down and reinvent the wheel …
The idea of requiring PV or wind or whatever to build itself in a feedback loop is just a silly debate trick, used to denigrate the solution. Since grid electricity is fungible, and parts/materials for renewable technologies come from a variety of highly dispersed locales, the idea is absurd. What matters is that eventually after about a century the new energy technologies be capable of being part of a self sustaining system. These debate tricks need to be recognized for what they are -a dishonest method designed to fool the unwary into believing an otherwise wrong fact.
Hmm enemy ?
Maybe so, and I partly agree, but not for the practical reason that you argue. I think it is completely impossible!
But I must admit that the idea of observing blasting operations taking place on hard rock .... Caterpillars, drilling eq.,Dumper trucks and so forth done solely with solar or wind. I will see this b/c it intrigues me :-)
And one more thing I would like to see (when crude is gone)... which substance will Mr. “future enemy of state” use to make WT wings? (I mean after the possibility of using fiberglass is gone…)
And enemy, there are no debate tricks nor dishonest methods ... jeeez.
Your requirements are making your outlook more pessimistic than is warranted. At this point we are trying to figure out how to start moving towards a sustainable society, we won't solve all the problems at the outset, but as we go along, and as the needs become closer in time. To answer the question about needing oil for turbine blades. Oil production isn't going to zero for quite a long time. Even fifty or a hundred years from now there will still be nontrivial amounts of oil produced (assuming civilization hasn't collapsed, and there are still uses for the oil). Of course as readers of TOD know, there won't be enough oil for its use as a common fuel. But there will be enough for specialized usage, such as specialty fuels for niche markets, and as a materials feedstock. It is also noted that biological sources are sufficient in scale to replace oil for material feedstock. Exactly which feedstock wins at any given time will depend upon the most economical methods at the time. In any case, the wind buildout should mirror the hydropower buildout. Within 50 years we will have used up nearly all of the promising wind sites, and further needs will be to maintain/replace existing turbines.
Sorry if you took my comments as a personal attack. That wasn't the intent. Its just that Id like to help in whatever way I can to upgrade the thinking processes of TOD members. We all need to be doing that continuously. Too often -especially on sites other than TOD, the side of a debate with facts on its side loses due to the acceptance of deceptive argumentation methods. I hope TOD members to be better equipped for these debates -especially as they venture into the net beyond TOD in their efforts to spark needed change.
Enemy I am reciving your message – but I honestly disagree. Obviously I see more clouds on the same sky than you do...
I guess it’s all boils down to our personal perceptions of things – you like red color whereas I like blue! We can simply not agree because there are too many options to select from, based on my understandings vs. yours. So there we sit !
Interesting ….
He-he and so do I, and as for the personal attack issue, I'm armed to my teeth.
"Even fifty or a hundred years from now there will still be nontrivial amounts of oil produced (assuming civilization hasn't collapsed, and there are still uses for the oil)."
I find that a very questionable assumption. A hundred years ago one could easily obtain oil by poking in the ground. From now on it can only be obtained by extremely complex technology, itself dependent on a lot of cheap energy and associated social infrastructure. Surely within 20 or so years of peak, there will no longer be the means to run an advanced oil field with which to extract future oil (let alone get to it and transport from it). And so rather than the long tail of Hubbert's curve, there will be an abrupt drop to absolute zero --THE END OF OIL! -- probably within 20 years (my non-expert guesstimate). (Apologies for the caps and for posting this so after-time.)
Exactly Dan Browne you are on the right track. And better reduce the work down to something that can be done in a simple machine shop in some poor country.
Eventually you will have some vital components that are difficult to manufacture for example bearings. Also alloys and catalysts require advanced technologies.
But lets take windmills you probably can make a very good one out of bamboo or spruce. Remember the Spruce Goose. Carbon based composites can probably be made using surprisingly simple approaches. Same for glass fiber. I don't know about natural glues.
Bamboo for use in airplanes 1910
Natural glues.
http://nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=100318&org=NSF
Glass wood and ceramics can replace many components esp in energy collectors.
Simple black pipes filled with ammonia water make great energy collectors.
You can make a entire ammonia cycle fridge out of glass. Fresnel lenses can be made from a variety of materials.
Many plastics can be scrounged and reused.
So the key is working through the engineering requirements matching as much as possible with the local materials or plants animals compatible with the climate. And eliminating as many components as possible that require higher tech manufacturing facilities. Many complex control circuits can be made using fluidics even micro channel ones could be produced using a mask similar to how old records where made or using etch methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics
Engineering designs have to be simplified how to make measuring tools and tools from tools needs to be provided say starting with a simple whip lathe and hand drill.
So I think that we can develop technologies that allow people to develop a high standard of living in almost all of the earths climates. You would have to couple this with realistic birth control and sustainable living each culture can migrate to a sustainable version of its preceding culture. Vasectomies are a relatively simple operation and can with work become a part of becoming a elder.
This is how you have to start thinking to really solve our coming problems.
Of course it can be done.
We don't have to make wind turbines and the rest of the sustainable energy portfolio from wind turbines and the rest of the energy portfolio now, but rather on an ongoing basis as the wind turbines we make now reach the end of their useful life and have to be replaced.
Of course it can't be done from within an oil-fired economy, but that is not a requirement for a sustainable energy economy. What is required, rather, is that once we build it, it can reproduce itself.
IOW, despite the silly framing in the title, using existing infrastructure to produce an item with a five-fold or higher EROI is not "subsidizing" that energy resource. It is investing a non-renewable resource into the generation of a larger and ongoing amount of renewable resource.
The idea that sustainable energy has to be bootstrapped on the basis of infrastructure already created within a sustainable energy economy is just critically naive, since the challenge we face is not the challenge of getting a sustainable energy economy from scratch, but transitioning to a sustainable energy economy from an unsustainable energy economy.
Given the egregious energy waste built into our economies, providing the resources required to produce a sustainable energy infrastructure can be provided by diverting energy currently wasted. It is by no means political simple, and there no reason to have confidence that the political will can be mustered to do it, but there are no insurmountable technical challenges to building a sustainable energy economy that has sufficient yield to then reproduce itself and provide a sustainable energy income to be used by the balance of the economy.
And the new energy economy that we have to build will certainly not be a simple re-enactment of the last two energy economies, "just with different fuel" ... but looking back over the coal fed and oil fed economies and all that accompanied them, why would we want to re-enact that?
You missed the point.
The point is if there are steep decline rates in available oil exports in next 5 years or so, that it will severely constrain the buildout of renewables.
It is not just the availability of FF energy inputs needed for the renewable energy build out that is going to be a problem. The availability of investment capital to finance the renewable energy build out will also be a problem.
In the case of FF energy, it is not just that the resource is starting down the depletion curve, it is also that renewables will be competing against other demands. You've got the BAU economy, then you've got growing economies like China and India. It also requires an investment of energy to become more efficient in our consumption of energy. Finally, as EROIs go down, the desperate rear guard effort to moderate the inexorable depletion of FFs will require increasing energy inputs. While it should be obvious to us that renewables should get top priority, there is no guarantee that it will work out that way. It certainly hasn't up to now.
There is also the investment capital problem. Investment capital is also going to become a depleting resource due to a declining economy (due to depleting FF). On top of that, once again renewables are in competition with other demands for that depleting capital. There are going to be those that will want to make an all-out effort to find and extract more FFs, and that will be hugely costly. Others will want to build nukes as rapidaly as possible, and those aren't cheap either. Energy conservation and efficiency projects require large capital investments as well; Alan Drake's EOT is exhibit one. We've also got a crumbling infrastructure, and overstretched imperial military, unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare, etc., etc. And of course, the BRIC countries and the rest of the developing world continue to rquire huge capital investments, all on top of the BAU baseline. Once again, it should be obvious that renewables should be the number one priority and get first call on whatever investment capital is available. Once again, there is no guarantee that it will work out that way. There certainly has not been nearly enough capital investment in renewables up to now.
Big changes in how we allocate resources needed to be made twenty years ago. There is little reason to hope that anything will happen at this point that goes beyond the category of "too little, too late". The future will be worse than it theoretically might have been, because that is the opportunity cost that goes with our failure to make the right choices while we could.
yeah, companies like exxon probably won't have any money. SOMEONE is always going to have money and if there is this big thirst for power someone will make the investment because the return will be there.
John,
This shows you don't understand the problem. Money is an abstract concept and has value because we agree to exchange fiat currency for real things. It was not always this way and may not always be so. Energy is what allows us to do work. As long as we have surplus energy, money is the most efficient and convenient way of effecting transactions, but will money hold its appeal when we face permanent declines in available energy? I think not. That this will happen is not yet a certainty, but please don't think that money itself is valuable due to some natural law. Remember for 99.9% of our species history we lived off of the daily solar flows hitting the earth - and we were very few.
Why is Exxon doing massive share buybacks? Why are they not replacing their reserves each year? Why are they not spending all those billions on more deep water exploration, in new areas etc. Once the EROI of oil approaches one (and well before that because there are non-energy inputs), drilling for oil will not make sense, at $200 a barrel, at $2 million a barrel. (Unless the energy we use to get it is of dramatically lower quality as defined by our 'economic system').
There will be NO economic returns (in aggregate) with declining overall energy surplus unless they are created by efficiency or conservation.
money is an abstract? seriously...
whoever has the money will have the energy. if there is money to be made in new energy sources energy companies like exxon and the swfunds will invest in them. some day exxon might not be an oil company but a solar/wind and geothermal company. thye will have the money to do it.
increasingly windmills and solar will piggyback on earlier investment of wind and solar put up by an earlier use of oil.
It is really the other way around. Whoever has the goods will have the money.
You can have millions of dollars, if nobody wants it anymore, it will make little difference.
Yes, money is an abstract.
Food, animals, minerals, ores, and fuels are not abstracts. Money is the abstract tool that allows for the complex exchange of these real, physical items between people in order to perform useful work, get things done, and provide mutual support.
Available food is useful without money. Money is useless without available food.
Where is the internal shortfall which prevents this from being understood?
for 99,9% of mankinds time on this planet we did "all fine" without money - when monies came into the picture things changed. Most animals still don't use money, exept for a stray monkey.
But ... but ... humans are not animals, Paal! We're special!
/sarcanol
Oh yes we are, and oh no we're not. ;)
Everyone thinks there is a big thirst for more oil now that should drive a big new round of investments in arctic, offshore, tar sands, oil shale, tertiary recovery, etc., yet people are starting to notice that big oil is not making the investments they theoretically should be making. It seems they can't believe that the higher prices aren't just a temporary thing and will be going down soon. How far down the depletion curve are we going to have to go before this psychology changes, and the market actually starts working the way it theoretically should work?