 | TOD Local Open Thread: What's your town doing about high gas prices? | The Oil Drum | Future Scenarios: Mapping the Cultural Implications of Peak Oil and Climate Change |  |
70 comments on Biomimicry and Ocean Generated Energy: Are Humans Smarter Than Sea Sponges?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
70 comments on Biomimicry and Ocean Generated Energy: Are Humans Smarter Than Sea Sponges?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Ocean energy includes wave energy, tidal energy, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), and wind energy off shore. These four technologies provide electric power. Wave, tidal, and wind are functional technologies. But due to siting requirements they are limited by their numbers and will not generate much power. OTEC is in research and development. The author estimates that combined ocean energy power generated for the U.S. is no more than 2,000 Megawatts. In the next 10 years this figure could be tripled. Hence, ocean energy will increase power generation slightly, and it will not replace a significant amount of oil and natural gas that is used in producing electric power for at least several decades. In addition, these approaches consume much fossil energy in their production, and only provide electric power, which is not what we need --- liquid fuels. So this approach wastes oil, natural gas, and coal to get what we don't need, and it will have a negative EROIE when ALL energy inputs are considered. Cliff Wirth, Peak Oil Associates.
we don't need liquid fuels. we could use electricity for electric vehicles and PHEVs. electric motors are far more efficient.
I think you and Cliff are talking past each other.
We need liquid fuels RIGHT NOW and for the next, say 25-40 years, until we transition to whatever comes next.
The fact is that the whole of the mobility of this world and a lot of everything else runs on liquid fuels.
You can't pour electricity into a tank of a car running with a combustion engine.
All those bits and pieces of infra need to be changed.
Until they are changed, liquid fuels is what we will need.
World does not change overnight, even if all factories started churning out batteries and electric motors as of today. And that kind of change is very unlikely to happen overnight, but more like as a transition over a whole human generation.
I think that's an exaggeration. The US vehicle fleet has been replaced every 17 years or so, and this replacement will be accelerated under the pressure of high fuel prices. Even today, half the lifetime mileage is driven in the first 6 years. If the vehicles rolling off the lines became PHEV-40's starting tomorrow, we'd see demand for liquid fuels drop at about 6.7%/year to start. Even 10 years of this would cut total fuel demand by well over half, and that's assuming no additional bias toward use of the newer vehicles.
The great thing is, you don't need to.
It is a myth that EVs and PHEVs are so advantageous. We must burn mostly coal, natural gas and oil to get the electricity, then waste 40 to 65% of the energy in heat loss in steam turbines, then there is loss in transmission by power lines, then energy is lost in the battery. EVs don't do well in the winter/heat, and summer/AC. Then explain how you will have all of the 18 wheelers, tractors/combines, and trains running on electric. Imagine the infrastructure for all of this and you will make Rube Golberg look normal, and you will get the wizard award of the century for pulling the capital out of your ..... ear for all of this.
It is interesting that the National Academy of Science in 1977 said the main problem is liquid fuels, and so did Hirsch, the Congressional Research Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and General Accounting Office studies after reviewing all the energy crisis stuff. But you say, we don't need liquid fuels.
Interesting to see, how ideology trumps reason and science.
When the tank-to-wheel efficiency of light-duty ICEV's is under 15%, it's hard to see how EV's are less advantageous even when they run on coal. When they are running on solar, wind or nuclear power, they are far more advantageous than internal combustion.
Electrified rail is superior to diesel rail. Has been for decades. Electric locomotives have more pulling power and greater acceleration capability than diesels, because they don't have to carry their own power source. There is also the possibility of regenerative braking with energy dumping back to the grid; you can't do that with ICE only.