Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“I'd put my money on solar energy… I hope we don't have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
You think so? I have been holding out for cheaper solar panels ever since the early days of the UK programme "Tomorrows World" touted a new generation of solar panels. 25 years on and we are still waiting. The most recent thin film shows promise but I will only be satisfied when I can walk out to a hardware store and buy a 100W panel for about £100!! ($200).
I share your hope Antidoomer, but unfortunately not your ill concieved optimism.
Marco.
One part of the problem is that when Carter created the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, it started out with a staff of 1200. In 1980 the staff was reduced by Reagan to 400 and not increased subsequently. Also, general funding for solar research wasn't a big priority. So progress has been much slower than it could have been because of these things, at least in the U.S. However, there are some very exciting achievements being made in solar right now, such as multijunction panels, etc. The only caveat is that I think these new cells will cost more not less.
I'm sorry Gwydion, this sounds too close to the "not enough investment in oil" excuse as to why oil production is not increasing.
In actual fact one of the biggest blocks on reducing the price of photovoltaics has been the cost of good qulity silicon and the energy it takes to process from start to finish. This is where thin film stands the greatest chance I think.
marco.
Sure there's going to be a limit to what can be done but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing it. There are big differences to the oil though, on oil we're at the end of over 100 years of R&D on oil extraction. It's highly probable that there isn't too much more to learn or to try to get more oil out than what we're already doing.
We don't have nearly that knowledge for what is possible with solar power -- for example, I have ten year old textbooks that say the maximum possible efficiency of a silicon solar cell is going to be on the order of 20%. If you look at that link I put up they're aiming at 33% efficiency for the full cell and 20-25% for the thin films. Why the breakthrough? No one in the past had thought to include multijunctions that use the same photon to generate multiple electrons. This is kinda like the big, medium and little cylinders on the old ship engines to get the most mechanical work out of the steam.
It's not just silicon either, Michel Grätzel has his colloidal TiO2 cell that he covers with a ruthenium bispyridine dye that can absorb light from nearly the entire spectrum. The efficiency is not so good, but it's a lot cheaper than silicon. There's some other organic dyes that are being looked at as well.
I guess the point is that solar power is not going to be a panacea and we may never get to the point where you can go pick up a solar cell for 100 pounds. I think it's going to have to be one tool in the toolbox though to replace fossil fuels because we have no other choice, it's either do that or poison ourselves with coal or go back to the stone age as Deffeyes says.
*AND* it's just placing blame (just pile it on the republicans in general, why not ?).
Placing blame produces 0 barrels of oil. It only has the potential to produce barrels of blood.
Btw. for the immediate future I like the republican energy policy : more nuclear power for short term in combination pushing market to plug-in hybrids first, plug-in only in a few years.
For the long term using energy research, because, frankly, we have no good options now. Perhaps solar is a solution for florida (I think not), but it most defineately is not a solution for alaska. So we'll need something else too. Besides, solar isn't where it should be.
Obama's policy, centering around biofuels and govt. handouts is a disaster waiting to happen. He will continue to do what he did in the senate, which is to say, nothing at all. His program :
* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Fine, doesn't help at all (in fact it makes stuff worse. By 2050 there won't be any oil to produce those emissions anyway, so if you're going to put 2050 as a limit date why even bother ? It also "just happens" that 2050 is LONG after his term as commisar, i mean president, ends)
* Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Great ! In a disney fairy tale sort of way.
* Support Next Generation Biofuels
VERY bad.
* Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Great ! In a disney fairy tale sort of way.
* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Great ! That would be energy efficiency per person I imagine, which will save us exactly ... 50%/1.5 = 30%. And that's assuming that under Obama immigration doesn't increase immensely.
* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Can you say "not making any relevant commitments". People have to live. People will live, and the energy savings won't happen in Obama's plan.
Nature is, at best, 2% efficient in converting solar radiation into energy. PV is right now 15%. Biofuels ARE NOT GOING TO CUT IT, not now, not ever. Right now plants have a temp. reprieve because they're cheaper to make than PV.
PV has the additional advantage that, once installed, it requires no more oil. Biofuels require constant oil imput, a new input every year in the form of fertilizer. Furthermore PV doesn't have to compete with normal agriculture and therefore PV can provide fuel WITHOUT taking away food. If we don't have food, power doesn't matter.
I agree that he can handout mucho govt. cash to his friends with agri subsidies, but they will only worsen things by making PV more expensive (and I'm sure that once energy is dependant on agri they won't push for "regulating the dangers of PV", right ?)
More impressive to me than any government law or regulation would be a leader who was honest about the problems that we are facing and one who would ask people to live with less. Many people are operating on the assumption that oil will be $60 or $40 or even $20 at some point in the future. They've seen oil prices fluctuate up and down and the media constantly blames OPEC, speculators, or "big oil" for high energy prices. It's the combination of every individual learning to conserve that might help mitigate our decline. Waiting for the market to send the correct signal is a disaster because we're constantly being told, "Don't worry, this will pass. There's technology out there that will save us. Keep on keeping on. Your lifestyle is not negotiable!"
Had we had this type of leadership over the last 7 years (or better yet 30 years), maybe we'd be better prepared for this. The peanut farmer warned us all about this and we laughed at him building SUV's, exurbs, and the "3,000 mile ceasar salad".
How about the responsibility of the public? Every single time a USA politician says anything half truthful the guy gets in trouble and you wonder why they lie habitually? It is literally a job requirement.
The public has ultimate responsibility. I hear people complain that the MSM is obsessed with Britney Spears, American Idol, Barry Bonds, but ultimately the TV news media has learned what people like like scandal, celebrity and talking heads yelling at each other. I hear people complain about Congress, but (those that bother to vote) re-elect the incumbent over 90% of the time. I hear people complain about higher gas prices, but many burn extra gas so they can race to the next stoplight or wait in the drive through at Starbucks.
An incoming President, need not worry about this. He has four years to make things better. The first step to fixing a problem lies with recognizing that there is in fact a problem. We have yet to reach that point, but I would rather have people hear it from a leader, then learn about it about when they can't fill up because the pumps are dry.
I disagree. A president's power is in large measure based on his popularity. In particular, he has to worry about the mid-term elections, and re-election for a second term.
Some have suggested that presidents should be elected for a single six-year term, to try and minimize this problem, but I don't know how much that would help. He'd still have to worry about Congress; presidents can't really do much without the backing of Congress.
A president's power is measured in whether they can get the things done that they want to get done. GWB has had neither popularity nor the backing of Congress since the mid-term elections and yet he managed to keep his Iraq policy intact. The "surge" was very unpopular and Dems controlled the house and the Senate and yet GWB got exactly what he wanted. Last time I checked, he was still funding the GWOT with appropriations, despite his lack of popularity and a Democratically controlled congress (with the ensuing hearings, investigations etc).
The fallacy here is that a message of conservation will be universally unpopular. I see dozens of examples of "greenwashing" everyday. I hear the word "sustainability" used to describe everything from organic farming to car manufacturing :-0 In the last month we've seen PO stories hit the MSM. From Wendell Goler asking the POTUS if if global oil production has peaked to the WSJ article on exports yesterday. Americans are slowly starting to figure it out. The last thing we need is a leader who wants to lower prices through a "tax holiday" or some other idiocy.
From CNBC Poll(unscientific web poll)
Who (or what) do you most blame for the high price of oil and gas? * 405 responses
25% OPEC - they're squeezing us for every dollar they can get.
10% Federal Reserve - they should have never reduced interest rates to these levels.
35% Consumers - we take gas for granted and drive huge SUVs.
14% President Bush - He should have never socked away so much oil in the strategic reserve.
16% Other - (tell us in an e-mail)
Ultimately, we probably agree that no matter what policies are put in place, things don't look good. I think we are way past population overshoot as evidenced by AGW and food, fuel, fertilizer, and power shortages. I think mother nature will tire of all of the hairless monkeys running around spoiling the planet. When she does, she'll smack us down with disease or a rapid shift in climate. But that's just the misanthropic part of my split personality. The hopeful (weren't we discussing naivete yesterday?) part of me hopes we do better before this happens. The catabolic collapse you and others describe is the worst scenario IMO. Long before we get to 30 or 40 years from now, we'll have reduced biodiversity and eliminated so many species and released so many toxins that the ecosystem will be a mess.
Inertia is on his side. Keeping the status quo is easier than making changes.
Everyone wishes we hadn't gone into Iraq, but now that we are in, most Americans - and most American politicians - do not think we should just pull out. Unfortunately. I think Bush, or his handlers, planned it this way, too. They're trying to set it up so that future presidents will find it difficult if not impossible to extricate us from Iraq.
He can make unpopular decisions like that, because he's a lame duck. I've said it before: if any politician could tell Americans the truth about peak oil, it's Bush. Doesn't look like he's going to, though.
It won't be. What will be unpopular, IMO, is telling people that it's not temporary. That the American way of life is coming to an end. I think that will be very unpopular, among Democrats as well as Republicans.
Polls are crap. Talk is cheap. What people do is something else.
Take those polls that suggest that 80% of the American people want prayer back in public schools. Yet it's been decades, and still no prayer in schools. Why is that? Because the support may be broad, but it's shallow. Few people actually care enough to vote on this issue, so nothing happens.
I think it's the same with environmental issues. They have broad support. Who wants to tell their kids they hate polar bears and love pollution? But the environmental support is all talk. Few vote on the issue. Let alone stop driving their SUVs if they can afford to drive them.
I saw this firsthand when I visited a friend in Ohio last week. She has a big SUV. It made sense when she had four children to haul around. But now all her children are grown, and have moved out of the state. She says she's concerned about climate change, etc., and drives her SUV carefully in order to conserve gas. No jackrabbit starts or stomping on the brakes. But the idea of getting a smaller car is out of the question. Even though usually the only person she's hauling around now is herself. She's well-off, and could afford gas even if it was $100 a gallon, and sees no reason to switch to a smaller car.
I agree, but in my view, it is by far the most likely scenario.
[Holds up flag of surrender.]
Well argued as usual. I have neither the time, inclination (nor probably intelligence for that matter) to refute your points. I enjoy these debates with you cause when I start feeling like I'm the most skeptical person in the world, you show me that there's an entirely new level of cynicism that I've failed to grasp ;-). Cheers.
I think both of you are missing a very significant part of BuCheney's power: fear. Americans actually live in fear of being named an enemy combatant and disappeared. They fear another war being started. They fear martial law.
Neither Obama nor Hillary will be feared, thus, they will be less effective unless they have the necessary majorities in Congress.
Cheers
I think you're absolutely wrong on this.
Americans may be afraid, but that's not what they're afraid of. If they were, they wouldn't have elected Bush and Cheney.
Nope, Americans who are fearful think the GOP (the "daddy party") will protect them better than the Democrats (the "mommy party"). They fear another terrorist attack. Or a conventional attack. Most people give no thought at all to the idea of being "disappeared." I don't think most Americans are even aware of the concept.
Unless "daddy" is an abusive drunk who plays with guns...
I did say "a" significant part. Perhaps I should have added "some" Americans. And there is no way in hell am wrong about this. Talk to anyone who is on the no-fly list, anyone who has gotten a letter from the FBI. Those Americans who don't fear this don't because they think they are one of the "good guys," i.e., a con/neo-con, or have "It can't happen to me" syndrome or just don't understand the world they currently live in. People who are aware of the deep cuts made into the fabric of the Constitution cannot but fear this. Else, why all the concern over NSPD 51 and Iran?
I should clarify that these fears may not necessarily be for themselves, but for others or our nation in general.
In the end, there is a significant portion of the populace that actually thinks about these things. (I am one of them.) What is the percentage? I don't know. I suspect at a subconscious level nearly everyone is affected.
One reason I am mostly content to be where I am is because I think it far from a long shot that an attack on Iran, a stolen election or martial law will happen before Bush leaves office. Couple The Perfect Storm with the geopolitical craziness and we're in an anything-can-happen mode.
The fearful you speak of are the fears of the cons/neo-cons. I was not speaking of that sub-group.
Cheers
And there is no way in hell am wrong about this.
So basically you're yourself a conspiracy theorist who doesn't care about facts ?
Sentences like this do indeed illuminate the rest of your post you know. Talk about generating fear in people. And obviously you accuse the other side of generating fear of you, while you are telling them that the other side will "disappear" (which you strongly insinuate means murder) them.
Hypocrisy ... such a comfort.
I disagree. The fear that has been used is the fear of terrorism and/or "islamo-fascism". People have been convinced that if we don't act, we'll be attacked again or worse our country will be taken over. Few people take the time to actually analyze that the danger of dying in a car wreck is far more likely than becoming a victim of an act of terror. Modern humans are very poor at determining the really risky things in their lives. If they were, less people would fear bears or sharks and more would be afraid of automobiles.
I think he already has, or been trying to, at least as much as his bosses have let him.
One of the TOD top quotes is Bush in May 2000
"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of
energy in America."
And this one from a TV interview with CNBC's Ron Insana (sorry, no link )
"(In this decade)we're just going to have to change our habits. ......
we're going to have to think about how to drive different..... the hydrocarbon society will still be with us, but it can't be with us to the extent it is today."
-- President George W. Bush -- April 19, 2005
And we have Gails post
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3514
And last year Drumbeat had a link from a Whitehouse Q+A w/ Bush and Sarcozy (i think)
Bush answered a reporter that high oil was caused by diminishing supply. I should have bookmarked that one.
My civics (now there's a word that will date you) is a little rusty so please help.
It seems that having a majority in either the House or Senate - or both - of the other party fom the POTUS is not "good enough". You need to have enough to block filibusters override POTUS veto, etc.
Well - that assumes the POTUS is not a uniter and instead a divider in spite of the fact he/she may be the decider.
As I understand it, the reason the shrub got the ongoing Iraq war funding - for example - was that the Dems could not get enough votes to overide (threatened) POTUS veto. It would seem to me you could keep tossing up a modified bill to the POTUS and let them get vetoed ad nauseum until someone caved - silly maybe - and certainly I am missing something...
Anyway... what are the rules for POTUS veto override, blocking filiBLUSTER, etc.
Pete
You need 60 votes (out of 100) in the Senate to override a filibuster or other administrative trickery. You need 67 votes to override a veto. In the house a simple majority (out of 435) will pass any legislation or motion while 2/3's majority is needed to override a veto (291 votes).
If the dems wanted to get bloody, they could have prevented the war from continuing by failing to pass the war funding appropriations bills. This is what ultimately brought an end to the Vietnam war, Congress cut off the funding. I suspect the Iraq will end in the same manner, it's simply a question of how many more bodies and treasure will be squandered in the interim.
Probably. Especially if it's President McCain who's the decider.
Though even Obama didn't vote to cut off funding. And I don't blame him. This is a much more difficult problem than Vietnam was, if only because of the oil involved.
if only because of the oil involved.
Bah.
Strikes little old me that there is a gravy-train (not the dog food) in DC. Bucking that means you could not have 31 million in spare cash to loan to yourself. Or however you feather your DC roost.
Few in Washington have "man'ed up" over the years. 'Go along to get along' or 'the nail which stands up gets pounded down' is a common human mantra. If everyone else is doing X, why stand out? Really. Why stand out? Its not like you'll end up naked and shivering in the gutter.
(Pls post any pictures of Congress-Kritters naked shivering in the gutter just to prove me wrong)
Pls post any pictures of Congress-Kritters naked shivering in the gutter just to prove me wrong
Senator Vitter did not take pictures while he was "sinning" with prostitutes. But reports are ...
Alan
A very nice summation. Frankly I'm surprised readers haven't been howling at the moon over your statements.