![]() | The 2008 IEA WEO - Renewable Energy | The Oil Drum | The IEA WEO 2008: Long term prospects for coal production | ![]() |
283 comments on DrumBeat: December 4, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
283 comments on DrumBeat: December 4, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
So if TODer's were to choose the energy source of the future, which one would it be?
a) Thorium Fluoride Nuclear Power
b) Oil producing algae
c) Ocean power
d) None of the above.
If I had to choose between those 4, i'd go b, followed closely by a.
Interesting poll subject VK. Do you think adding a time frame would be useful?
No idea Rockman but as a guess i'm thinking the time frame is URGENT! within the next 10 years?
Making one of the points I always make, the question also depends on how quickly you can ramp up production/deployment of various things, particularly with regard to suitable levels of safety. Although my understanding is that the generation density of wind power is too low for it to be an ideal technology, it does have the advantage that the absolute worst case if it goes wrong is that you might get in rare circumstances one person killed by a collapsing/exploding wind turbine. On the other hand, whilst I'd really like to see nuclear technologies deployed in an incrementally ramping up way leading to extensive use in maybe 50 years, I really don't want, as a vague estimate, 50 nuclear plants of exactly the same initial design built in the UK within the next 10 years. (Look at Holyrood palace in Edinburgh and the millennium bridge for two examples of typical non-safety critical engineering that have been screwed up in the UK.)
So I'd vote for the "all of the above, plus solar heating and to a lesser extent photovoltaic".
Though there were reports this week of ice being projected from a turbine causing some concerns - though I can't see this becoming much of an issue.
Watch out, if someone gets hit and sues, wind turbines builders will have to install containment vessels.
Danish wind turbine brake failure in high winds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gk-0xBs8Q
Do wind turbines make noise?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD0v9_zV2uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRWHr2ek_BQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA9uBdkmRtY
In that case VK I'd have to choose none of the above. There are approaches to be followed but it's difficult to imagine any effort to be scaled up to a significant level in less then 20 years. We do need to start now..it is URGENT. But even with a healthy economy and abundent credit it would take many, many years IMO. But that's not where we are today. Given the continuing deepening recession I doubt any real progress can even begin for 5+ years. It's that same scalability problem we keep running into.
None of those technologies will produce any significant amount of energy in the next 10 years.
Wind, traditional fission, solar thermal, and maybe solar pv are the only technologies that could be ramped significantly in that time frame (pv less so due to materials shortages). Assuming the will and capital were present to do so.
You left one out:
e) All of the above and solar too.
Until we try out the various options, there's no way to make a choice.
I do think that (b) isn't likely to work out, since the mass of material other than the water/algae mix is going to be large. Growing "oil producing" algae in open ponds was shown to be a bad idea by the NREL, due to rapid contamination from wild type species which don't produce oil. That means the only way to grow "oil producing" algae is by building massive closed systems, which would be much more expensive than open ponds. Not to mention that algae doesn't grow when the temperature is below about 40F, so production will be seasonal, just like any other crop.
E. Swanson
Are solar and wind scalable? On a side note some possible progress with regards to thorium power here
I'm guessing that one of the main drawbacks of thorium power is that it is still largely untested, the question of scalability and how much water it uses as well?
Wind certainly has proved itself to be. Spain this year set a record with getting 40% of its entire power demand from Wind Power:
New Wind Power Record in Spain: 40.8% of Total Demand!
Hope! :D
That's a bad thing; who wants unusable spikes to 41%?
Wind power contributes on average 11% of Spains electricity demand but it's distributed into spikes that are hard to absorb and lulls that are hard to mitigate(which no doubt creates "security of demand" for Gazprom). There's not even a hint off a plan to build the massive storage they will need.
It wouldn't surprise me if they pay negative prices for wind much of the time(just like the Texas ERCOT, see http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/002745.html)
Wind and solar are very scalable.
What you need is a VERY good grid, some overbuilt capacity, and the externalities of coal priced in.
Consumer,
We probably agree on much but I suspect we define scalability differently. Most of the alts can be constructed on commercial levels. When some of us refer to scalability problems we mean the combination of the lack of investment capital and the timing factor. Given a couple of decades and trillions of $'s many of the alts can development a significant impact on our energy consumption profile. But, as you say, we need a "good grid". So how long before the grid is expanded before the alts can be scaled up? Certainly not 4 or 5 years. No one is even approaching that one problem at the moment with any meaningful action. How long before we see solid political mandates supporting alts? More time delay. How long to build the infrastructure to build the hardware for any alt expansion? And where will that capital come from these days?
Perhaps the use of scalability in this manner is the best nomenclature but it's a common theme in many discussions.
I was referring to technological scalability, not political.
Technologically, we have no problems. We have plenty of oil and coal to fund a 30 year transition. Politically, as you point out, we are screwed.
Liquid fluoride salt thorium/U233 cycle nuclear reactors were built and successfully demonstrated in the US by Oak Ridge Nat'l Labs in the '60s. I'm not aware of any commercial scale thorium reactors at present, but the concept has significant advantages - and some modest technical challenges - compared to the current light water uranium/plutonium cycle that is the standard in the US.
See Energy From Thorium for more details.
Yet there are a lot of people out there working on it. Most of the stories in the news talk about open-pond types of systems, and they just let native species grow in it instead of trying to optimize for oil producing algae. What this means I don't know - one would presume that there is some subsequent step to convert the algae into something fuel-like, but I haven't seen enough details about any of them to say more than that.
d) None of the above.
A ridiculously large portion of our economic activity can be retooled to perform on less energy. That is the answer.
Agreed...POWER DOWN !!!
Stop the waste. There must be an end to the MORE, MORE, MORE attitudes.
POWER DOWN.
See thread below...
d) None of the above
The presumption in your poll question is essentially "how do we keep BAU going?"
The problem we face is not simply an energy issue. The problem is our worship of growth and material prosperity. Any energy source that allow that worship to continue is to be spurned. The solution is not what new energy source do we need, but how do we learn to live lives that are not based on the consumption of ever more resources.
I've been reading a bit of Overshoot by William Catton, still on the first chapter but it seems that humanity is well over its carrying capacity and we are drawing down more resources than over before and we are basically going to systematically exclude more and more people from access to resources by virtue of increased competition.
The Problem with growth and consumption is that they have essentially become religion and dogma. How do we circumvent this desire for more (of which I am guilty of as well) as it appears to be genetic? We are on a hedonic treadmill where enough is never enough!
As several posters commented in response to Carl Etnier's request the other day, "Overshoot" is one of the essential reads regarding PO and the greater human predicament of which PO is merely a symptom. Catton describes the big picture beautifully, and did so nearly 30 years ago. Completing my personal trifecta of sources for groking said predicament are Al Bartlett's talk on Arithmentic, Population and Energy and the documentary What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire.
I know that others here will disagree, but to say something is "genetic" is merely to stop asking question. You have not really explained anything. On top of which, there is no way you or any geneticist can claim a proven connection between a gene configuration and a behavior.
Here's a fact you can count on, though. Most of human history has been lived without the sort of over-consumption that defines modern human history. Even if you count only the recorded history, the great majority of people have not pursued over-consumption. Considering this, its hard to see how this could be "genetic" (by which you really meant unavoidable or predetermined).
"Most of human history has been lived without the sort of over-consumption that defines modern human history."
Shaman, that's not true.
We, our species, spread across the globe at least in part because of a series of local "over consumption" periods - sort of a mini-"punctuated equilibrium"-like growth.
Each occasion of local "over-consumption" ended with a visit by the 4 Horsemen of The apocalypse.
The absolute misery of those periods drove the migrations of all of our ancestors (not just the white trash from europe), in all directions, to every crevice of the globe in search of resources for further growth.
There was always a new place to go with new materials and new, improved energy sources to be discovered.
Until This TimezUp.
Nature is no longer our Lender of Last Resort.
modern human overconsumption may have an analog in geologic history - the dinosaurs. one reason i dont buy the comic book asteroid kills dinosaurs version, jmo.
Mahatma Gandhi came close when he said that "there is enough in this world to meet everyone's need but not everyone's greed". He should have put "probably" in there as well.
BAU will kill us.
Srivathsa
We are already dead......
Read thru the list of today's Drumbeat. See anything, even remote, that lends us to believe the tide is turning in the right direction to save anyone?
One could have read the magazines on the deck of the Titanic, after it hit the iceburg, and had more of a chance of survival, than most anything currently written.
PEEWEE..!!! What time is it??
IT'S LIFEBOAT TIME!!!!
I'm not dead yet. Someday I will be, regardless of what happens. It's not every generation that gets to witness population collapse, mass extinction and abrupt climate change. Quit complaining, open your eyes to wonder, and enjoy the ride.
We're all dummies...
;) You got it!
I do think that (c) is underestimated and neglected at present. There are multiple possibilities: tidal, wave, thermal gradient, and currents. We certainly do need more R&D on these. These are more a matter of applied engineering rather than basic research; we've got time for applied engineering, but I'm afraid that we're already out of time when it comes to deploying something that hasn't even been discovered yet.
The big problem with oceanic power schemes is pretty much the same as with many other renewable megaproject schemes - the distance that the energy must be transmitted to end users. There is no point in considering any energy project unless the transport/distribution system is included in the analysis. There might also be environmental considerations. We've already gotten ourselves into enough problems by messing around with global GHG levels without knowing what we were doing; we had best exercise a lot more care before we start messing around with the oceans on a large scale.
Of course, what is now becoming obvious as the biggest problem of all is: money - as in "not enough of it". It might be pointless to talk about large scale technologies of any type if large scale financing is simply impossible. The future in energy may very well be low tech, small scale, and distributed, simply because that is the only possible energy future that anyone can afford.
I think that to be more realistic, for most people living in most places in the future, the answer is going to have to be (d).
Some of the possibilities in ocean power look very hopeful, and in the UK distances are less to transmit the power.
Thorium reactors are also very exciting.
Unfortunately, I don't think we have the time to roll either out on a large scale for many years at best.
So my answer would be d)None of the above.
What will work in my view is aggressive conservation, wind power, some solar power in very sunny locations, the amount to be determined by the early solar thermal plants being tested, and air source heat pumps.
The critical reason for this approach is the difficulty of finance for the long term in the current climate.
Longer term, I don't think we have a real choice in the UK save to go to nuclear, off shore wind is nice and can supplement but I don't think we will be able to afford much of it.
The US in reality will probably burn more coal, but I would hope that this can be mitigated by conservation - not being able to afford it does wonders for that!
How about oil palms? New hybrids promise much higher yields and plenty of land in the Amazon.
But, forget about alternative fuels for the next several years. Financing is gone; the public doesn't care. Oil headed for $10 a barrel. Nobody (outside energy mavens) is going to care poop about alternative fuels or energy for the next five years.
Worse, if this is an "L-shaped" recession (as forecast by gloomy-doomies at The Economist magazine) oil demand may not recover for 10-15 years. It could be 20 years before the Peak Oil movement gets traction again.
Kinda like the last time, at the end of the 1970s, and the "Limits to Growth" movement. I wonder if the price mechanism pushes off "Peak Oil" consequences in 20 year increments.
Get a clue.
What is your point? What is palm oil if not alternative fuel? How can a credit collapse be anything other than what it is, a calamity?
I don't think any business or industry - and few individuals - would agree the current credit failure extending perpetually into the future as having many compensating benefits, certainly not as a leading condition to keeping energy prices low. If your desire is to have a growing economy with low prices, it is not realistic.
Any racheting upward of economic growth here in the US would have energy prices hiking upward ... and dramatically, too. At the same time, government actions to end the credit crisis are making more likely a payment- centered energy shortage is in the near future:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abQebPN6cIlg
In case you haven't noticed, the auto industry is standing at the edge of the abyss. I suppose if all the car makers go out of business, there will be a lot less demand for fuel, which would certainly keep prices down.
Something to look forward to ...
I'd guess that if the car-makers go out of business due to very low demand in the short term at least oil demand might be higher than it otherwise would be.
All the old clunkers will be kept on the road, whilst there will be severe pressure on oil prices with that kind of depth of recession.
So the SUV's will continue to roll, right up to the point where the oil runs out due to the lack of investment in the oil industry in that low price environment - 2012?
VK, forget the techno-scientific-voodoo. Soon the global middle-class is going to suffer a catastrophic structural collapse, throwing many into a world of poverty they didn't know existed. And, as many here are middle-class, why not poll them on what preparations they are personally making to ensure they survive it.
The future is less than what we have today. Anyone making plans on a future with what we have today or more (ie. Noddy electric cars, magical power production systems, etc.) is going down with all dependants.
Maybe its time for people to get serious and start dealing with reality, before it deals with them. Do the poll!
I would say first that whatever the source(s), the total amount supplied will be much less than it is today.
I would secondly say that it will need to be less and less dependent on underground resources (i.e. underground hydrocarbons, metals, many minerals) since these are either depeleting or will become increasingly inaccessible because of less energy.
This leaves biological sources of whatever form, plus hydro, plus solar, plus wind -- but increasingly without metals further down the road. 1491 by Mann has some very interesting material on pre-Columbian bio-technology in the Americas.
Parenthetically: I don't know how long the metals we've already extracted can be kept in play by recycling, but I'm sure it's an issue that will eventually get a lot more attention.