As Jerome has suggested in his wind posts, long horizon renewables have a negative feedback to their own scaling in a market system (which is why many state owned companies are involved in feed-in tariffs and scaling in Europe). As more wind comes online, credit crisis aside, it reduces marginal price of electricity, which makes it more difficult to depart from exisiting, marginal cost fuels like coal and natural gas. I.e. as wind would approach 10% of US electricity, it would lower electricity costs to the point where utilities would get signal not to add wind...i.e. the market will not scale wind on its own. (I think we will have Jeromes presentation from Italy up by next week)

Contrarily, if the price of fuels goes up there will be price signals to build more wind, and the companies that did so in advance will have a competitive advantage.

What will actually happen depends upon how the decision makers weigh the odds and risks.

But keeping everything else equal (which is, of course, impossible), the more wind there is the lower prices will be at the margin, which will dis-incentivize long duration renewables in favor of status quo - i.e. if the decisionmakers use the market as guide, there will be natural cap to amt of wind - if they use something else (like maxing future energy in 2025 then you are correct)

Unless we run out of FF then we will only have renewables and nuclear, wind can be installed quickly(a few years)so will do the heavy lifting until solar and/or nuclear catch up. I don't think price will be an issue if the alternative is rolling blackouts.

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

2. We have, as of now, no renewable energy source, nor combination
of sources, that can scale up quickly enough, or provide anywhere
near to the energy equivalent of oil, to avoid a severe, worldwide
energy shortage.

3. Even if we had renewable energy sources to provide the equivalent
energy of oil at the same cost, our entire economic infrastructure
is oil, not electron or hydrogen, based. The economy might not
be able to work as well on non-oil based energy. For example, could
airplanes, or large mining trucks, be run on batteries?

To produce an equivalent amount of energy provided by oil in one year would take:

200 Three Gorges Dams
2,600 Nuclear Power Plants
5,200 Coal Fired Plants (not good for global warming...)
1,642,500 Wind Turbines
4,562,500,000 Solar Panels

Not to mention that the US is pretty broke and has no money and is living on borrowed funds from overseas, if the lenders decide to pull their support, the US economy is toast. It is reliant for 70% of it's oil imports not to mention minerals and metals as well as a lot of other stuff. It's a negative sum game and China holds the best cards for now.

In many places in the EU, Japan and soon China, airplanes are being displaced by high speed rail.

And as a mining engineer you know that a primary calculation by the profession is the breakeven between conveyor belts (driven by electricity) and trucks (driven by oil ATM). Just skew the economics heavily towards conveyor belts and against trucks.

Alan

Alan:
Would that life were that easy. One of the problems with belts is that there is only one of them, so that when it breaks your total production is shut down, whereas with trucks if one is down you only lose a part of your production. Plus there are problems with weather, wear and maintenance (a truck can come in out of the ice storm) So it really depends on the individual case, and is hard to generalize. (Though as academics we try and do that).

I have seen belts:

1) disposing of the cuttings from 54 km of 7 & 8 m diameter tunnels
2) a small underground limestone quarry that went underground switched from trucks to belts to raise the crushed rock from the underground crusher to the surface stockpiles.
3) In a lignite mine (large scale)

In #1, despite the length (up to 18 km), reliability of the conveyors was never an issue (MANY other problems were). It was in Iceland with ~ 1 km outside, so your "ice storm" concern is questionable.

With #2, the much increased reliability of the belt over trucks was one of the reasons given by the quarry owner to me for the switch.

So your "reliability" argument rings hollow.

And Post-Peak Oil, it will be less important. Mines that mine with electricity will do better than those that use a lot of oil.

Best Hopes for Electrified mining,

Alan

I dislike the "Cubic Mile Model" immensely.

Among other things it assumes that we will consume the same amount of energy.

We won't. We will do things more efficiently and we will frequently do without.

The economy will not be the same on the downslope because it cannot be, and attempts to make it so are doomed to failure.

Keep your stick on the ice. We're all in this together.

VK,
"We have, as of now, no renewable energy source, nor combination
of sources, that can scale up quickly enough, or provide anywhere
near to the energy equivalent of oil, to avoid a severe, worldwide
energy shortage.
"
Wind energy has been increasing at 30% for last 15 years,(50% last year), so doubling every 2.4 years. The US uses 190Billion gallons of gasoline and distillate/year and another 15-20MJ of electricity and NG(5KWh) to refine that from crude oil. It requires 10kWh in a similar sized EV to travel the distance that one gallon of gasoline can move an ICE vehicle. Hence would need about 1000Billion kWh to replace that 190Billion gallons( about 120GW average). The present wind turbines operating in US generate 9GW average(28GW capacity) so would need X13 present wind capacity( less than 4 doubling or <10years) so could have this energy in place by 2020.

We probably won't have all cars EV or PHEV by 2020, but we could have about 50% of VMT electric by this date. I am not sure if you think the US will have 50% of today's oil available and I don't think anyone knows.

" our entire economic infrastructure is oil, not electron or hydrogen, based. The economy might not be able to work as well on non-oil based energy. For example, could
airplanes, or large mining trucks, be run on batteries?

When you turn on your lights, or boil a kettle or turn on an A/C do you use oil?. Does you TV or computer run on oil? I think kerosene lighting went out 100 years ago. We have the infrastructure in place to use electric vehicles, every home has them; 110volt outlets. The grid in not being used at full capacity in evenings and can handle another 180GW of overnight demand( 18% of capacity). May have to give up most air travel, so what?
Many mining trucks, shovels are already electric, or diesel electric and could be converted to all electric. Same for trains. We will need oil for ocean shipping( about 3% of world oil use), 1% for agriculture. Do you think we will be able to manage to recover 4% of present oil production in 30-40 years? If not I am sure CNG or chemical storage would work on ships as weight is not an issue.

Major Uses of Petroleum Products in the United States, 2000

Cars, SUV’s, minivans, pickups Gasoline (99%) 40.7%
Trucks>8500 lbs Diesel (80%) 12.7%
Raw materials for plastics, chemicals Feedstocks, LPG 10.3%
Air passenger travel Jet fuel 6.7%
Process heat for factories Various grades 5.0%
Heat and hot water for homes, offices, stores Fuel oils, LPG 4.9%
Energy to run oil refineries Still gas 3.3%
Road paving Asphalt 2.8%
Water freight (dom. and int’l) Residual, distillate 2.5%
Agriculture (machinery and drying crops) LPG, diesel 2.2%
Electricity generation Residual (>90%) 1.6%
Construction machinery Diesel 1.6%
Military Mostly jet fuel 1.5%
Rail freight Diesel 1.2%
Air freight Jet fuel 1.1%
Recreational vehicles and boats Gasoline 1.0%