NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been a lot of debates here about energy. One of the things that sticks out in my mind is the lack of an understanding of net energy. Really, it's just the concept that it takes energy to get energy. Once you subtract the amount of energy you use to produce energy what you are left with is your net energy which is all that you actually get to use. Many of the solutions people seem to like to talk about actually use close to or even more energy to produce than you get from the process. Ethanol comes to mind. People love to tout ethanol as a solution, but in most cases it takesmore oil to grow, transport and process the corn than you get from the process.

Anyhoo, here's a useful, short article that explains the concept.

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2006/04/should-we-use-net-energy-to-measure.html

An excerpt:
As the world moves ever closer to the time when vital, finite energy resources begin to decline, we need to know not how much oil, natural gas, coal or uranium is left; rather, we need to know how much usable energy is left in these resources. A recent illustration of the problem we face in understanding usable energy supplies came in the form of a 60 Minutes story on the Canadian oil sands. The program reported that "the reserves are so vast in the province of Alberta that they will help solve America’s energy needs for the next century."

Nowhere does the reporter explain how much energy it takes to mine and refine the bitumen--it's not actually oil. In fact, it takes two barrels of oil equivalent to obtain three barrels of usable oil from the oil sands. (This is a far lower return than we get from conventional oil which can provide 20 times the energy consumed for older oil discoveries and eight times the energy consumed for newer oil discoveries.) By this standard we should reduce the generally accepted 180 billion barrels of reserves in the Canadian oil sands by 40 percent. Now, not all of the energy used to mine and process the oil sands comes from petroleum. Of course, the huge mining trucks and other equipment run on diesel fuel. But, the processing plants are heavy users of natural gas, both to heat water for the separation process and to provide a source of hydrogen to transform the bitumen into a flowing, light oil.

I like these thread of yours that you post on this topic. Very educational. Should be bookmarked or stickied.

It still surprises me how many people believe in perpetual substitution, as if we can extract kerosene from asphalt.

I like these thread of yours that you post on this topic. Very educational. Should be bookmarked or stickied.
Thank you! :p I agree! :p

Ethanol comes to mind. People love to tout ethanol as a solution, but in most cases it takes more oil to grow, transport and process the corn than you get from the process.

No, it doesn't. Here's a paper written on the topic of the net energy of ethanol:

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm


Ethanol is "energy efficient, in that it yields nearly 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol."
Today's "higher corn yields, lower energy use per unit of output in the fertilizer industry, and advances in fuel conversion technologies have greatly enhanced the economic and technical feasibility of producing ethanol compared with just a decade ago."
If you add coproduct energy credits, "the NEV of corn ethanol is positive regardless of the type of milling used. Dry-milling results in the highest NEV, 19,290 Btu, but wet-milling NEV differs by only 4,989 Btu per gallon. The NEV for weighted average case is 16,193 Btu per gallon."

*snip*
Wow, an energy yield of 25%? That'll totally replace the oil and gas with a current energy yield of 1000% (and falling).

I also understand that the 2 barrels of oil it takes to get 3 barrels out of the tar sands is just what it takes to get it out of the ground ... it does not factor in what it takes to get it to market. So the net energy gain is actually less than one barrel in three. Not to mention that it takes something like 2.5 barrels of water (that are then rendered unusable) to get that barrel of oil.

No, it doesn't. Here's a paper written on the topic of the net energy of ethanol:

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm


Ethanol is "energy efficient, in that it yields nearly 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol."
Today's "higher corn yields, lower energy use per unit of output in the fertilizer industry, and advances in fuel conversion technologies have greatly enhanced the economic and technical feasibility of producing ethanol compared with just a decade ago."
If you add coproduct energy credits, "the NEV of corn ethanol is positive regardless of the type of milling used. Dry-milling results in the highest NEV, 19,290 Btu, but wet-milling NEV differs by only 4,989 Btu per gallon. The NEV for weighted average case is 16,193 Btu per gallon."

And I can point t studies that refute those claims that were done, not by corn growers or ethanol lobbyists but by universities. On the face of this report is that it isn't taking into account the effect that higher oil prices will have on growing corn. In anycase, this report says right there that you get 25% surplus energy from the process. That's a far cry from the historic 2000% and even the current 800% energy surplus that you get from oil. One will allow you to build huge, industrialized global scale economies. the other probably will not support that.

I also understand that the 2 barrels of oil it takes to get 3 barrels out of the tar sands is just what it takes to get it out of the ground ... it does not factor in what it takes to get it to market. So the net energy gain is actually less than one barrel in three. Not to mention that it takes something like 2.5 barrels of water (that are then rendered unusable) to get that barrel of oil.
A couple of years ago Canada had to shut in 700 productive gas wells to keep their tar sand operation running. That's an energy loss too.

alchemy is the answer

/me breaks the laws of thermodynamics and invents a perpetual otion machine, followed by a perpetual power supply.

And I'm not giving it to any of you :P

nah seriously. No matter what you try, all solutions are going to be less efficient than oil, simply because the energy is very highly condesed, and you don't have to go through the process of creating it, which is where the most energy is needed.

Of course, once the oil has gone, less attractive solutions are going to have to be used, and anything that produces more energy than it takes to create, no matter how feebl the amount, will have to be considered.

/me breaks the laws of thermodynamics and invents a perpetual otion machine, followed by a perpetual power supply.

And I'm not giving it to any of you :P

nah seriously. No matter what you try, all solutions are going to be less efficient than oil, simply because the energy is very highly condesed, and you don't have to go through the process of creating it, which is where the most energy is needed.

Of course, once the oil has gone, less attractive solutions are going to have to be used, and anything that produces more energy than it takes to create, no matter how feebl the amount, will have to be considered.
Yeah. And by then, say in 20 or 30 years, we'll be living in a world we can't dream of now and it will probably be nothing like we had imagined.

Yeah. And by then, say in 20 or 30 years, we'll be living in a world we can't dream of now and it will probably be nothing like we had imagined.
Of course. nobody ever predicts the future well, but we can't go round basing off what "might" happen. It's only through investigation that the discoveries to make the next lot possible will happen.

I still say electric cars charged by nuclear power stations is the best bet for a post oil world.

What about my plan for the cat-buttered toast generator with a Stormtrooper-Red Shirt based backup?

What about my plan for the cat-buttered toast generator with a Stormtrooper-Red Shirt based backup?
I invented the cat/buttered toast generator. I power my car on it. :mad:

What's the Stormtrooper-Red Shirt backup? :confused:

Yeah. And by then, say in 20 or 30 years, we'll be living in a world we can't dream of now and it will probably be nothing like we had imagined.

I know -- by then we'll be whizzing around in spaceships powered by the sun, robots will do everything for us, and we'll have a 1984-type government.

Nuclear power is the only currently viable alternative.

Solar may work - but only solar sats. Ground based solar will never be sufficiently efficient.

What's the Stormtrooper-Red Shirt backup? :confused:
Well inevitably the cat is going to die, so you need a backup for when that happens.

In Star Trek, the Red Shirts always find a way to die.
In Star Wars, the Stormtroopers always find a way to miss.

You stick the two of them in a room together as enemies and harnass the energy created from the laws of Physics trying to resolve themselves.

Nuclear power is the only currently viable alternative.

Solar may work - but only solar sats. Ground based solar will never be sufficiently efficient.

Nuclear is only economically viable because the government restricts their liability for any disaster. Otherwise no insurer would touch them because of the lousy safety record. If the new nuclear is safe, then its proponents will have no problem accepting full liability for it.

Solar energy is one of the only kinds of energy that does works. Whether it is stored in fossil fuels or in solar cells.

Well inevitably the cat is going to die, so you need a backup for when that happens.

In Star Trek, the Red Shirts always find a way to die.
In Star Wars, the Stormtroopers always find a way to miss.

You stick the two of them in a room together as enemies and harnass the energy created from the laws of Physics trying to resolve themselves.
Great Scott! :eek:

Nuclear is only economically viable because the government restricts their liability for any disaster. Otherwise no insurer would touch them because of the lousy safety record. If the new nuclear is safe, then its proponents will have no problem accepting full liability for it.


What lousy safety record? The worst nuclear accident EVER in a competently built and run nuclear reactor was Three Mile Island - and in that case, where literally EVERY safety feature failed except the scram system, we had a loss of a few liters of radioactive gas. No one was hurt, there were no long term effects, and no liability was required.

Chernobyl was neither competently buil, designed, or run. IT COULD NOT HAVE GONE ONLINE IN ANY WESTERN COUNTRY. Comparing that to a real reactor is like comparinga two-rope bridge to the Golden Gate.

Nuclear power is completely safe.

What lousy safety record? The worst nuclear accident EVER in a competently built and run nuclear reactor was Three Mile Island - and in that case, where literally EVERY safety feature failed except the scram system, we had a loss of a few liters of radioactive gas. No one was hurt, there were no long term effects, and no liability was required.

Chernobyl was neither competently buil, designed, or run. IT COULD NOT HAVE GONE ONLINE IN ANY WESTERN COUNTRY. Comparing that to a real reactor is like comparinga two-rope bridge to the Golden Gate.

Nuclear power is completely safe.
Two things:

1. Nothing is completely safe. Eating toast is not completely safe. I'll agree that it is much safer to run a reactor, especially today's models, but there still is no safe way to dispose of the waste. The problem isn't just how much of a rik there is in operating the facilities and disposing of waste, its the potential consequences of an accident. Kinda like flying. You're less likely to have a problem, but if you do you're dead.

2. Perception matter more than reality. It's not the possibility of an accident or the consequences shoudl one happen, its the perception of the possibility and consequences.

Indeed, it's the 'Not in my Backyard' mentality that's really keeping nuclear power down, which is funny considering coal plants release more radioactive material into the air then a nuclear power plan does.

I know -- by then we'll be whizzing around in spaceships powered by the sun, robots will do everything for us, and we'll have a 1984-type government.

I think the last one is the only likelihood.

I know -- by then we'll be whizzing around in spaceships powered by the sun, robots will do everything for us, and we'll have a 1984-type government.



:rolleyes:



http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000B0QJC2.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

All forms of energy are inefficient. If we had to make crude oil ourselves from raw solar energy the results would be even more disastrous than ethanol. It's just because all the hard work was made by trillions of tons of plants during millions of years that we can have cheap energy in the form of oil. And all those millions of years we spent in less than two centuries! Talk about inefficiency!

All that considered, there's no substitute for oil, because all other energy we will have to harvest ourselves. The real questions is what's the most efficient form of capturing energy, i.e. what way will leave us with the highest percentage of usable energy.

1. Nothing is completely safe. Eating toast is not completely safe.

Especially if said toast is buttered and tied to a cat.

So, bottom line is, we will not run out of energy, but we will run out of cheap energy. (And I understand that $65/barrel is still extremely cheap in comparison to what's coming).

The biggest change will be in how goods are transported. Solar powered vehicles are still in their infancy and there may well be technical limits as to cargo transport that solar cannot break. How good is a large solar or nuclear plant at making hydrogen, however? I know British Columbia is having some success with hydrogen powered busses. If they can move something as heavy as a bus, then it may also be able to move cargo.

I understand solar panels cost a lot to make (as do nuke plants) but once made, isn't the energy provided essentially free? Is there some energy life-span that these things inherently have?

Unfortunately, yes there is. Solar cells are delicate; one good hailstorm can destroy a solar farm. And the cells have a working life of only fifteen years before they gradually burn out.

Nuclear plants can keep going for about a hundred years before neutron bombardment makes the metals of the core containment vessels brittle and unusable. Even then, the facility can still be used if you replace the cores systems completely.

The single problem with energy in the world is the terrible, out-of-scale consumption. We use energy literally like no tomorrow.

The only feedstock which can physically match this magnitude is coal. Coal can be reduced to oil, but this is terribly costly. It's going to take some time before oil is depleted to such a large extent that coal-based oil manufacturing becomes a profitable business.

The processes are well-known and tested technology, since they are used for other purposes today, namely producing synthesis gas, a feedstock for chemical production.

The countries allied with the Axis in World War 2 also used extensively "oil replacements", since they had no choice. Germany, for example, produced oil from coal. In here, partial combustion of wood - in a "CO chamber" in the trunk - was used to produce carbon monoxide, which was used as the fuel instead of gasoline.

The solution can be found in HE3...

The solution can be found in HE3...
Sorry, I think you may have missed the irony in the Space: 1999 video cover. Please look more closely. :D

Sorry, I think you may have missed the irony in the Space: 1999 video cover. Please look more closely. :D

Still not sure what that has to do with He3...?

Are you referring to the source?

Still not sure what that has to do with He3...?
I think because He3 is kinda' hard to get on Earth.

I see a lot of parallels between oil and wood when it comes to the transition between fuel sources. Wood was the last energy source we abandoned because of diminishing supply and rising prices that stemmed directly from consumption, and yet we were able to make the transition between the two without serious consequences; in fact, things ended up being a lot better because of it.

Also, the step down in energy returns has happened as well with the transition from wood to coal and the embracing of coal technology was far from a willing transition even in the face of the declining supply of wood. Nevertheless, we did it and there is no reason we cannot do so again. Also, living standards did not fall and society definitely didn't collapse; the transition era (17th century) saw the birth of the scientific method and the emergence of representative democracy as well as accelerated economic growth and social development.

I think we can make the transition without serious consequences. Yes, there will be undoubtedly be intermittent recessions and inflation, and there will be instability in places priced out of oil but it is a certainty that the transition will occur successfully. Market demand is already shifting, and is more mature and the technology available today is far more diversified and rapidly evolving than that of the 17th century, and the world economy is more flexible.

The concern about energy, to me, is a lot like the concern about overpopulation. It looks like a looming problem, but it has a tendency to retract before impact, minimizing any damage it would cause. As prices of gasoline and other indicators of resource quantity go up, we will start to consume less.

Environmental damage is another issue completely.

I see a lot of parallels between oil and wood when it comes to the transition between fuel sources. Wood was the last energy source we abandoned because of diminishing supply and rising prices that stemmed directly from consumption, and yet we were able to make the transition between the two without serious consequences; in fact, things ended up being a lot better because of it.

Also, the step down in energy returns has happened as well with the transition from wood to coal and the embracing of coal technology was far from a willing transition even in the face of the declining supply of wood. Nevertheless, we did it and there is no reason we cannot do so again. Also, living standards did not fall and society definitely didn't collapse; the transition era (17th century) saw the birth of the scientific method and the emergence of representative democracy as well as accelerated economic growth and social development.

I think we can make the transition without serious consequences. Yes, there will be undoubtedly be intermittent recessions and inflation, and there will be instability in places priced out of oil but it is a certainty that the transition will occur successfully. Market demand is already shifting, and is more mature and the technology available today is far more diversified and rapidly evolving than that of the 17th century, and the world economy is more flexible.
That's the point. Coal is infinately more energy dense than wood and oil more dense than coal and natural gas more dense, still. Those are the only real energy transitions we have ever made unless you want to count nuclear but nuclear has never powered a significant portion of our energy apetite and its not clear wether it can even work without cheap oil to build the stations and mine the ore. Also, uranium and other fissil elements are subject to depletion, too. This will be the fist time we have ever stepped down in energy quality and it will be a big step down.

I think because He3 is kinda' hard to get on Earth.

Yes, that is why we're going back to the moon! W00T! Won't need OPEC after a few tankloads of He3 arrive...

Actually, in quite a few areas wind power is becoming competitive with more traditional sources of electricity. Here in Australia up to 20% of my state's electrical power will soon come from wind. Of course conditions are good here. Lots of flat windy desert with gas supplies underneath to power generators when there is no wind. It is not unreasonable to expect further cost reductions in wind power, so wind could end up supplying a fair percentage of the world's energy needs. Of course there are problems. We had a windless heatwave this summer and some wind generators burned down. However, it appears to compare well to nuclear power for the simple reason that you don't have to borrow a huge amount of money to build a reactor and then wait years before it is completed. You just build wind turbines as you need them. The trouble is getting a reliable base supply of electricity. This will probably mean gas or coal in Australia.

If only we were as energy-efficient as the ancient Egyptians. Well, I suppose they had the whole slave thing going for them, though.

Fusion my friends. :)

If only we were as energy-efficient as the ancient Egyptians. Well, I suppose they had the whole slave thing going for them, though.
they burned slaves?

Fusion my friends. :)
I don't think they're paying any attention to our posts....

they burned slaves?
Some I bet were burned. :o

I don't think they're paying any attention to our posts....

Cause they like complaining about resources that have limits unlike Fusion which we can get 15 billion years of energy from.....THE OCEAN easily with modern tools. Energy from water....energy from air.

Solar Towers....I bring all the good energy words and then the thread dies. X-X

they burned slaves?

Sure, why not?

Cause they like complaining about resources that have limits unlike Fusion which we can get 15 billion years of energy from.....THE OCEAN easily with modern tools. Energy from water....energy from air.

Solar Towers....I bring all the good energy words and then the thread dies. X-X
No, you don't. It's just you can only argue so far. It get's tiring. You're wrong. You get your science, by your own admission, from places like wikipedia. I get mine from legitimate places and from real sources. Arguing with you about fusion is like arguing about God. For you it's religion, it's not science.

Cause they like complaining about resources that have limits unlike Fusion which we can get 15 billion years of energy from.....THE OCEAN easily with modern tools. Energy from water....energy from air.

Solar Towers....I bring all the good energy words and then the thread dies. X-X

Actually I was referring to He3 - which will be mined on the moon. The first shipment is scheduled to arrive sometime before 2020.

No, you don't. It's just you can only argue so far. It get's tiring. You're wrong. You get your science, by your own admission, from places like wikipedia. I get mine from legitimate places and from real sources. Arguing with you about fusion is like arguing about God. For you it's religion, it's not science.


Oooo - looks like Dan doesn't have enough fiber in his diet.

Actually I was referring to He3 - which will be mined on the moon. The first shipment is scheduled to arrive sometime before 2020.
What comic book did you read that in?

I guess I should mention ethanol. It appears that Brazillian ethanol produced from sugar cane can compete with oil, particularly when you factor in its environmental benefits. However, ethanol produced in the United States from corn is much more expensive and doesn't appear to have much in the way of environmental benefits due to all the fossil fuels that are used to produce it.

Australia and other countries with tropical zones could fairly easily produce ethanol from sugar cane by copying Brazilian methods, but there isn't a lot of investment going on in this area as people are unsure of what will happen with oil prices.

There is a lot of talk about cellulistic ethanol being developed. This may make it cheaper to produce ethanol but I think it is unlikely to compete with the Brazilian sugar cane method.

As there is only so much land that can produce sugar cane for ethanol it is only likely to replace a small percentage of our current oil use.

What comic book did you read that in?

That's all it took to completely expose your own ignorance? Wow - for someone who claims to read up-to-date scientific journals - you're easy.

edit - here's a link to cure your state of ignorance;
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html


But, since you asked, here's a few that may be more your speed;
http://flashgordon.ws/
http://www.buck-rogers.com/

That's all it took to completely expose your own ignorance? Wow - you're easy.
I read about energy everyday. I also put my money where my mouth is because I invest in energy stocks. I get market alerts everytime a major new patent is awarded that deals with energy, everything from who's getting research grants from the government to try to figure out wether methane hydrates are exploitable to new enzyme related methods of decreasing the viscocity of in place oil left over in abandoned oil fields. the other day I got a patent alert from a companie that has created a way of fracturing reservoir rock by injecting metal phericals to increase oil flow from failing fields. I hear stories like mining He3, by which I assume you mean an isotope of helium with an extra neutron, but only in pop science magazines. Never in valid sources. Your ignorance shows. You give no thought to the process of obtaining useful energy, you just think that energetic compounds somehow just end up in a plant somewhere and produce energy. They don't.

That's all it took to completely expose your own ignorance? Wow - for someone who claims to read up-to-date scientific journals - you're easy.

edit - here's a link to cure your state of ignorance;
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html


Exactly what I thought. Some pop science site. See if you can find it here: www.sciam.com

That's the point. Coal is infinately more energy dense than wood and oil more dense than coal and natural gas more dense, still. Those are the only real energy transitions we have ever made unless you want to count nuclear but nuclear has never powered a significant portion of our energy apetite and its not clear wether it can even work without cheap oil to build the stations and mine the ore. Also, uranium and other fissil elements are subject to depletion, too. This will be the fist time we have ever stepped down in energy quality and it will be a big step down.

No, we actually stepped down during the transition from hunting to farming to a degree, and the initial stages of coal production were far from energy efficent. Coal didn't really make progress for a while after its "discovery" (obviously the coal was known before) since we had trouble producing enough of it with contemporary mining technology. Coal was abandoned in favor of oil rather than displacing it; it wasn't even until the 1920's that production began to increase significantly. Even so, there are many ways to replace oil in the industrial, freight, and electrical sectors. The bulk of the consumption problem lies in transportation, and the alternatives are becoming increasingly cost-competitive even without subsidies.

There's a lot of uranium in seawater in addition to nuclear power, and reprocessing technology is able to recover more and more fuel from the waste than in the past with less radioactive material remaining. Flow batteries in conjunction with nuclear/solar/wind would help render a lot of natural-gas fired generation unnecessary saving even more fuel; at present, the main issue is their cost and their current capacity, but that technology is increasing at an accelerated rate.

Petroleum-based plastics can be and are being replaced with bioplastics, and wind technology is currently self-sustaining to produce new turbines and structural components. The same will be done with solar panels, and the thin-film technology is taking off to provide clean, energy-efficent nanotech methods of production. Each year oil prices remain high seems to be five years of advancement in alternative energy. Ideally, all we need now are a steady rate of artificial supply disruptions to keep the prices up and the discoveries will continue to flow.

And if all else fails and oil literally crashes to nothing, we regress to the technological level of the pre-oil age which is, generally speaking, the late 19th century.

We can produce our own oil to. :)

We can produce our own oil to. :)

If anyone eats enough margerine, they can.

If anyone eats enough margerine, they can.

Or puts it in a TDP plant. XD
Try it with sewage!

Exactly what I thought. Some pop science site. See if you can find it here: www.sciam.com

Fusion...maybe 50 or 100 years from now but not in the immediate future. Self-sustaining manufacturing of and from alternative energy sources is going to be a lot more immediate and useful for reducing our energy needs in the next decade.

Fusion...maybe 50 or 100 years from now but not in the immediate future. Self-sustaining manufacturing of and from alternative energy sources is going to be a lot more immediate and useful for reducing our energy needs in the next decade.
Already being done/is done now.

A very good post Vetalia, although when you say:

And if all else fails and oil literally crashes to nothing, we regress to the technological level of the pre-oil age which is, generally speaking, the late 19th century.

I think you are being too pessermistic. We will be late 19th century with computers and biotech and the internet, which isn't really late 19th century at all. (Christ, I gotta get a more comfortable seat for my bicycle before that happens.)

A very good post Vetalia, although when you say:



I think you are being too pessermistic. We will be late 19th century with computers and biotech and the internet, which isn't really late 19th century at all. (Christ, I gotta get a more comfortable seat for my bicycle before that happens.)

Na. :D
We will never lose it all.

A very good post Vetalia, although when you say:



[QUOTE]I think you are being too pessermistic. We will be late 19th century with computers and biotech and the internet, which isn't really late 19th century at all. (Christ, I gotta get a more comfortable seat for my bicycle before that happens.)

And even if we did, it's not like we'd destroy all of our research and infrastructure for the hell of it. The fiber's in the ground and we had electricity in the 1870's, so that stuff will still work.

Of course, if we use bioplastic for the computers and renewable energy sources to manufacture them we're going to still have the products to access it with.

No, we actually stepped down during the transition from hunting to farming to a degree, and the initial stages of coal production were far from energy efficent. Coal didn't really make progress for a while after its "discovery" (obviously the coal was known before) since we had trouble producing enough of it with contemporary mining technology. Coal was abandoned in favor of oil rather than displacing it; it wasn't even until the 1920's that production began to increase significantly. Even so, there are many ways to replace oil in the industrial, freight, and electrical sectors. The bulk of the consumption problem lies in transportation, and the alternatives are becoming increasingly cost-competitive even without subsidies.At least there someone in this thread worth arguing with. It gets old hearing about rockets mining the moon and fusion from people who have no education in the science they are discussing.

Having said that, the step down from hunting to farming was necessary due to population increases, but that really has nothingto do with the base question of what's your energy resource. The necessity of farming actually led us to novel new ways of obtaing useful energy from fire and from wind and water energy in the form of winmills and watermills. But the biggest bang for your buck energy source for the vast majorit of human history was from wood. Coal was our next step because they cut down all their trees in Europe. Coal was hard to get and wood was easy, but once they ran short of wood they had no choice and started to invent new ways of mining and using it. It, in fact, was the first fuel of the industrial revolution. Once we got good at using it we found that it contained much more energy than wood and we found all kinds of new ways to use it including the steam engine and the coal-fired fourge.

I just realized that I'm going into a history lesson and i don't want to write a book so Imma get to final point below.

There's a lot of uranium in seawater in addition to nuclear power, and reprocessing technology is able to recover more and more fuel from the waste than in the past with less radioactive material remaining. Flow batteries in conjunction with nuclear/solar/wind would help render a lot of natural-gas fired generation unnecessary saving even more fuel; at present, the main issue is their cost and their current capacity, but that technology is increasing at an accelerated rate.

Petroleum-based plastics can be and are being replaced with bioplastics, and wind technology is currently self-sustaining to produce new turbines and structural components. The same will be done with solar panels, and the thin-film technology is taking off to provide clean, energy-efficent nanotech methods of production. Each year oil prices remain high seems to be five years of advancement in alternative energy. Ideally, all we need now are a steady rate of artificial supply disruptions to keep the prices up and the discoveries will continue to flow.

And if all else fails and oil literally crashes to nothing, we regress to the technological level of the pre-oil age which is, generally speaking, the late 19th century.
The problem is that, with all these technologies and fuels, you need a base source of energy to build the infrastructure necessary to use them and we are going into a time when we will have less energy to do that. We also need to replace all of our oil and gas based infrastructure with new infrastructure. Our cars, boats, trains, pipelines, powerplants. Is it possible? Sure, if we had a few decades to do it in, but if I'm right, and teh market feels like I am, peak oil is here now and we may lose the ability to rapidly change out infrastructure.

I'm not a stone age guy. I don't think we're gonna be making hand axes again by pounding rocks together. I do think that circumstances are going to force us to make massive changes in teh way we live and that energy is no longer going to be something that you can take for granted anymore. Those changes are going to be very tough to make, especially for people in the outer bands of sprawl who have $700,000.00 mortgages and an SUV when gasoline costs them as much as a house payment. We are moving into an energy crunch that will last much langer than any in our history, maybe the rest of our lives and it is going to be hard.

We can produce our own oil to. :)
Tell me how with a net energy gain like from crude oil.

A very good post Vetalia, although when you say:



I think you are being too pessermistic. We will be late 19th century with computers and biotech and the internet, which isn't really late 19th century at all. (Christ, I gotta get a more comfortable seat for my bicycle before that happens.)
If oil crashes at a serious decline rate none of that stuff will work anymore.

Well inevitably the cat is going to die, so you need a backup for when that happens.Not necessarily completely, as is explained in this article (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Antigravitatory_cats):

It has further been suggested that if one were to wrap the cat with rolls of insulated copper wire and rig the landing site with magnets, the cat and toast could become a rotating generator. Of course, these effects only last as long as the cat lives. Once the cat dies, the toast wins. The life of the cat could theoretically be extended by enclosing the landing site in a box containing a source of radiation, and closing said box once the cat is safely inside — thanks to the law of quantum possibilities, the cat is simultaneously both dead and alive. If the box is never opened, the quantum state of the cat being alive continues to cause the cat and toast to spin, thus generating electricity for all eternity.

At least there someone in this thread worth arguing with. It gets old hearing about rockets mining the moon and fusion from people who have no education in the science they are discussing.

I'm an optimist, but I see unrealistic expectations when I see them. Let's redirect that funding from fusion to the technologies we have now, and once that's secure we'll be able to dedicate that money to fusion.

Having said that, the step down from hunting to farming was necessary due to population increases, but that really has nothingto do with the base question of what's your energy resource. The necessity of farming actually led us to novel new ways of obtaing useful energy from fire and from wind and water energy in the form of winmills and watermills. But the biggest bang for your buck energy source for the vast majorit of human history was from wood. Coal was our next step because they cut down all their trees in Europe. Coal was hard to get and wood was easy, but once they ran short of wood they had no choice and started to invent new ways of mining and using it. It, in fact, was the first fuel of the industrial revolution. Once we got good at using it we found that it contained much more energy than wood and we found all kinds of new ways to use it including the steam engine and the coal-fired fourge.

Hopefully, the burst of innovation and expansion we see now is similar to that during the Bronze Age or the 17th century. All I hope is that oil stays at $60 or higher for the forseeable future, because then virtually all alternatives are cost effective.



The problem is that, with all these technologies and fuels, you need a base source of energy to build the infrastructure necessary to use them and we are going into a time when we will have less energy to do that. We also need to replace all of our oil and gas based infrastructure with new infrastructure. Our cars, boats, trains, pipelines, powerplants. Is it possible? Sure, if we had a few decades to do it in, but if I'm right, and teh market feels like I am, peak oil is here now and we may lose the ability to rapidly change out infrastructure.

Well, ideally the alternative energy sector will become self sustaining on the production level, and the materials will be either on site (desert manufacturing for solar panels) or be transported by freight which is not currently a major energy consumer. There is also room for efficency improvements in the manufacturing sector, and as much as I would prefer alternative energy, some of the oil-based industry could switch over to natural gas in the short term.

Even so, I think the market is good at flash changes; IIRC in 1979 we were able to cut our per-capita oil consumption be 20% over 5 years with only a moderate recession (one that was actually worsened artificially to reduce inflation, not due to the oil itself). If we reduced our thermostats by 2 degrees through the winter, natural gas consumption would fall 8%. And, the average MPG of our cars doubled in the late 70's/early 80's. There might be recessions in the short run, but in the long run we'll make it through.

Infrastructure will change (and it may require an interstate-highway level of commitment), but now some of it can be retooled for new products. Goodyear just developed a new rubber fuel hosing that can dispense biodiesel
and E85 without the problems of degradation in ordinary hoses.

It's been verified by Underwriters' Laboratories so it's good for commercial use.

I'm not a stone age guy. I don't think we're gonna be making hand axes again by pounding rocks together. I do think that circumstances are going to force us to make massive changes in teh way we live and that energy is no longer going to be something that you can take for granted anymore. Those changes are going to be very tough to make, especially for people in the outer bands of sprawl who have $700,000.00 mortgages and an SUV when gasoline costs them as much as a house payment. We are moving into an energy crunch that will last much langer than any in our history, maybe the rest of our lives and it is going to be hard.

Lifestyles will change, although I don't think for the worse; if anything our lives will be healthier and greener than they are now, and we will be able to live well with a much smaller footprint on the earth than we do now. For me, that's an improvement by any means and that's why I see Peak Oil as an opportunity rather than a drawback.

Right now, SUVs are pretty much dying out on their own except for those who either need them or can afford them, and most people can't at today's prices. Technology might in the future allow us to have the big vehicles without the problems, but right now that's not realistic. People can reduce their energy footprint without a loss of "living standards".

I think telecommuting and teleconferencing will help address the problem of sprawl as will carpooling and other conservation measures; even in the more sprawled-out towns (like the Mason area of Ohio), it's still possible to get to a lot of places without a car. It takes more time and requires more planning, but it's possible.

If oil crashes at a serious decline rate none of that stuff will work anymore.

Looking at Laherrere's new prediction of a 2020 peak, the rate of production would only decline at an average rate of 1.2% for the next 20 years; that's a lot of time to plan, and if that 1.2% is very volatile it's even better because sudden shocks tend to accelerate development and increase demand destruction.

ASPO (which I feel is a little too pessimistic) is only 2% out to 2050, which would be tougher but still manageable. The volatility would be more desireable in this case.

We also need to replace all of our oil and gas based infrastructure with new infrastructure. Our cars, boats, trains, pipelines, powerplants. Is it possible? Sure, if we had a few decades to do it in, but if I'm right, and teh market feels like I am, peak oil is here now and we may lose the ability to rapidly change out infrastructure...

We are moving into an energy crunch that will last much langer than any in our history, maybe the rest of our lives and it is going to be hard.

I don't see it that way. I am confident that in 20 years time energy will be cheaper in real terms than it is now.

Even if meteorites somehow destroyed all the oil in the Middle-East things would only be really tough for a few years. Coal liquification plants would be built, more ethanol would be produced and every new car would be electric, a hybrid or just very fuel efficent. Sure there would be a world wide reccession, but we've survived them before. I'd say we'd be over the worst of it in 3-5 years. Replacing infrastructure is not that difficult. Big car makers will be hurt of course, but with coal liquification keeping a lid on oil prices a lot of infrastructure wouldn't have to be replaced that much faster than it's normal rate. One of the biggest deadweight losses will be people stuck with SUVs they can hardly afford to drive and that no one will want to buy. But trains are very efficent and won't need to be replaced any faster than they would wear out anyway. Large ships are also very efficent at moving cargo and can burn the cheapest grades of liquified coal. As for powerplants I can't think of any country that generates much electricity from oil. It's just too expensive for that even today. So in short, we will survive. Any energy crunch is likely to only be temporary.

It's all about adaptation which we humans do VERY well.