21 replies to this topic

[eds]

All the talk of peak oil, that we are running out of fossil fuels
. . . The problem, is not a lack of carbon-based fuels.
. . . The problem is that, if we use those fuels,
. . . the resulting greenhouse gas emissions will push the atmosphere,
. . . far off the critical balance needed to maintain the climate.

In other words, those sources – coal, oil, gas – must be left in the ground.
. . . Because, Burning them is nothing less than suicide.

2014-01-16 Source:  peak oil

Attached Files

•  PeakOil.jpg   7.31K   0 downloads

[Besoeker]

eds, on 16 January 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

In other words, those sources – coal, oil, gas – must be left in the ground.
. . . Because, Burning them is nothing less than suicide.

Do you think the human race will become extinct because of how burning fossils affects the climate?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 17 January 2014 - 12:13 AM, said:

Do you think the human race will become extinct because of how burning fossils affects the climate?

Maybe not 100%, but our numbers will be drastically reduced; mostly from lack of water which is
already being witnessed.
No water=no crops=no population.

As to peak oil, I remember seeing a piece on that years ago (probably on PBS) that said that exact
same thing; we can never use all the fossil fuel's available and if we do, we're doomed.
A harsh word but accurate.

"There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us,
and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground.
Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed."
http://www.theguardi...oil-we-we-wrong


http://putlocker.bz/...-putlocker.html

http://www.epa.gov/c...echange/basics/

[eds]

In the entire history of the world,
. . . no one . . . absolutely, positively, no one,
. . . has figured out how to put oil back into the ground!

Attached Files

•  Kuwait.jpg   9.3K   0 downloads

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 January 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

Maybe not 100%, but our numbers will be drastically reduced; mostly from lack of water which is
already being witnessed.
No water=no crops=no population.

I'm not sure about the lack of water. Yes, some places have had dreadful droughts. Whilst others have had frightening flooding.
I think in UK it was reported as the worst flooding in 50 years. We have escaped it but had about 20% of our average annual rainfall in the first 17 days of this year. And only one rain free day so far. Yes, it's weather, not climate.

And I know USA has been hit by droughts.And a mixed bag.

http://www.scientifi...-floods-in-2013

Quote

In the United States, the general trend in both June and the first half of the year was a wetter-than-average eastern United States and Midwest, and an unusually dry West.

I don't know the answers. But, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not advocating the continuing use of fossil fuels. Jut the opposite. I just think we need facts without drama.

Have you read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath".

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 17 January 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

I'm not sure about the lack of water. Yes, some places have had dreadful droughts. Whilst others have had frightening flooding.
I think in UK it was reported as the worst flooding in 50 years.

But, and it's a big but...who drinks flood waters? No one.
It's filled with toxins, waste, oil by-products; you name it.
Perhaps if it was captured and cleaned but flood waters are not drinkable. And often, they wash away
the good soil downstream, so it's a lose-lose.

One of the best solutions for our arid states are desalination plants but they're pricey and I haven't heard
of any new ones being built.

[eds]

We’ll never hear about “peak sun” the way we hear about “peak oil”
. . . because the sun isn’t scheduled to burn out for another 5 billion years.

As long as the sun shines,
. . . customers can use solar panels to capture sunlight and
. . . transform it into electricity, for self-consumption.
Any excess electricity,
. . . can then be sold or bartered and
. . . transferred to other customers.

Peter Diamandis makes the most eloquent case,
. . . for why the sun is such an important player,
. . . in any future scenarios of energy self-sufficiency.
Diamandis states that Africa has enough solar potential,
. . . to supply the present world’s energy needs 40 times over.

2014-01-17 Source:  Abundance  The Book

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 January 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

But, and it's a big but...who drinks flood waters? No one.
It's filled with toxins, waste, oil by-products; you name it.
Perhaps if it was captured and cleaned but flood waters are not drinkable.

Come now!
I'm not, for one moment, suggesting that anyone drinks untreated flood water.
But the floods have resulted from rain, rain, and more rain. And that's what fills the reservoirs, rivers and lower strata from which water is extracted, sent to treatment works, treated, and sent out as drinkable water.

In UK we have had a few occasions where several seasons in succession with significantly low rainfall put a strain on potable water supplies. Bans on hosepipes and lawn sprinklers.......

Rainfall matters.

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 January 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

One of the best solutions for our arid states are desalination plants but they're pricey and I haven't heard
of any new ones being built.

Pricey and requires a lot of energy. Ditch fossils and that energy might no be so easy to come by.

Even as it is from natural sources, it needs a lot of energy to collect, treat, and distribute treated water.
I was in a pumping station last week where the three main pumps are about 2,000 kW. The Thames London Water Ring main, just one part of their mighty empire, is about 12,000 kW.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Sorry dear, not a fan of fossil fuels, never will be-needed or not.
Sun and wind don't stop.
We just have to get on the collective stick and aggressively go after these renewables and let the giants
squirm in their own juices (oil and coal sludge.)

Back to peak oil being irrelevant-I'll have to dig it up but I think it was Thomas Friedman that talked
about that in Hot, Flat and Crowded. (as in we can't use it all before we cook)

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 January 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

Sorry dear, not a fan of fossil fuels, never will be-needed or not..

And I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Quite the reverse.
This from my post #5:

Quote

But, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not advocating the continuing use of fossil fuels

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 January 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

Sun and wind don't stop.

Calm dark nights? Northern Finland?
Sure, the sun will be shining somewhere but it could be halfway round the world and then you have the not inconsiderable difficulties and costs of extremely long distance transmission. Even with HVDC transmission, distances of over 1,000 klicks  are not common.

So that brings us back to sourcing energy locally or reasonably locally. That means having to deal with calm dark nights. And that means storage. At utility scale.

And that, in my opinion, is where the effort needs to be directed.

[Besoeker]

Just to add a little to my last post UK is currently (i.e.now) generating about 8% from wind and about 78% from coal, nuclear, and CCGT. A further 9% is being imported from France and Netherlands.

[Besoeker]

And a little more:



The last 24 hours. Fairly typical.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 17 January 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Even as it is from natural sources, it needs a lot of energy to collect, treat, and distribute treated water.

From Eds blog post, this TED talk; part of it speaks to the fact of water generation (inexpensively) from
a small machine the size of dorm sized frig.
(Thanks Ed!)
http://www.altenergy...-optimism-r2479

Sorry-back to oil topic.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 18 January 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

From Eds blog post, this TED talk; part of it speaks to the fact of water generation (inexpensively) from
a small machine the size of dorm sized frig.

Excellent clip.
I don't recollect that he gave energy figures for the 1,000 litres. Whatever, such technology can potentially obviate the concerns you raised about water shortages.

[eds]

Peak Oil Is Irrelevant (It's NOT Sun OR Wind . . . it's Sun & Wind)

Varese Ligure, Italy, towards 100% renewable energy.

The small rural village of Varese Ligure with its
. . . 2400 inhabitants and
. . . 95% of the land covered by forests,
. . . found itself in difficulties due to a
. . . . . . weakening economy,
. . . . . . declining settlements and
. . . . . . people moving away.

This prompted the mayor to try to do something to reverse the trend,
. . . by investing in:
. . . . . . renovation of the urban centre,
. . . . . . organic farming and
. . . . . . renewable energies(both Wind & Solar)

This boosted the environmental quality of the village,
. . . which become the first ISO 14001 certified Italian local authority in October, 1999,
. . . the first European EMAS-registered local authority in November 1999, and
. . . a tourist attraction.
All these actions have resulted in important synergies that support each other towards,
. . . . . . 100% renewable and
. . . . . . 100% organic.

2014-01-18 Source:  Renovation, Organic, Renewables

Attached Files

•  SunWind.jpg   27.07K   0 downloads
•  Renewables.jpg   10.96K   1 downloads
•  SolarBatteries.png   163.31K   2 downloads
•  Storage.png   144.3K   1 downloads

[Besoeker]

eds, on 18 January 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Peak Oil Is Irrelevant (It's NOT Sun OR Wind . . . it's Sun & Wind)

But they don't exactly complement each other. You can have calm dark nights.  And short daylight hours particularly in the more northern parts of the world. I suppose in the southern hemisphere too but not much of the world population lives very far south. Population is largely in the northern hemisphere.

We already have the technology to capture solar energy.
And vast numbers of wind turbines to capture wind energy.

What we don't have is significant energy storage And that's what we need. Big time.

[eds]

Besoeker, on 18 January 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

But they don't exactly complement each other.

You are 100% correct, when renewable energies are generated,
. . . they do NOT exactly complement each other in Time or Amount,
. . . especially to the Time or Amount the are needed for consumption.

Besoeker, on 18 January 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

What we don't have is significant energy storage And that's what we need. Big time.

Again, I couldn't agree with you more,
. . . todays renewable electrical storage,
. . . between wind and solar, is almost
. . . 100% pumped hydro.
Prices of both Batteries, Charges/Inverters and
. . . balance of systems are coming down,
. . . But, I think renewable synergies may produce the biggest surprise's.

French President Francois Hollande's surprise announcement of a
. . . joint French-German cabinet meeting on Feb. 19 in Paris,
. . . will discuss ways in which the 2 nations can cooperate in renewable energy, and
. . . would also discuss
. . . . . . smart grids,
. . . . . . energy efficiency and
. . . . . . storage.  
Hollande wants French and German energy firms to pool their capacities
. . . in the way Airbus brought together engineering and production skills
. . . from the two countries.

2014-01-18 Source:  Nations can cooperate in renewable energy

Attached Files

•  PumpedHydro.jpg   9.92K   0 downloads
•  FranceGermany.JPG   18.5K   0 downloads

[James Richard Bailey]

Actually, energy storage is not the problem. There is a very simple means to store vast amounts of energy generated when the sun does shine and/or the wind does blow. That electricity can be converted into hydrogen, which is easy to store in huge amounts under ordinary pressure similar to that of natural gas. There are voluminous caverns where hydrogen could be stored on every continent except for Antarctica (that we know of). Hydrogen can be transmitted through pipelines without the losses associated with electrical resistance. Our grid wastes 25% of generated electricity to resistance. Not a problem with hydrogen. Yes, I know there is a loss associated with electrolysis, just like there are losses associated with turning fossil fuels into heat, which runs turbines, which generate electricity. The bottom line is that with the tremendous potential of the renewable sources, once we are up and running with them we can afford the percentage of predictable losses. What we can't afford is the environmental devastation associated with excess atmospheric CO2. Nor can we afford the trillions of dollars we spend on wars to ensure our Middle Eastern oil supplies. Here is the plan created by Dave World which can bring this about.  http://www.daveworld...id=15&Itemid=15

[Besoeker]

James Richard Bailey, on 20 January 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

Hydrogen can be transmitted through pipelines without the losses associated with electrical resistance. Our grid wastes 25% of generated electricity to resistance. Not a problem with hydrogen.

To get a a fluid to flow down a pipeline requires a pressure differential.
So I have a couple of questions.

• What is used to create that pressure differential?
  
  
• Are there no losses associated with the transmission?

I don't know about transmission or flow of hydrogen down a pipeline.
But I have a little experience with air and water.We use air for cooling of power electronics. Every bend that has to negotiate results in a pressure drop much akin to IR drop in electrical circuits. You get the same current out that you put in. But you don't get the same voltage out.. So less power, power being essentially volts times amps.

Similarly with water. The power is pressure times flow. The pressure at the receiving end will be lower than at the sending end meaning less power. Or losses. The water analogy with electrical circuits is pretty good and one that is often used to aid understanding of basic electrical circuits.

Would/does hydrogen behave differently to air or water?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not, for a moment, suggesting that hydrogen storage isn't a viable technique

[E3 wise]

Peak oil in the United States was passed in August of 2009 according to Jeremy Rifkin who cites the International Energy Association, yet record lows in Natural Gas  and continued federal subsidies keep gasoline prices low averaging $3.26 nationally as of yesterday, well below Europe or Asia.  

Here's what I can say for sure. Last week I got my annual check from FPL, our local electric utility.  For 2013 we received $1850.00 Here you are paid 4 cents a kWh once you produce more then used.  They pay 12 cents per kWh if you produce less than you use.  We have 5 days of battery backup.  On a Sunny day we produce 18 kW  to 22 kW per hour and use in summer 12kW per hour and in winter like today less than 5 kW. The extra stored energy is used between 6pm and 9am coming from the batteries.

I will let you guys do the math but here is my real point, for over five years we have produced more energy annually than we use.  With our cistern system we grow a huge garden but use no utility water for it.  Due to the rains we had for four days I actually reinfected 2800 gallons of water back into our well, for free, thanks to the solar.  

Once we integrate a Fuel Cell system some time in the next two years we will be fueling our car from that rain water and solar, meaning I can store an additional five days of backup in my fuel tank.  So energy to power our home, water to grow our garden, fuel for our car, and a small annual check.  Seems to me this model is a whole lot more sustainable then depending on fossil fuels.

Ok I will get down off my soap box now.