Alternative energy bubble is next

[The Gardener]

Nuclear power - you can extract Uranium from sea water & granate...Near infinite energy right there.

Again, you can't just look at uranium deposits in sea water and say "see, there's energy" without taking into account the NET energy effect after you subtract the energy used to obtain it.

Sure, you may find uranium by distilling ocean water, but, it takes energy to distill water. What good is it if you expend ten megawatts of energy to heat ocean water just to recover a teaspoon worth of uranium dust.

The coal sands are an even more dramatic example of this. Now I will admit that there is "net" energy in the coal sands, and I hear the refrain that if oil reaches a certain price, it becomes profitable. The fallacy of this is that as oil reaches that higher price to make oil sands profitable, it also increases the costs of extraction, which makes the "profitability point" spiral a lot higher than the oft quoted $80/bbl after things sort out.

Actually, both of your points miss the main crux of the peak oil argument. It makes no difference how much oil is in the ground. Peak Oil is NOT a philosophy where they are claiming that we are "running out of oil". That is not the point. Savinar's point is not that we are in imminent risk of running out of oil, his point is that the rate at which we are able to extract oil is not growing at the same rate as the rate at which our demand for it is increasing.

And that is the fallacy embedded in these "peak oil debunked" websites. They aren't understanding Savinar's point, makes me wonder if they even took the time to read and think through Savinar's piece at all.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

 

[Harie]

Again, you can't just look at uranium deposits in sea water and say "see, there's energy" without taking into account the NET energy effect after you subtract the energy used to obtain it.

Sure, you may find uranium by distilling ocean water, but, it takes energy to distill water. What good is it if you expend ten megawatts of energy to heat ocean water just to recover a teaspoon worth of uranium dust.

The coal sands are an even more dramatic example of this. Now I will admit that there is "net" energy in the coal sands, and I hear the refrain that if oil reaches a certain price, it becomes profitable. The fallacy of this is that as oil reaches that higher price to make oil sands profitable, it also increases the costs of extraction, which makes the "profitability point" spiral a lot higher than the oft quoted $80/bbl after things sort out.

Actually, both of your points miss the main crux of the peak oil argument. It makes no difference how much oil is in the ground. Peak Oil is NOT a philosophy where they are claiming that we are "running out of oil". That is not the point. Savinar's point is not that we are in imminent risk of running out of oil, his point is that the rate at which we are able to extract oil is not growing at the same rate as the rate at which our demand for it is increasing.

And that is the fallacy embedded in these "peak oil debunked" websites. They aren't understanding Savinar's point, makes me wonder if they even took the time to read and think through Savinar's piece at all.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Did you actually look at the websites for how they "distill" Uranium from sea water? Besides making the steel cage & the adsorbent, it requires almost no energy at all. They make the steel cage & adsorbent and stick it in the water for close to a year and the adsorbent sucks up Uranium...And as a byproduct, it cleans the oceans of Uranium particles too. Doesn't sound too energy intensive to me...

So let me see here. Canadian tar sands make a 21/bbl profit when prices are $60/bbl. Sure seems like a good investment to me. The world didn't come to a screeching hault when oil prices were $147/bbl, which seriously puts a damper on the peak oilers crackpot theories of worldwide destruction

 

[BlahBlah12]

Actually, both of your points miss the main crux of the peak oil argument. It makes no difference how much oil is in the ground. Peak Oil is NOT a philosophy where they are claiming that we are "running out of oil". That is not the point. Savinar's point is not that we are in imminent risk of running out of oil, his point is that the rate at which we are able to extract oil is not growing at the same rate as the rate at which our demand for it is increasing.

And that is the fallacy embedded in these "peak oil debunked" websites. They aren't understanding Savinar's point, makes me wonder if they even took the time to read and think through Savinar's piece at all.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

exactly. peak oil doesnt mean theres no oil left, it means there coems a point where it costs more to acutally obtain by drilling further and harder(not to mention all the time this will take as demand keeps increasing) than it does to actually sell it!

 

[Bryan]

I don't even know for sure what Obama means by "a new energy economy". I very much think that Matt Savinar is right on the money in his analysis of the "Peak Oil" phenomenon. I agree with him that we are very likely headed back to a simple agrarian society. It won't happen in our lifetime or even our children's lifetime, but it's probably inevitable.

So you think that in the next 100+ years mankind is not smart enough to think up a new way to power the world?

Nope. There almost certainly won't be any way to "power the world" with a renewable energy source that's anywhere NEARLY as simple and efficient as making gasoline from oil. Oil is practically LIQUID ENERGY. "Texas Tea", as we call it around here!

I have to laugh at the peak oilers that think that as soon as we hit the oil peak, the world as we know it will magically "die" overnight.

The peak oilers don't think any such thing, so please don't put words in their mouths! :smack: Matt Savinar has gone to great lengths to emphasize that this isn't something that will happen "overnight", it will be a long, drawn-out process of gradually declining oil supplies and gradually increasing oil prices.

Do they not realize that the US has enough known coal to power homes/businesses etc for 200+ years? Then we have nuke power, wind, solar, geothermal, ethanol, methanol, wood, tidal etc. I would imagine that 100 years of energy research will yield energy sources we haven't even dreamed of yet.

I think The Gardener answered you on those issues very well.

$150/bbl oil didn't derail the world economy and throw the planet into a depression (it took the housing bubble/poor lending to do that) where everyone grabbed their shotguns and started hording.

People in the future will look back with great fondness and nostalgia on the days when oil was "only" $150 a barrel!

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes, it's going to run out eventually Bryan, Gardener, etc, no doubt about that IMHO.

What's your take on electric powered automobiles, etc? Will regular electrical power plants and/or nuclear power plants be able to keep pace with that possible technology?

Do you see any possibility of (T. Bone Pickens) wind turbine energy plan working over the long-term?

As to alternative energy sources, I have little, IF ANY, knowledge about that stuff. (Heck, I have little knowledge about current energy products for Godsakes!)
Bryan, Gardener, etc., do you have any ideas what alternative energy sources these people are talking about? "Any" could be out in leftfield, I mean "anything" (i.e., let your imaginations run wild)?

 

[HughJass]

Nope. There almost certainly won't be any way to "power the world" with a renewable energy source that's anywhere NEARLY as simple and efficient as making gasoline from oil. Oil is practically LIQUID ENERGY. "Texas Tea", as we call it around here!

Nobody knows, or can even guestimate with any degree of certainty, whats going to happen in the future.

To say that we almost certainly won't have a way to power the world as easily with renewable energy is just as pointless as saying we almost certainly will be able to, imo.

Maybe nanotechnology will bring us energy options we never thought possible, maybe it won't. It's an open book.

I for one welcome high oil prices. It seems to be the only thing that get us talking about alternatives.

 

[Old Baldy]

Aussie: Could you please link me to a good discussion of nanotechnology? Thanks for any info.

 

[HughJass]

Kurzweil's site is pretty good, although I think's it in the process of being revamped I haven't been there for a while


I'm sure google would turn up some good nanotech discussion groups

 

[Old Baldy]

Thanks for the info. Alot of reading to do!

 

[Harie]

Nope. There almost certainly won't be any way to "power the world" with a renewable energy source that's anywhere NEARLY as simple and efficient as making gasoline from oil. Oil is practically LIQUID ENERGY. "Texas Tea", as we call it around here!

So in 100 years, we won't have figured out anything huh. Wow. Humans sure are stupid. I'm gona go hitch my horse up to my wagon to mozy on into work now.

Hydrogen power vehicles
Electric vehicles
CNG vehicles
Ethanol vehicles

100 years of technology is sure a long time to say we won't have figured anything that's as efficient as oil. Besides that, at the rate computing power is progressing, who's to say that in 100 years, anyone will even be driving into work anymore - besides those in industries that require direct human to human contact? I know that I could do my job from home if they'd let me (they won't). How much energy do you think having tens of millions of people not driving to/from work 5x a week will save?

I love how everyone automatically writes off all energy sources other than oil just because currently it's not as efficient. Well duh. We've perfected oil extraction and gasoline powered engines over the last 100 years. We've only been trying to do the alternative energy thing and electric car thing for between 5 and 10 years now. Sort of reminds me of those people that said a personal computer would never happen because it would just be too big and inefficient...Wonder where those nay-sayers are now?

Seems to me that all you peak oilers want the world to colapse and have everyone forced to become farmers.

FWIW - I understand the peak oil theory. "Overnight" was obviously an exaggeration to prove a point. I tried to edit my post yesterday, but HairLossTalk.com kept timing out.

 

[badasshairday III]

Have you guys heard of Miscanthus? I think this is extremely promising. It is an extremely efficient plant in generating solar energy to biomass. The biomass is then used to generate usuable energy for our use. It is somthing like 100x more productive then corn. If you are interested check this out. Major research is going on.
General info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus

Universit of Illinois:
http://miscanthus.uiuc.edu/

 

[Hammy070]

I love how everyone automatically writes off all energy sources other than oil just because currently it's not as efficient. Well duh. We've perfected oil extraction and gasoline powered engines over the last 100 years. We've only been trying to do the alternative energy thing and electric car thing for between 5 and 10 years now. Sort of reminds me of those people that said a personal computer would never happen because it would just be too big and inefficient...Wonder where those nay-sayers are now?

They're on peak oil forums of course. :$

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

LOL this radio one is my favourite one, "who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" :jump:

Makes sense actually, who would? :dunno:

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper."
Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy."
Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." (maybe this is true if things continueas they are, let's not rule out the Fish just yet :freak: )
Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances."
Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. (Matt Savinar-esque?)

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the instrusion of the wise and humane surgeon."
Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873


Just some predictions for you to ponder over. In hindsight it's easy to mock all the above. At the time however, the above people were not dumb, they had reasons, they were at many times DIRECTLY involved professionally in the subject/profession they were predicting. We look at some novel, bizarre, crazy, "unworkable" thing today, if you can find many, be sure that some of them will be part of our daily lives in the future.

(I hope that doesn't get quoted in 2050 if I'm wrong, but I wasn't specific :whistle: )

 

[Bryan]

So in 100 years, we won't have figured out anything huh. Wow. Humans sure are stupid.

Maybe some really smart scientists will find a way to do "cold-fusion"!

Oh wait...

Hydrogen power vehicles
Electric vehicles
CNG vehicles
Ethanol vehicles

It's very odd that you would even mention "hydrogen" in this context, since there is no natural source of free hydrogen. In other words, you can't go drill a hole in the ground somewhere and expect hydrogen to come out. For that reason, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, although it may be a good way to store energy made somewhere else.

CNG is a source of energy, but (like oil) it's not renewable.

Ethanol is renewable, but it's not a very efficient source of energy. In fact, there's been some debate in recent years about whether or not ethanol from corn even generates more energy than it takes to produce it! Perhaps other plant sources may be more feasible. But in any event, it's questionable to say the least that ethanol will ever be able to replace oil to anything more than just a trivial extent.

100 years of technology is sure a long time to say we won't have figured anything that's as efficient as oil...I love how everyone automatically writes off all energy sources other than oil just because currently it's not as efficient. Well duh. We've perfected oil extraction and gasoline powered engines over the last 100 years. We've only been trying to do the alternative energy thing and electric car thing for between 5 and 10 years now.

That's it, Pollyanna: be the eternal optimist. Maybe we really will figure out how to do fusion in the future, or maybe we'll even find out that the earth is constantly refilling itself with oil, like some of those Coast-to-Coast nutcases are always talking about! But I don't think the odds are very good. Call me a pessimist if you want, but I consider myself to be a realist.

 

[The Gardener]

I agree with Bryan. And the litany of quotations about accomplishing "impossible" things has little bearing on this particular subject. I mean, I could be the coach of a horrible little league team, and telling them that "the Boston Red Sox beat the curse, they won a championiship" won't do anything in reality to change the prospects of my horrible team.

We aren't talking about how small computers can get, or whether or not a telephone will become a working piece of technology. We are talking about how "possible" it is to break the physics of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Now, I don't think it is completely IMpossible, its just that the CURRENT list of "alternatives" aren't going to do the trick. I DO see some possibility coming from a solution in the realm of massive scale genetic engineering. If we can alter genetics, this does open the door to the potential of doing human-initiated "terraforming" of our planet. Perhaps we could genetically engineer some plant so that it breathes in the greenhouse gas emissions of our hydrocarbon usage, and creates a hydrocarbon sap that we can refine. Of course, we would also need to genetically alter these plants so that their metabolism is increased a thousandfold or so.

Now THAT would be a solution to the crux of the problem, which is HOW will humanity continuously replace our carbons so that we don't need to continually find new untapped carbon sinks upon which to build a human economy.

 

[Bryan]

The coal sands are an even more dramatic example of this. Now I will admit that there is "net" energy in the coal sands, and I hear the refrain that if oil reaches a certain price, it becomes profitable. The fallacy of this is that as oil reaches that higher price to make oil sands profitable, it also increases the costs of extraction, which makes the "profitability point" spiral a lot higher than the oft quoted $80/bbl after things sort out.

That reminds me of a discussion I was having with some other posters on a solar energy Web site and forum a few years ago. The accepted estimate on that site for the amount of time it takes for a solar panel to pay for itself was around 7-8 years, if I recall correctly (that's the amount of time it takes to pay for itself if it's plugged into your local electrical grid, reducing your electric bill).

But I was politically incorrect enough to point out to them that that was under IDEAL conditions, like with no hardware failures of that expensive equipment at all during that entire period of time. And in my opinion, it's asking a lot for hardware to function perfectly under adverse conditions for such a long time. Take the inverter, for example (the device that converts the DC from the solar cells into AC): a single failure of a high-power semiconductor device inside that unit could set you back to Square One, starting the 7-year process all over again! :shock:

But the main point I'm getting at here is this: one of the other posters responded to me by saying that as the price of commercial electricity inevitably continues to increase in the coming years, the "payback" time of those expensive solar panels will continue to become shorter and shorter, making it a better and better deal for people to buy them! My response to HIM, of course, was that as electrical rates go up, so will the cost of manufacturing solar panels; therefore, there's no particular reason to believe that the "payback" time will ever change from the current estimate of around 7-8 years. People don't always think these things through clearly.

 

[Harie]

Ethanol is renewable, but it's not a very efficient source of energy. In fact, there's been some debate in recent years about whether or not ethanol from corn even generates more energy than it takes to produce it! Perhaps other plant sources may be more feasible. But in any event, it's questionable to say the least that ethanol will ever be able to replace oil to anything more than just a trivial extent.

Well of course corn isn't the answer for ethanol. But again, why are you basing your arguments that Ethanol can not work on an industry that, up till a few years ago, was almost non-existant? Ethanol production has made leaps ahead in yield rates. The future of the ethanol industry is definitely not corn. It's either switch grass or algae. Algae is really a win-win situation. Algae cleans up CO2 and NO2 emissions from power plants, and in return gives us biodiesel and ethanol. It's the ultimate green machine.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/20 ... ants_x.htm

So given the current technology and research levels, of course Ethanol isn't a replacement for oil. And Ethanol that's derrived from corn will never really be able to replace much oil either. But the Ethanol industry had to begin somewhere...Right? Every great idea has an inefficient beginning somewhere. Lets all criticize Henry Ford because his Model T factory wasn't nearly as good as the brand new Hyundai plant in Alabama. :roll:

Perhaps we could genetically engineer some plant so that it breathes in the greenhouse gas emissions of our hydrocarbon usage, and creates a hydrocarbon sap that we can refine. Of course, we would also need to genetically alter these plants so that their metabolism is increased a thousandfold or so.

Hmmm...Sort of sounds like that darn algae I keep talking about doesn't it? Sucks up CO2 and NO2 and gives us fuel...

 

[The Gardener]

Agreed, green algae is indeed a potential. The most striking benefit of green algae over corn or cane ethanol is that the grain ethanol requires some EIGHT gallons of water to produce ONE gallon of hydrocarbons... AND it competes for arable farmland that is needed for FOOD. The green algae could potentially be harvested in remote deserts, all that is needed is sunlight, and it requires a fraction of the amount of water to produce.

However, there are some pretty serious challenges that remain. The specifics as to how the sugar is to be raised to feed the huge volume of algae and the logistics of transporting millions of bbls of water among them:
http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/20 ... plans-646/

 

[Harie]

That article reminded me about the company that's producing motor oil from saturated fats (beef tallow). Very interesting stuff IMO. But then again, I'm a car nut.

http://www.getg.com/products/products.p ... roductID=1
http://www.getg.com/faq/index.php#7

 

[badasshairday III]

Agreed, green algae is indeed a potential. The most striking benefit of green algae over corn or cane ethanol is that the grain ethanol requires some EIGHT gallons of water to produce ONE gallon of hydrocarbons... AND it competes for arable farmland that is needed for FOOD. The green algae could potentially be harvested in remote deserts, all that is needed is sunlight, and it requires a fraction of the amount of water to produce.

However, there are some pretty serious challenges that remain. The specifics as to how the sugar is to be raised to feed the huge volume of algae and the logistics of transporting millions of bbls of water among them:
http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/20 ... plans-646/

Yes. Algae is not the answer. It is Miscanthus. It is way more efficient then algae. Way more effiecient in producing biomass then any other plant. Seriously, look into it.

One midwestern growing season, starting at nothing to this. That is a shitload of biomass. Corn doesn't even come close. Also it takes minimal input.

 

[Harie]

Yes. Algae is not the answer. It is Miscanthus. It is way more efficient then algae. Way more effiecient in producing biomass then any other plant. Seriously, look into it.

One midwestern growing season, starting at nothing to this. That is a shitload of biomass. Corn doesn't even come close. Also it takes minimal input.

Nope. Even Miscanthus is not the ultimate answer. Algae's yields absolutely kill everything else. Algae can produce 5,000 gallons of Ethanol and 8,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Miscanthus only yields 1,500 gallons per acre.

Of course - Miscanthus is easier to use with current technology.