I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:07 pm Post subject: THE Solar Thread (merged)
As far as human beings are concerned, we need to remember that the standard of living of a person or a nation is determined primarily by the availability of usable energy sources, such as oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. Without sources of energy to turn our wheels and to compensate for entropy (general maintenance and order), humanity would revert to the primeval existence of hunters and gatherers.
Energy has two basic forms for us: fossil fuels and solar, or non-renewable and renewable. Fossil fuels are an energy stock, whereas solar is a flow of energy. The difference needs to be well understood. Oil, coal, and natural gas are stocks because we are free to use them whenever we so wish. But at no time can we use any part of a future flow of solar radiation. Moreover, the flow rate of this radiation is wholly beyond our control; it is completely determined by cosmological conditions. Because of our short-sighted priority of the present over the future and the irrevocability of entropic degradation, the opposite is true for the fossil fuels. These energy sources are affected by how much of the fossil fuel “treasure chest” the past generations have consumed.
From the viewpoint of industrial utilization, solar energy has an immense drawback in comparison with energy of fossil fuel origin. The latter is available in a concentrated form; a very low-entropy form. As a result, it enables us to obtain almost instantaneously enormous amounts of work, most of which could not even be obtained otherwise. I believe the greatest advantage that a fossil fuel gives us over solar is the ability to provide a continuous supply of energy. By great contrast, the flow of solar energy comes to us with an extremely low intensity (on the order of 100 to 200 watts per square meter of the Earth's surface), and it is intermittent; the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. This requires larger base capacities than fossil fuels in order to make up for the loss during the off-peak production cycle. Solar technologies provide about a 20% assured supply. So, to have 100 megawatts of solar energy supply, you would need a 500 megawatt plant.
Solar energy, on the other hand, has a unique and quite superior advantage, besides being renewable. The use of any fossil fuel energy produces pollution, mainly in the form of CO2, which is cumulative and is beginning to raise the earth’s average temperature. By contrast, any use of solar energy at its point of use is pollution-free, although the production of solar technologies has its own pollution problems. Whether solar energy is used or not, it still becomes the dissipated heat that maintains the thermodynamic equilibrium between the globe and outer space at a life-supporting temperature. So, rather than use solar as a supply source of energy, it is best suited for local, de-centralized, point of use applications. Powering the “grid” with solar energy will become a fool’s errand. Solar can easily heat water and provide basic lighting, while fossil fuels can be allocated for electrical generation for the steady supply of electricity that electric motors require. The ability to have a “light” on at night will be critical for suppressing hysteria and calming the population of the developed world. The third-world, for the most part, has never seen it or running water anyway.
High energy prices will cause recessions, thus destroying demand. As in the late 70’s, reduced demand will lead to a partial roll-back of energy prices. Temporarily lowered prices will stimulate economic recovery leading to renewed demand, which will again be constrained by peak-oil decline, leading to more recessions, and so on. In other words, as demand begins to exceed supply, expect increasing price volatility, with an upward base price trend. Two steps up; one step back. The ultimate consequence will be a global depression worse than that of the 1930s.
As we all know, the ability to quickly change to renewable energy sources is highly unlikely, so the best remedy would be to address the demand side of the equation, especially in areas where we are the most vulnerable, such as transportation and agriculture. I watched an episode on Modern Marvels yesterday chronicling the advancement of harvesting since the days of the hand-scythe. Global satellites run fertilizer application, mechanization, planting, etc. Every aspect of our agri-business requires energy intensive technology to produce the supply to meet the growing demand. It was almost scary to watch just how complex it has become. By moving consumers and producers closer together, limiting population growth and taking other steps to address the underlying ecological dilemmas, I would like to think that society can perhaps minimize what most species do in situations like these—die off. But, realistically, I don’t believe we have a chance to derail the asset inertia of the industrial world in the foreseeable future. Our cultural direction is just too pervasive. Nature will take care of it for us, if we don’t, however. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
I mostly agree, but couple comments. As MQ perfectly well knows, fossile fuels are solar energy, stored solar energy through biomass to be exact. Renewable solar energy forms are basically: wind (sol + Earth's rotation to be exact), direct solar energy (solar cells), biomass and hydro. There are energy sources that are not solar, renewables like vulcanic and non-renewables like nuclear energy (fission and hopefully fusion in the future). It would be usefull to use language more accurately, now it remains unclear to what exactly MQ refers to by solar energy, renewables in general or just direct solar energy.
Wind power goes very fine into the grid, Denmark already produces 13% of it's electricity with wind mills. EU's renewable strategy is heavily based on wind, which can replace much of coal and NG used to produce electricity. Electricity from renewables and nuclear powering mass transit on rail can replace much of oil used in trasport. Using remaining fossile fuels to produce electricity and heating homes is beyond stupid, they are needed in transport, agriculture, chemical industry etc, and their use should be sharply decreased in any case to avoid worst scenarios of global climate change.
I mostly agree, but couple comments. As MQ perfectly well knows, fossile fuels are solar energy, stored solar energy through biomass to be exact. Renewable solar energy forms are basically: wind (sol + Earth's rotation to be exact), direct solar energy (solar cells), biomass and hydro. There are energy sources that are not solar, renewables like vulcanic and non-renewables like nuclear energy (fission and hopefully fusion in the future). It would be usefull to use language more accurately, now it remains unclear to what exactly MQ refers to by solar energy, renewables in general or just direct solar energy.
Wind power goes very fine into the grid, Denmark already produces 13% of it's electricity with wind mills. EU's renewable strategy is heavily based on wind, which can replace much of coal and NG used to produce electricity. Electricity from renewables and nuclear powering mass transit on rail can replace much of oil used in trasport. Using remaining fossile fuels to produce electricity and heating homes is beyond stupid, they are needed in transport, agriculture, chemical industry etc, and their use should be sharply decreased in any case to avoid worst scenarios of global climate change.
Preaching no-can-do is not helping anybody
I was quite clear to anyone else who read it, I'm sure. It was about Solar vs Fossil. The point was to explain the difference between the basic two. I didn't mention nuclear and geothermal because neither is solar or fossil, although uranium while not a hydrocarbon, is a sedimentary deposition.
And I never said that solar couldn't be used to power the grid, but it is better used as a decentralized form of energy due to it's inherent supply limitations. Beyond stupid? You actually think we can stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity in the foreseeable future?
Preaching no can do? Being open and honest about our realistic limitations is quite helpful to those looking to make good decisions. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:10 am; edited 2 times in total
And I never said that solar couldn't be used to power the grid, but it is better used as a decentralized form of energy due to it's inherent supply limitations. Beyond stupid? You actually think we can stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity in the foreseeable future?
You really can't take constructive criticism, can you? Poor you.
Sure we can, and we must, ASAP because of climate change. And of course in the foreseeable future of 100 years we will stop whether we want or not, as you very well know, after burning it all away "to keep the lights on" and whatnot you suggest instead of replacing as much power capacity as possible before the fossile stuff runs out by investing in renewable sources.
[/quote]
You really can't take constructive criticism, can you? Poor you.
Sure we can, and we must, ASAP because of climate change. And of course in the foreseeable future of 100 years we will stop whether we want or not, as you very well know, after burning it all away "to keep the lights on" and whatnot you suggest instead of replacing as much power capacity as possible before the fossile stuff runs out by investing in renewable sources.
I agree that we must stop using fossil fuels because of the climate change. I have been advocating that for over 30 years! As to "sure we can" that is an unrealistic wish. And if you read my post again, you will see I said to use fossil fuels for electricity for electric motors, and to use solar to keep the lights on.
The asset inertia and cultural mindset of the masses will not move in the direction you desire. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Bean - your assinine comments are neither constructive nor informed nor capable of serious contribution on this issue. Personally I don't think it's worth Monte spending any further time responding to your attention-getting-mechanisms.
Try studying, just for a week or two, before you start trying to tell off those who've been studying these issues for decades.
The asset inertia and cultural mindset of the masses will not move in the direction you desire.
I simply will not accept that, at least not without trying! I'm trying to do my best to inform the local Greens here in Finland (there are local electiong going on and the party has good chance to become the biggest party in Helsinki) about Peak Oil and start talking public ly about it. I do not expect to succeed in a day, but defeatism sure don't help. It's not necessary to convince everybody, just enough people in strategic places.
backstop:
Sorry, didn't realize posts by certain people are beyond criticism and there is some kind of personality cult here I should be aware of. But it would help that instead of just pleading to Authority you would show me what was so asinine about the point's I tried to make?
Renewable solar energy forms are basically: wind (sol + Earth's rotation to be exact)
Wind is the response of the atmosphere to uneven heating conditions. This creates pressure differences in the atmosphere causing the wind to blow from regions of high atmospheric pressure to low atmospheric pressure. The larger the pressure difference the greater the wind velocity.
As to the earth’s rotation causing the wind to blow….don’t think so. It does have an effect on it, however. As air moves from high to low pressure in the northern hemisphere, it is deflected to the right by the Coriolis force. In the southern hemisphere, air moving from high to low pressure is deflected to the left by the Coriolis force. The amount of deflection the air makes is directly related to both the speed at which the air is moving and its latitude. Therefore, slowly blowing winds will be deflected only a small amount, while stronger winds will be deflected more. Likewise, winds blowing closer to the poles will be deflected more than winds at the same speed closer to the equator. The Coriolis force is zero right at the equator. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 397 Location: United Kingdom, Various
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:32 am Post subject:
Hi, it's been a while since I've posted!
I'd be interested to know just how high the oil price will go before demand is sufficiently curbed. As most people probably know oil prices reached $80/barrel equivalent back in the 70s oil crisis, however at that point, our economies were actually more dependent on oil than they are today.
I would make a guess that oil price may rise to $60-$70/barrel; it simply depends on the reactions of consumers to rising prices of food, transport, heating, gas etc. Also, investors are taking heavy speculations no doubt on oil prices at the moment, and so as soon as that price drops I'd estimate a cascade in sales of oil futures which may reduce the price due to the decreased demand through speculation.
So perhaps a rise a bit more, followed by a more prounced fall.
Meanwhile, I'm still educating myself about self-sufficiency.
Renewable solar energy forms are basically: wind (sol + Earth's rotation to be exact)
Wind is the response of the atmosphere to uneven heating conditions. This creates pressure differences in the atmosphere causing the wind to blow from regions of high atmospheric pressure to low atmospheric pressure. The larger the pressure difference the greater the wind velocity.
As to the earth’s rotation causing the wind to blow….don’t think so. It does have an effect on it, however. As air moves from high to low pressure in the northern hemisphere, it is deflected to the right by the Coriolis force. In the southern hemisphere, air moving from high to low pressure is deflected to the left by the Coriolis force. The amount of deflection the air makes is directly related to both the speed at which the air is moving and its latitude. Therefore, slowly blowing winds will be deflected only a small amount, while stronger winds will be deflected more. Likewise, winds blowing closer to the poles will be deflected more than winds at the same speed closer to the equator. The Coriolis force is zero right at the equator.
I stand corrected. As you say, Earth's rotation does not affect the speed of wind, only direction.
I'd be interested to know just how high the oil price will go before demand is sufficiently curbed.
Markos,
When you look at the Chinese demand and our entrenched demand, I don't see a whole lot of room for demand destruction to allow for much of a surplus of supply to drop prices any great degree. Maybe when it hits $80/barrel which is a benchmark from the past. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. So many factors in the equation these days.
MQ _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject:
Thank you guys for moderating yourselves and realizing that neither person was really trying to insult the other.
Monte, realize that Mr Bean's tone was simply the same you would hear in a university room where they are discussing definitions of terms and the like. Such a debate is not nessarily groundless as the terms we use to define things define how we talk about them. And critism is entirely what you are inviting if you post on here, as long as it is constructive read it with an open mind.
Mr. Bean, some posters here have been posting either for a long time or with a great deal of frequency, and as such are very likely to have people who support them or tend to weigh in on your critisms of them. Honestly, if you think that little two post exchange was bad, you need to check the hall of flames and see the jay vs matt stuff. That is the perfect example of two very intelligent and verbose people who just hated each others guts and couldn't be civil with each other if they tried. Personally, I think you two have a much better chance of getting along, as your both basically saying the same thing. I would say bury the hachet and just realize that the web doesn't allow you to read each others mind.
But thank you for keeping it at a non cursing level. _________________ Azreal60
Asset inertia is the one of main problems we face. It seems to me it will be too difficult to change it to something else in time. When I travel North America, I look at the magnificent cities and complex infrastructure we have built, and ask, when the availability of energy is less than what it is now, how will we maintain these assets and/or what can we convert these assets to? If you look to history for an answer, assets are usually abandoned as that choice costs the least amount of energy.
The other main problem is mankind’s reaction to these limits that you detail. If mankind has an open mind and choose not fear the future, then there is hope. But if large blocks of people choose to fear the change, or ignore the nature of the problem, or simply see it as a winner takes all competition, then the future looks dark to me. _________________ Welcome to the second foundation.
I'd be interested to know just how high the oil price will go before demand is sufficiently curbed.
I read a few weeks ago that $162/barrel was the magic number. Sadly, I can't remember exactly what effect that price would cause, so it's a useless factoid. I *think* it was the price at which people would start to seriously consider alternatives to driving as much as we do.
A bunch of people have a lot of discretionary dollars to spend anyway, and even with gas at $3/gallon won't slow them down much. Gas in other parts of the world is (equivalent) $5-6/gallon and there still seems to be a lot of traffic...
I believe that distributed generation whenever possible will not only make sense for the homeowner as grid reliability drops, but will reduce transmission losses, so it's a win-win. Home heating oil usage is another important reduction opportunity: the average home here in Maine uses 1000 gallons/year. Just using programmable thermostats can reduce consumption by 20%. 200 gallons of oil would propel a small diesel car, what, 8-10,000 miles? That's almost as much driving as a lot of folks do in a year.
Joined: Oct 25, 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Southern California Desert
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:37 pm Post subject:
Frank wrote:
200 gallons of oil would propel a small diesel car, what, 8-10,000 miles? That's almost as much driving as a lot of folks do in a year.
Thats about how much driving I do in two years with Powerstroke F 250 with 4x4.
When I get to planting my own "oil" plants, then that should be enough for me and a couple of other people I care about.
I'll just have to find a good way to masquerade the crop from bandits!
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
Page 1 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I'm trying to do my best to inform the local Greens here in Finland (there are local electiong going on and the party has good chance to become the biggest party in Helsinki) about Peak Oil and start talking public ly about it. I do not expect to succeed in a day, but defeatism sure don't help. It's not necessary to convince everybody, just enough people in strategic places.
