[Quinny]

I've read posts about how investment in Solar and Renewables could be seen as an energy sink diverting energy from 'useful' purposes, but I've never seen or heard the term applied to other fossil fuels and biodiesel. This has been as an argument against trying to build more sustainable future energy supplies.

It seems to me that energy diverted from mainstream to renewables could be viewed as righteous investment in the future whereas energy diverted to get oil and gas from rocks represents a costs in both economic and environmental terms.

The continued trumpeting about the jobs and development in North Dakota by the cornie's here seems to totally ignore the massive investment we are putting into such a fast declining source of oil. This could be just as easily interpreted as an energy trap, but one not so righteous.

[Dybbuk]

I've read posts about how investment in Solar and Renewables could be seen as an energy sink diverting energy from 'useful' purposes, but I've never seen or heard the term applied to other fossil fuels and biodiesel. This has been as an argument against trying to build more sustainable future energy supplies.

I read Tom Murphy's explanation of the Energy Trap. His point wasn't that investment in renewables wasn't useful in general, but rather that it wasn't useful in the eyes of politicians, because it required short-term sacrifice in the name of long-term gain, which politicians are rarely keen on. Maybe there's another meaning of Energy Trap that I'm not aware of.

[Quinny]

I understand that, but when you look at the infrastructure costs being put into shale and fracking et al there is a short term hit which is only measured in cash terms, not energy. The same should really apply to costs associated with investment in renewables. I think most comparisons between renewables and fossil fuels look at conventional crude to identify costs (both monetary and energy).

It doesn't really make sense to be investing in Bio fuels, many of which are energy sinks, but we are still doing it.

It would be interesting if full lifecycle analysis was done on all available technologies and a table could be put forward showing both monetary and energy costs on available technologies. I think I've seen something similar, but not including the 'newer' tight and shale oil. Such studies should look at the full costs including pipelines and roads and other infrastructure. Think it would be interesting to see how different products work out.

[sunweb]

Solar and wind energy capturing devices are not alternative energy sources. They are extensions of the fossil fuel supply system. There is an illusion of looking at the trees and not the forest in the “Renewable” energy world. Not seeing the systems, machineries, fossil fuel uses and environmental degradation that create the devices to capture the sun, wind and biofuels allows myopia and false claims of renewable, clean, green and sustainable.

Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) is only a part of the equation. There is a massive infrastructure of mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating, installation, transportation and the associated environmental assaults. Each of these processes and machines may only add a miniscule amount of energy to the final component of solar or wind devices yet the devices cannot arise without them. There would be no devices without this infrastructure.

How else would we do it? There is always the old way. Who of us will go down in the mine first?
A story in pictures and diagrams:
From Machines making machines making machines
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/ma ... aking.html

[ralfy]

In relation to that,

http://peakoil.com/production/the-energy-trap

[cephalotus]

the "energy trap" theorem has huge logical and mathematical flaws.

And the biggest problem is: our priority problem is not lack of fossil energy (we have more than enough of it), but the CO2 accumulation in the air.

I think its some anti renewable and pro fossil/nuclear bullshit that wants to proof that you should not "waste" resources on development of renewables but just keep business as usual (plus some whining about the end of the world)

This might sound quite interesting to peak oil doomers of course.

Even if it WOULD be true (which it isn't) what would you do sitting in a car running at 100mph against a solid wall, if someone explains to you that pushing the breaks will not stop you fast enough?
Would you push the brakes or would you accelerate even more as suggested?

I would brake.

[Dybbuk]

Solar and wind energy capturing devices are not alternative energy sources. They are extensions of the fossil fuel supply system.

I've seen this contention more than once on here. Are you saying that the "capturing devices" can't be built without fossil fuels? Or just that it would be a hell of a lot harder (in the current paradigm)?

[Quinny]

I don't think I've explained clearly the issue or my concerns here.

The 'Energy Trap' basically says that if we invest in renewables we take energy/finance out of the 'system' having a negative impact on 'growth' hence causing problems for the 'politicians' Dybbuk refers to.

The recent 'shale/tight oil revolution' seems to need a similar 'diversion of investment'.

[ralfy]

the "energy trap" theorem has huge logical and mathematical flaws.

And the biggest problem is: our priority problem is not lack of fossil energy (we have more than enough of it), but the CO2 accumulation in the air.

I think its some anti renewable and pro fossil/nuclear bullshit that wants to proof that you should not "waste" resources on development of renewables but just keep business as usual (plus some whining about the end of the world)

This might sound quite interesting to peak oil doomers of course.

Even if it WOULD be true (which it isn't) what would you do sitting in a car running at 100mph against a solid wall, if someone explains to you that pushing the breaks will not stop you fast enough?
Would you push the brakes or would you accelerate even more as suggested?

I would brake.

The problem isn't a lack of fossil energy but extraction rate and the energy cost of doing so.

CO2 accumulation doesn't make the "theorem" "flawed."

[cephalotus]

The problem isn't a lack of fossil energy but extraction rate and the energy cost of doing so.

Theer is no problem with the extraction rate of fossil fuels, that's pure phantasie. Fossil fuels are perversly cheap so we currently waste around 80-90% of our fossil fuels for "nothing", so the extraction rate is several time shigher than it would bee needed to keep a society running.

CO2 accumulation doesn't make the "theorem" "flawed."

No it doesn't. The theorem wants to "adress" a problem that does not exist (extraction rate of fossil fuels). Adress is the wrong word because not better solution is offered.

The CO2 accumlation problem on the other hand most likely does exit. This real problem can be adressed with renewables.

---

also the mathematiucs are deeply flawed. The energy payback time of wind power plant are 3-6 months, of a PV power plant 12 months in Germany. This is simply not relevant als long as we have enough fossil energy to heat our homes to 23°C in winter and drive SUVs to work.
Today there is not lack of fossil energy in the world, in contrary we have an almast absurd abundance of it.

And of course you can make fuel out of electricity (think of reneawable methane), so neither solar nor wind power plants depend on fossil fuels (its cheaper to use them and I would rate making RES out of fossil fuels a sensible use of them)

[Quinny]

I started the tread in an attempt to discuss the concept of the 'Energy Trap' which is IMO used to dissuade people from investing in renewables. This concept does not seem to be applied to tight/shale oil or biodiesel.

Doesn't seem right to me.

[Quinny]

Exactly - it seems to me double standards are applied.

[ralfy]

Theer is no problem with the extraction rate of fossil fuels, that's pure phantasie. Fossil fuels are perversly cheap so we currently waste around 80-90% of our fossil fuels for "nothing", so the extraction rate is several time shigher than it would bee needed to keep a society running.

You're confusing the extraction rate with demand. The first will go down no matter what simply because the source of energy will be too deep or require more processing.

Your next point, which is not related to this issue, is correct: probably not "80-90%," but there is an amount used to support a middle class lifestyle, which I assume is what you mean by "for 'nothing'." In that case, if "a society running" means something that doesn't have a middle class lifestyle (i.e., no single-standing homes for a small family or less, passenger vehicles, jet aircraft, most appliances, electronic gadgets, etc.) then extraction rate will definitely be several times higher than average.

Unfortunately, the catch is that most people want that "nothing". In fact, our ability to use computers and post in this forum is part of that, together with many of the conveniences that we take for granted. In which case, it is the claim that extraction rate is good enough that is a "phantasie."

It gets worse when growing demand for food, medicine, and other needs that are taken for granted kick in, especially given the fact that beyond fossil fuels we may have already overshot in terms of resources in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _footprint

At that point, consuming for "nothing" will be the least of our problems.

[sparky]

.
This is quite confusing ,
the "alternatives" ARE an energy trap , all the money, KW thrown into this financial black hole
by taxpayers subsidies will NEVER result in an economic alternative ,
no large efficiency improvement ,no magic bullet
while the running cost are very small the manufacturing and installation cost are based on fossil power price , when those increase "alternatives" price increase too
In fossil carbon , energy is already in the stuff ,
the cost are like mining dollars , even when not so many banknotes are in the ground

The test is can those energy sources can duplicate themselves ?
I.E. for the techno economically challenged
...can one make solar panels from a factory build and powered by solar panels
including the raw materials processing and the ecological costs of a very dirty manufacturing

and producing power at a cost equivalent to fossil fuel , hydro or nuclear

......NO !!

Alternatives were always an ruinously expensive political pacifier given to starry eyes zealots
Proof , take the subsidies away and watch

[Quinny]

So it's OK to sink millions into infrastructure supporting short life FF but production because it's what we do, but it's wrong to invest in alternatives that will last much longer and have a better EROEI. ????

[kublikhan]

Solar and wind energy capturing devices are not alternative energy sources.

Wrong. I debunked this every time you post it and you ignore it. Further, every one of you posts includes a plug for your blog. This is a violation of the policies here. This board is not to be used for advertising your own website.

[kublikhan]

while the running cost are very small the manufacturing and installation cost are based on fossil power price , when those increase "alternatives" price increase too
In fossil carbon , energy is already in the stuff ,
the cost are like mining dollars , even when not so many banknotes are in the ground

You are only looking at part of the picture sparky. Energy and commodity prices do indeed affect alternative energy. But other factors affect the price as well. For example, for decades wind power has been falling in price thanks to improving technology. However with the runup in energy and commodity prices around 2005-2008, wind power prices started rising again. But wind performance improvements continued even as oil & commodity costs rose. In effect, wind was rising in cost, but not as fast as oil. More recently, wind cost has begun falling again, despite record high oil prices. Just to reiterate: overall wind costs are now falling despite the fact that energy costs like oil are rising. You can't look at energy costs alone, you have to look at the whole picture.

Historical and Near-Term Trends in the Levelized Cost of Wind Energy
Between 1980 and the early 2000s, significant reductions in capital cost and increases in performance had the combined effect of dramatically reducing the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for onshore wind energy. Data from three different historical evaluations, including internal analysis by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as well as published estimates from Lemming et al. (2009) and the Danish Energy Agency, illustrate that the LCOE of wind power declined by a factor of more than three, from more than $150/MWh to approximately $50/MWh between 1980s and the early 2000s. However, beginning in about 2003 and continuing through the latter half of the past decade, wind power capital costs increased—driven by rising commodity and raw materials prices, increased labor costs, improved manufacturer profitability, and turbine upscaling—thus pushing wind’s LCOE upward in spite of continued performance improvements.

More recently, turbine prices and therefore project capital costs have declined, but still have not returned to the historical lows observed earlier in the 2000s. At the same time, however, performance improvements have continued. As a result, modeling based on capital cost and performance data from the United States and Denmark for projects expected to be built in 2012–2013 suggests that the LCOE of onshore wind energy is now at an all-time low within fixed wind resource classes, and particularly in low and medium wind speed areas (Figure ES-2). Moreover, the fact that capital costs remain higher than in the early 2000s but that those increased costs are rewarded by improved performance and a lower LCOE demonstrates the fundamental interdependence of capital cost and performance in wind turbine and project design.

Long-term Trends in Wind Energy LCOE
Further into the future, the LCOE of wind energy is expected to continue to fall, at least on a global basis and within fixed wind resource classes. Performance improvements associated with continued turbine upscaling and design advancements are anticipated, and lower capital costs may also be achievable.

The three studies anticipating a 35%–40% reduction in LCOE by 2030 represent ambitious scenarios requiring concentrated efforts to reduce the cost wind energy, relatively high rates of global deployment, and levels of investment that exceed business as usual. By focusing on the results that fall between the 20th and 80th percentiles of scenarios, the range is narrowed to roughly a 20%–30% reduction in LCOE.

Conclusions and Future Work
Following a long period of historical declines, wind energy costs were increasing for much of the past decade. However, today, the cost of onshore wind energy once again appears to be falling and is expected to reach a historic low in the near future within fixed wind resource areas. Continued cost reductions are expected through 2030.

Recent capital cost and performance trends have underscored the need for a view of the cost of wind energy that equally weighs both trends in capital cost and performance, particularly when trying to understand the future cost of wind energy. The technology is now at a point where an optimal cost of onshore wind energy may result from little or no further capital cost reductions
and perhaps even modest capital cost increases), but continued performance improvements.
this environment, it is possible to see capital costs remain relatively flat—with possible modest reductions or increases, depending on local market conditions—into the future and to see performance increases as the primary target of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

The Past and Future Cost of Wind Energy