Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!

[EdEarl]

Ed, why do you think we seem to be transitioning so slowly towards these new sources, is the technology still in its infancy, is it cost, or are we still too heavily invested in oil?

You ask a good question. I have some ideas, but I am not an expert, and there are many reasons IMO. The three part documentary "Earth The Climate Wars"

narrated by Dr Iain Stewart (available on youtube) are good background information. Time to develop technology is a factor, but adapting technological solutions seems to have caused more delays than development. For example, Earthship homes are a superb technology, but cannot be built in many counties in the US, because building codes must change. Of course, opposition to windmills is another example of why adopting new technology has been slow.

 

I could go on, but it is better discussed in another thread in which anyone may comment.

Edited June 29, 2013 by EdEarl

[BrightQuark]

Interesting and thanks for the links, I'll watch those documentaries, and if there's interest, we could always set up a new thread.

 

(I keep atttempting to watch the L Susskind documentary on holograms, but keep getting distracted. I did manage however to watch two science prograames this week, one on gas being drawn into the central bulge/Black hole, and another on the foundations of measurement, by Marcus De Sautoy, if I've spelt that correctly, the mathematician, that was an exceptionally good quality programme, I'll probably rewatch it actually. 3 episodes, on foundations.

[Enthalpy]

David Charles Hahn [...]

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Corporation began its humble beginnings like many other start-ups [...]

What is suggested here?

 

David Charles Hahn collected radioactive materials in a setup that had zero chance of becoming a reactor.

 

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Corporation was founded by a different person. Some companies have begun small, it does not imply that beginning small brings success. Already the size hence cost of a reactor does not fit a single person; Fermi had a university with him.

 

What's sure: a pressure lobby exists for liquid fluoride thorium reactors. As such reactors have clear drawbacks (explode as a bomb if hit by a bigger kinetic energy penetrator - still need uranium reactors) and few chances to bring something useful, the goal of their proponents must only be to draw taxpayer's money for their "research".

[arc]

HOLY CRAP, I didn't know there was such a company. I was just looking for an amusing example of a ridicules small scale attempt. I thought it would highlight the "smaller is not better" idea. Sorry Enthalpy, I had no Idea someone was attempting this under that name, doh.

 

Wait a minute.

Hold on, I haven't found that exact name.

I might be in the clear.

 

whew.

Edited June 29, 2013 by arc

[Popcorn Sutton]

If I have any say in what goes in our tanks as a replacement, I would choose hydrogenated water. The method is simple. Take hydrogen, use the carbonation method to mix it with water, find the right amount to make it combustible like gas, and use it as a replacement. No fiddling with the engine is necessary.

 

That is one way at least. The point is that we have options. But this one is clean and effective.

[Bignose]

If I have any say in what goes in our tanks as a replacement, I would choose hydrogenated water. The method is simple. Take hydrogen, use the carbonation method to mix it with water, find the right amount to make it combustible like gas, and use it as a replacement. No fiddling with the engine is necessary.

 

That is one way at least. The point is that we have options. But this one is clean and effective.

Popcorn, this is an idea that doesn't work.

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

 

The 0.02 g of hydrogen gas that can be dissolved per kg of water is absolutely a tiny amount.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok, I havent gotten around to experimenting on it yet but it's on my bucket list.

[Bignose]

Ok, I havent gotten around to experimenting on it yet but it's on my bucket list.

If you 'haven't gotten around to experimenting on it yet', than why are you posting it like it is fact?

 

This is not the way to be taken seriously, Popcorn.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I only intend to say, possible alternative.

[ralfy]

Your post seems to argue that we should not consider replacing petroleum, which is contrary to the topic of this thread, which is to discuss alternatives to petroleum.

 

Actually, that's not my point. Rather, we will be forced to replace petroleum given peak oil. But replacements will not provide the same energy returns needed to maintain middle class lifestyles.

 

There are related points here:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

[EdEarl]

 

Actually, that's not my point. Rather, we will be forced to replace petroleum given peak oil. But replacements will not provide the same energy returns needed to maintain middle class lifestyles.

 

Oh, OK. When I was young, much oil came from Texas in the Permian Basin, where I lived. The US was booming because there were good jobs for people, including oil jobs and manufacturing jobs. Today, those jobs are overseas, and by comparison the US is suffering. In the 1950 the US was building infrastructure (more jobs) but today we are not. Instead, we send billions overseas to employ people elsewhere. Even if ROI is less, making jobs in the US for building and maintaining green energy systems is IMO better than buying oil from the middle east (which results in us paying Saudi citizens tax royalties).

[ralfy]

Oh, OK. When I was young, much oil came from Texas in the Permian Basin, where I lived. The US was booming because there were good jobs for people, including oil jobs and manufacturing jobs. Today, those jobs are overseas, and by comparison the US is suffering. In the 1950 the US was building infrastructure (more jobs) but today we are not. Instead, we send billions overseas to employ people elsewhere. Even if ROI is less, making jobs in the US for building and maintaining green energy systems is IMO better than buying oil from the middle east (which results in us paying Saudi citizens tax royalties).

 

The problem is that you need a certain EROI to maintain a particular lifestyle. For some details, try this interview:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

There's also an EROI needed to deal with both declining conventional production and rising demand, but that will be difficult given conditions for non-conventional sources:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

 

And to deal with a lag time:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

and an energy trap:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

 

According to the IEA,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU

 

we'll need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth, especially given a growing global middle class. But that assumes that conventional production will simply flat line. If it doesn't, then we will need more.

 

And even more if we need surplus oil for the transition to other sources of energy.

[Sato]

I think photovoltaics will overtake.

[EdEarl]

The problem is that you need a certain EROI to maintain a particular lifestyle. For some details, try this interview:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

There's also an EROI needed to deal with both declining conventional production and rising demand, but that will be difficult given conditions for non-conventional sources:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

 

And to deal with a lag time:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

and an energy trap:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

 

According to the IEA,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU

 

we'll need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth, especially given a growing global middle class. But that assumes that conventional production will simply flat line. If it doesn't, then we will need more.

 

And even more if we need surplus oil for the transition to other sources of energy.

 

I have seen sixty years of so called economic progress, but the lifestyle of people I have known has not changed to any great degree, IMO. Perhaps the biggest positive change has been to the life expectancy of newborn children, worldwide, but the world they will grow into is degraded compared to my 1950s experience. And, it will continue to degrade according to various scientists,

 

such as biologists:

 

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused extinction, known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028).

such as environmentalists:

 

Photographer James Balog shares new image sequences from the Extreme Ice Survey, a network of time-lapse cameras recording glaciers receding at an alarming rate, ...

and such as climatologists:

 

Global warming can effect sea levels, coastlines, ocean acidification, ocean currents, seawater, sea surface temperatures as well as depths, tides, the sea floor, weather and change entire climates. All of these affect how a society functions.

 

 

In the US, homes have increased in size; I suppose that's good since people have grown around the middle. There are fancier toys to entertain us, but drug use is higher, which casts doubt on whether the toys are making us happier or not. There have been many medical advances with increased medical costs; thus, fewer and fewer people can afford medical care.

 

In my opinion, the importance of EROI is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When the condition of the poor is very bad, when the poor question whether death may be better than living, armed revolution tends to break out.

 

For the Scrooges of the world, money is all important. However, most people need money to secure food, clothing, shelter, and health care; whereupon, love and relationships are more important to happiness.

 

Thus, I question your statement:

 

The problem is that you need a certain EROI to maintain a particular lifestyle.

What lifestyle needs to be maintained?

 

Suppose our homes were energy independent, we grew some of our own food, rode bicycles to nearby stores, and valued interpersonal relationships more than we do now. In other words, suppose we lived somewhat like people in the time of Mark Twain, yet still had the internet, modern medicine, and space travel. Is that lifestyle potentially better or worse than the one we live now?

 

IMO we do not need as much oil as we currently use, it is our addiction, which is (as Oxycontin is for some) bad for us; although, if used in moderation can be very beneficial.

The problem is that you need a certain EROI to maintain a particular lifestyle. For some details, try this interview:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

There's also an EROI needed to deal with both declining conventional production and rising demand, but that will be difficult given conditions for non-conventional sources:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

 

And to deal with a lag time:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

and an energy trap:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

 

According to the IEA,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU

 

we'll need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth, especially given a growing global middle class. But that assumes that conventional production will simply flat line. If it doesn't, then we will need more.

 

And even more if we need surplus oil for the transition to other sources of energy.

 

I have seen sixty years of so called economic progress, but the lifestyle of people I have known has not changed to any great degree, IMO. Perhaps the biggest positive change has been to the life expectancy of newborn children, worldwide, but the world they will grow into is degraded compared to my 1950s experience. And, it will continue to degrade according to various scientists,

 

such as biologists:

 

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused extinction, known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028).

such as environmentalists:

 

Photographer James Balog shares new image sequences from the Extreme Ice Survey, a network of time-lapse cameras recording glaciers receding at an alarming rate, ...

and such as climatologists:

 

Global warming can effect sea levels, coastlines, ocean acidification, ocean currents, seawater, sea surface temperatures as well as depths, tides, the sea floor, weather and change entire climates. All of these affect how a society functions.

 

 

In the US, homes have increased in size; I suppose that's good since people have grown around the middle. There are fancier toys to entertain us, but drug use is higher, which casts doubt on whether the toys are making us happier or not. There have been many medical advances with increased medical costs; thus, fewer and fewer people can afford medical care.

 

In my opinion, the importance of EROI is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When the condition of the poor is very bad, when the poor question whether death may be better than living, armed revolution tends to break out.

 

For the Scrooges of the world, money is all important. However, most people need money to secure food, clothing, shelter, and health care; whereupon, love and relationships are more important to happiness.

 

Thus, I question your statement:

 

The problem is that you need a certain EROI to maintain a particular lifestyle.

What lifestyle needs to be maintained?

 

Suppose our homes were energy independent, we grew some of our own food, rode bicycles to nearby stores, and valued interpersonal relationships more than we do now. In other words, suppose we lived somewhat like people in the time of Mark Twain, yet still had the internet, modern medicine, and space travel. Is that lifestyle potentially better or worse than the one we live now?

 

IMO we do not need as much oil as we currently use, it is our addiction, which is (as Oxycontin is for some) bad for us; although, if used in moderation can be very beneficial.

[ralfy]

I have seen sixty years of so called economic progress, but the lifestyle of people I have known has not changed to any great degree, IMO. Perhaps the biggest positive change has been to the life expectancy of newborn children, worldwide, but the world they will grow into is degraded compared to my 1950s experience. And, it will continue to degrade according to various scientists,

I think it's because you are only looking at the people you have known. You need to look at the global population. Hence, as oil consumption (for example) dropped for the U.S., EU, and Japan, it rose for the rest of the world, and overtook the decrease:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

(See first chart.)

 

 

 

What lifestyle needs to be maintained?

 

It's given in Charles Hall's interview:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth&page=2

 

Thus, an EROI barely above one will only allow you to pump oil out of the ground. To use it, you will need a lot more.

 

The same applies for resource use. Try this ecological footprint calculator for an example:

 

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/gfn/page/calculators/

 

To see ave. footprints of various countries, try this link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

 

In general, for the rest of the world to follow the lifestyle of countries such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia, we will need the equivalent of several earths.

 

Finally, you can also look at this in terms of energy and resources needed to maintain what is taken for granted. Consider, for example, the number of miles that food has to travel in countries like the U.S. to reach dinner tables, the amount of fresh water needed to produce a ton of grains, the number of products that are not only made using oil but even made from oil, i.e., petrochemicals, the amount of fresh water needed to produce one T-shirt, passenger vehicle, or computer chip, and so on.

Edited July 29, 2013 by ralfy

[EdEarl]

Ralfy, I shall be more blunt. IMO the lifestyle in the US has degraded during my lifetime, and it is leading the world into lifestyle degredation, not because of scientific and medical advances; rather, it is in social decay and being led by dog eat dog business practices (e.g., Bernie Madoff), crooked politicians (most congressmen and senators), and drug wars, among other things.

 

As individuals I believe many politicians are good people, but when they group think, they become a mob and make laws that are often very bad.

 

I am a simple man, a programmer by profession. I do not know what, if anything, can be done to improve peoples lives around the world, but increasing pollution, causing species extinction, drugging out, concentrating wealth/expanding poverty, increasing CO2, etc. is not my idea of improvement.

 

The links you have given IMO say we need more of the things that have led us into the current dubious state, and I feel they are not the best things for us.

[ralfy]

By middle class lifestyle I am referring to consumption of material resources, which is connected to the topic of energy.

 

For example, take oil consumption, etc. (charts 4 and others) here:

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/tverberg210412.htm

 

U.S. auto sales:

 

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2011/01/31/the-daily-graphic-u-s-auto-sales-1967-2010/

 

U.S. consumption for expensive food:

 

http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/1344/factors-affecting-us-pork-consumption

 

Sugar and sweetener food consumption and obesity rates:

 

http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/Fructose.html

 

Home ownership (see chart):

 

http://dailycapitalist.com/2009/02/07/republicans-propose-nationalization-of-us-mortgage-market/

 

Purchasing power parity:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

 

and more, driven by significant levels of borrowing and spending the past few decades (see chart):

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/

 

My point is that resource and energy consumption in the U.S. is incredibly high. The country has less than 5 pct of the world's population and yet needs to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain a lifestyle which includes something like 250 million passenger vehicles (roughly one per adult).

 

Even if social decay were avoided, including drug wars, etc., and so forth, the U.S. will still end up with the same problems, simply because such a middle class lifestyle which requires resource and energy needs equivalent to having three other earths, is not sustainable.

 

Unfortunately, as the country is falling apart due to fallout from financial risks, other countries are pursing the "American dream" (see the first chart here):

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

and there aren't enough resources and energy to maintain such rates of consumption.

[EdEarl]

 

... there aren't enough resources and energy to maintain such rates of consumption.

Thus, we need to change our lifestyles to use fewer resources.

 

1) Homes can be made comfortable and off-grid. See: http://earthship.com/

2) We should not be driving 2200 lb (1000 kg) vehicles 10,000-16,000 m (16,000-25,000) km per year.

3) We should walk and ride a bicycle more.

4) We should grow some of our own food.

5) We should play more with our children.

6) We should change our priorities to live happier healthier lives.

 

Fortunately, these things are not money centric. Unfortunately, people are listening to too much advertising that convinces them they want more, and they become addicted to fast food, instant gratification, and the fast lane. Slow down and live. Take a hike in a park. Surf the waves. Listen to the birds. Watch the clouds.

 

 

Big-government economics breeds crony capitalism. It's corrupt, anything but neutral, and a barrier to broad participation in prosperity. Paul Ryan

 

[EdEarl]

 

Solar energy could supply one-third of power in US West, study finds

[write4u]

IMO, the most abundant sources of energy, the Solar, Wind, and Water will become the energy sources of tomorrow.

 

But the potential of Hydrogen holds the most promise. Theoretically one can generate more energy than is used to generate that energy (fusion technology).

 

We have had successful experiments on an extremely small scale with lasers providing the enormous pressures required for fusion.

 

[ralfy]

Don't forget the need for petrochemicals, lag time, etc. Hence,

 

"It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We've Only Got 10"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

[EdEarl]

 

Image via Blue Street Journal

 

 

[zorro]

With current politicos I speculate:

 

Coal + Petro (stopped by enviro damages) till 2,200 AD

Bio - Trash recyclables 2,500

Wind and renewables 2,700

Efficiencies and regulated energy markets 2,900

Population Bomb of 15 Billion with energy market Chaos 3,000

Population reductions retuning Dark ages to 2 Billion population to balance energy avail 3,300

Renaissance to clean safe Fusion reactors maintaining 3 Billion population till food / resources runs out 5,000 AD

Desert Tortoise and insects take over the earth

Edited August 10, 2013 by zorro

[Popcorn Sutton]

Bullshit. No. I'd be ashamed if that were true

[EdEarl]

Zorro, I think you are too optimistic.