The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Peak Oil' drives urgent energy alternatives > Comments

'Peak Oil' drives urgent energy alternatives : Comments

By Ian Dunlop, published 1/9/2008

With the world's oil supply nearing its peak we must prepare for a future fuelled by alternative supplies of energy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
This excellent article recognises the key issue facing our global society today. The fact that oil production has been essentially constant since 2005 makes it highly likely the world has now moved onto a global production plateau. How long enhanced recovery methods plus new oil fields being brought on stream can continue to balance the steady decline from the larger mature fields is debatable. The current plateau may not last long, but getting the oil consuming countries to recognise how precarious the situation will go down as one of the most catastrophic failures ever.

Since no political or economic system can beat the second law of thermodynamics it won’t make any difference whether one worships the philosophy of Adam Smith or Karl Marx, or anyone else for that matter. If we have not developed sustainable alternatives to oil, or any of the other finite energy resources such as gas, coal and uranium, we, and more importantly our children and grandchildren will soon be in very deep trouble. I believe the worlds political leaders are well aware of the issue, but are unwilling to confront their electorate with the potentially devastating consequences of oil production decline.

For any chance of our children and grandchildren enjoying a future we would recognise as normal, it is essential there’s a radical change in the way we live our lives. The developed nations must initiate the equivalent of a global Marshall plan to create sustainable alternatives to oil while they still have the wealth to do so. Failure to find alternatives will eventually make the transport of goods over long distances ruinously expensive, which will in turn cripple the globalised economy. Even more importantly, modern agricultural productivity is based on the extensive use of energy for the manufacture of fertiliser, herbicides and pesticides, as well as to power today’s mechanised farming. Reverting to low energy input agriculture will result in productivity levels not seen since the 19th century, with catastrophic consequences for the 6.7 billion people living on this planet.

It really is a case of change or die !
Posted by Realitychecker, Wednesday, 3 September 2008 3:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Concerning the potential of solar energy:
The SEGS power plants, located in the Mojave desert, are often cited as a recommendation for the introduction of solar power in Australia.

354 MW installed capacity, which means that due to night time and other down time the actual capacity realised is more like 120 MW.

Australia had, in 2005, 50.6 gigawatts generating capacity i.e. 50,600 Mw or 421 times the power generating capacity of SEGS. Therefore we would need 421 of these to equal the generating capacity of Australia in 2005, they would need to be located in places that get more than 340 days of sunshine per annum, and they would still have to be supplemented by gas generation to about 10% of their overall capacity.

FPL is the owner of the SEGS - here are some comments from its own web site about solar energy. http://www.fplenergy.com/

Q. What solar facilities does FPL Energy operate?
A. FPL Energy is the larger generator of solar energy in the country, operating seven Solar Electric Generating System (SEGS) facilities in California's Mojave Desert.

“Q. What percentage of generation does solar energy represent in FPL Energy's portfolio?
A. Solar energy represents about 1 percent of FPL Energy's generation.

Q.“Why can't solar energy be used to supply all our energy needs?
A. The initial cost of constructing solar energy facilities is high, so the overall cost of solar energy is also high compared to more traditional forms of power generation. In addition, energy from the sun is intermittent and varies from region to region. Solar energy also requires quite a large area of land for installation to achieve a good level of efficiency. This would not be practical in providing for the energy needs of large numbers of consumers. Finally, no solar energy can be produced during night-time although some relatively small applications may have battery backup systems. “

I am open to consider alternative energy and solar in view of the possibility of peak oil occurring, but would these power stations not also require the input of oil-based factors of production?
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 7 September 2008 1:27:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are some facts Reality Checker.

Solar thermal installations use salt heat storage to supply base load continuous power 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Solar thermal could use geothermal wells for heat storage.

The input of energy to solar thermal plants to energy out is of the order of 1 unit of energy in to 100 out which is MUCH better than new oil fields.

The cost of solar thermal and geothermal is currently about $4500 per KW continuous. Costs decrease by 15 to 20% for each doubling of capacity for all historical engineering infrastructure developments. As the capacity is now very low it will only take about 5 doublings or less than 10% of electricity capacity before the capital cost is much lower than fossil fuel plants. Add to this the fact that renewable energy plants have zero energy input costs and so their running costs are much much lower.

Fact if you have plentiful cheap energy it is relatively simple to produce hydrocarbon liquid fuels.

Economically it is a no brainer to move to renewables with our without peak oil because there are thousands of times the number of available of both solar and geothermal sites in Australia to supply the whole world let alone just Australia - and that is with existing technologies.

We DO NOT need to increase the cost of energy to build the renewable energy plants. This is a fiction promulgated by the same people who have brought us the subprime loan crisis and a POLICY of 2% to 3% inflation of our money system.

Let us forget about emissions trading and other difficult to implement systems and just build the plants.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Sunday, 7 September 2008 4:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie,

Fickle Pickle is right.

"There is no need to reduce our living standards and there is no need to change our lifestyles because of Peak Oil. There is a need to invest in renewables but that is all we have to do."

You mention night-time unavailability of solar generated electricity. At the scale of replacement by renewables that is required, solar energy is collected differently than most presently imagine. It is collected AND STORED most cost-effectively in solar ponds. These operate on a temperature inversion principle whereby solar heat is accumulated in a dense layer of concentrated brine separated from an overlying insulating blanket of fresher water by a membrane. The membrane is there to prevent convection from moving the heated brine into the fresher layer and ultimately losing the heat collected.

Hot (65+ degrees C) brine can be used 24/7 to heat a low boiling point heat exchange fluid which, when vapourised in a closed cycle system is used just like steam to drive piston or turbine engines that in turn drive generators. Solar ponds don't only handle the diurnal intermittency of solar radiation, they also handle fluctuations due to cloudy weather. Properly scaled in relation to demand, they are capable of meeting base load and peak load requirements provided the generating capacity exists sufficient to cover the peaks.

Hot water from hot dry rock well fields or hydrothermal sources is similarly used in low boiling point power plants. See: http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/Birdsville-geothermal-power-station.html

Although the solar pond plateau temperature is not as high as that of the steam from hot dry rock wells, this method of large scale renewable energy collection is not burdened with the capital costs of establishing the well field, and is capable of being progressively implemented in association with existing coal or gas fired electricity generation waste heat recovery.

Low boiling point closed cycle generating plants would also work in a Fischer-Tropsch coal to liquid petroleum synthesis co-generation context.

The political will to do it is the only missing requirement!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 7 September 2008 5:12:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie,

The aim of my post was not to discuss the merits or demerits of sustainable sources of energy, but to highlight the fact that the current global political leaders do not want to confront their electorate with the fact global oil production has probably reached an undulating plateau, and that its consequences are likely to be unpleasant for us all.

In the 1970's a 5% shortfall in supply caused the price of oil to almost quadruple triggering a serious recession. If we are now on a plateau, the resultant oil demand destruction due to recession will correct the supply/demand imbalance causing oil’s price to fall. As the global economy starts to expand again increasing demand for oil, supply constraints will cause its price to increase again, which in turn triggers another recession. This cycle continues until the oil plateau ends with an irreversible decline in oil production.

If the world has failed to develop sustainable alternatives to oil when oil production eventually goes into decline we will all be in deep trouble. Since fossil based energy, in particular oil, has enabled the global economy to expand allowing the population to grow to 6.7 billion, so the resulting energy crunch will be disastrous without viable alternatives capable of providing equivalent amounts of energy.

A combination of stupidity and greed by the financial markets expanded a housing bubble that has now burst causing the current credit crunch. My concern is that this financial crisis, combined with the consequences of an oil production plateau will drain the global wealth needed to fund the massive investment needed to develop and construct sustainable sources of energy.

Australia is clearly well placed to exploit saline gradient solar ponds, however from purely thermodynamic considerations they would seem better suited to the supply of hot water for heating, since as a source of low grade heat their Carnot cycle efficiency will be low. Solar concentration systems by comparison produce high grade heat, so consequently have a high Carnot cycle efficiency making them the better option for generating electricity
Posted by Realitychecker, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 7:58:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I urge people to go look at http://www.chrismartenson.com/peak_oil

If you have time take a look at the rest of the "Crash Course" and you will see why our economic system is not doing as well as it should, why we have unaffordable housing and why economists like Garnaut are going down the wrong track.

The solution to renewable energy lies in an alternative direction that emissions trading goes. That is, rather than trying to get investment by increasing the price of carbon we get investment by reducing the cost of investing in renewables. See http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/chapter-4-energy-rewards/ for one way to do it that will reduce emissions.

This has the same effect without unleashing inflation by creating money for unproductive purposes (emissions permits and interest). It does it by reducing the interest rate on productive renewable energy investment and by paying people to reduce consumption but invest their payments in ways to increase renewables. This creates a system of compounding investment in renewables and compounding soon "solves" the problem.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 8:22:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy