Re: Peak oil
Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:12 pm
Just noticed this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... omicgrowth
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... omicgrowth
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
dzogchungpa wrote:Just noticed this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... omicgrowth
That looks good, too, just looking at the blurb. The take-home message for energy consumers is that they had better reduce their reliance on fossil fuels asap, and for governments (by implication, at least) is that they should be driving a changeover to alternative energy sources right now to avoid a monstrous crash when peak oil really bites.dzogchungpa wrote:I haven't read this yet, but here's a new book:
http://www.springer.com/business+%26+ma ... 19-04237-4
How do they calculate an EROI for solar panels or wind turbines, I wonder?...growth has been and will continue to be, critically dependent upon abundant supplies of cheap energy. The era of such abundance is coming to an end, with much more expensive and lower production rate energy sources replacing the cheap and high production rate depleting ones. As an example, the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for oil production has fallen from 30:1 in the 1970s to under 10:1 today, leaving less net energy and higher energy costs for all sectors of the economy. ... For reasons from relatively low EROI to the need for massive amounts of path dependent energy infrastructure, no other energy source can seamlessly substitute for the 87% of global energy supplies now provided by fossil fuels.
Re solar panels, from the book:Kim O'Hara wrote:How do they calculate an EROI for solar panels or wind turbines, I wonder?
26 = http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy. ... oruces.pdfSolar PV uses solar panels that convert the sun’s energy into electrical energy.
Estimates of energy return for Solar PV [26] range between 6:1 and 12:1, although
some researchers have calculated an EROI as high [27] as 38:1, and as low [28] as
2.5:1. Differing assumptions such as the useful life of the solar PV installation, the
maintenance costs over time, and the range of input costs have driven these wide
variances. Solar PV can be used in large scale industrial implementations, as well as
for individual commercial and residential buildings.
Thanks again!dzogchungpa wrote:Re solar panels, from the book:Kim O'Hara wrote:How do they calculate an EROI for solar panels or wind turbines, I wonder?26 = http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy. ... oruces.pdfSolar PV uses solar panels that convert the sun’s energy into electrical energy.
Estimates of energy return for Solar PV [26] range between 6:1 and 12:1, although
some researchers have calculated an EROI as high [27] as 38:1, and as low [28] as
2.5:1. Differing assumptions such as the useful life of the solar PV installation, the
maintenance costs over time, and the range of input costs have driven these wide
variances. Solar PV can be used in large scale industrial implementations, as well as
for individual commercial and residential buildings.
27 = http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/241_Rau ... 03_VMF.pdf
28 = Prieto P, Hall C (2013) Spain’s photovoltaic revolution. The Energy Return on Investment.
Springer, New York, which is also on libgen, btw.
Re wind, there is a section titled "Wind: EROI Averaging 18:1; Approximately 1 % of Energy Usage" but a quick perusal did not reveal a reference.
These results show that investing energy to build and operate PV power systems or conventional fossil fuel-based electricity generation systems are, today, essentially comparable options in terms of the amount of electricity delivered (returned) over the 30 years of their operational lifetimes. Of course, a crucial difference between PV and the two conventional systems remains, though, which the EROI indicator was never designed to address: conventional thermal electricity production systems achieve their energy returns by depleting limited stocks of non-renewable primary energy (EFeed), while in the case of PV systems the corresponding direct input of energy consists of flow-limited but virtually inexhaustible renewable energy (ER).
…
Finally, it is incontrovertible that the negative effects of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the combustion of fossil fuels in conventional thermal power plants cannot remain unaddressed much longer without taking an increasingly heavy toll on human societies in terms of external monetary and energy costs. Although hard to quantify precisely, even if it were feasible to reduce the life cycle GHG emissions of fossil fuelled electricity to a similar level as that of PV, this would result in a reduction in its EROI, when analyzed at a suitably large scale.
…the EROI of PV is up to 19 to 38, which puts it squarely in the same range of EROI as conventional fossil fuels (oil in the range of 10 to 30; coal in the range of 40 to 80).
These new results prove that PV is already a viable energy option that may effectively contribute to supporting our societal metabolism, while significantly reducing the depletion of the remaining stocks of non-renewable (fossil) primary energy, and mitigating the concurrent environmental impacts in terms of global warming and polluting emissions.
However, even these remarkable results should not allow one to forget that PV, like all other renewable technologies, must still be supported by an initial investment of primary energy, which is, as of today, of fossil origin. We therefore argue that available monetary and energy resources should be funnelled in the right direction without delay, lest not enough high-EROI fossil fuels are left to support demand during times of gradual shift to renewable resources.
Thanks. Nothing startlingly new but the evidence is mounting that the purely economic case for renewables is stronger every year.dzogchungpa wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -2015-peak
I haven't looked through this yet, but I just noticed it and maybe it will interest you:Kim O'Hara wrote:Thanks. Nothing startlingly new but the evidence is mounting that the purely economic case for renewables is stronger every year.dzogchungpa wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -2015-peak
Looks great - thanks!dzogchungpa wrote:I haven't looked through this yet, but I just noticed it and maybe it will interest you:Kim O'Hara wrote:Thanks. Nothing startlingly new but the evidence is mounting that the purely economic case for renewables is stronger every year.dzogchungpa wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -2015-peak
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewabl ... 19-02939-9
Thanks for those figures, Ovi - good for perspective.ovi wrote:No oil producer in their right mind would ever admit any evidence of peak oil as that would lead to more research into alternative energy and they would miss the whole post-peak oil devastating, yet profitable, effects. A few facts: world spending on renewable energy R&D is less than 10 billion dollars, world subsidies of fossil fuel are more than 500 billion, world energy expenditures are about 6000 billions and world economy about 85 trillion. That is, renewable energy R&D represent 2% of the fossil fuel subsidies, 0.16% world energy expenditures and 0.01% of world economy. Nobody really cares about sustainability, peak oil, pollution or global warming.
Just came across another great example of this: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... es-koch-2/Kim O'Hara wrote: Even the fossil fuel corporations "care", however much they try to hide the fact that they know they are about to fall into a hole they will never escape from. ... their pathetic greenwash attempts, and the money they spend on disinformation campaigns and on buying politicians all show they care!
Kim
From Bill McKibben at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ssil-fuelsThe company said that government restrictions that would force it to keep its reserves in the ground were “highly unlikely,” and that they would not only dig them all up and burn them, but would continue to search for more gas and oil — a search that currently consumes about $100 million of its investors’ money every single day. “Based on this analysis, we are confident that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become ‘stranded,’” they said.
This is an honest reply. It is as honest as the report that emerged the same day from the world’s climate scientists, which demonstrated that if Exxon Mobil and its ilk keep their promise to dig up their reserves and burn them, then the planet will no longer function effectively.
Some of us, cynically, thought all along that this would be Exxon’s posture. The company, after all, poured millions into denying climate science when that was still possible. That’s why we’ve been calling for divestment.
We’ve never thought that there was a small flaw in their business plan that could be altered by negotiation; we’ve always thought their business plan was to keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere. And indeed Exxon’s statements are easy to translate: “We plan on overheating the planet, we think we have the political muscle to keep doing it, and we dare you to stop it.” And they’re right — unless we build a big and powerful movement, they’ll continue to dominate our political life and keep change from ever taking place.
Thanks. I'm not in a position to check all their figures but it all makes sense. The short-short summary seems to be that we are are close to the peak of unconventional oil so the slide into reduced total oil production is imminent.dzogchungpa wrote:The Peak Oil Crisis: Parsing 2014:
http://fcnp.com/2014/05/14/the-peak-oil ... sing-2014/