Peak oil

Alleviating worldly suffering along the way.

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:12 pm

ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:55 pm

I haven't read this yet, but here's a new book:
http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/finance/book/978-3-319-04237-4

It's on libgen, btw.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:22 am


:smile:
Thanks - that's good. It confirms a pattern I've been seeing for years - the oil producers keep on saying there's plenty more of it but no-one else agrees.
The first time I picked up on it was via a comment that Saudi Arabia's official "proven reserves" figure hadn't dropped for ten years in spite of the fact there had been no exploration and they had been pumping it out as fast as they could. :rolleye:

dzogchungpa wrote:I haven't read this yet, but here's a new book:
http://www.springer.com/business+%26+ma ... 19-04237-4

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.
I won't read the book to find out but I'm curious about their apparent idea that EROI on all renewables is lower than on fossil fuels:
...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.

How do they calculate an EROI for solar panels or wind turbines, I wonder?

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:56 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:How do they calculate an EROI for solar panels or wind turbines, I wonder?

Re solar panels, from the book:
Solar 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.

26 = http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/fb04ff2e3777b0b98525797c00471aef/a546c841171f7a8485257ac90053565a/$FILE/R.%20Fromer%20Attachment%20-%20EROI%20of%20Global%20Energy%20Resoruces.pdf
27 = http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_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.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:15 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:How do they calculate an EROI for solar panels or wind turbines, I wonder?

Re solar panels, from the book:
Solar 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.

26 = http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/fb04ff2e3777b0b98525797c00471aef/a546c841171f7a8485257ac90053565a/$FILE/R.%20Fromer%20Attachment%20-%20EROI%20of%20Global%20Energy%20Resoruces.pdf
27 = http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_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.

Thanks again!

I've downloaded [26] and [27] and read quickly through them. Both make sense but I trust the latter more than the former on EROI of solar power - partly because it's the whole focus of the paper instead of an incidental, partly because I think its assumptions and analysis are more realistic. To save others the trouble I grabbed significant points from [27] on my way through. Here they are:
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.


:reading:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:05 pm

If Peak Oil Is Dead, Why Haven't Prices Dropped?
ASPO USA's Steve Andrews Interview with Dr. Richard G. Miller:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2092
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:50 am

And in case anyone was hoping that natural gas was a reasonable substitute for oil ...
By The Time Natural Gas Has A Net Climate Benefit You’ll Likely Be Dead And The Climate Ruined
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3296831/natural-gas-climate-benefit/

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:54 am

Oh, and then there's this ...

Image

Ain't FB fun!

:popcorn:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:18 am

Getting back to the lifespan of renewable generation systems, here's a report on how well wind turbines are holding up - http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/25/3325551/wind-turbines-durable/

The short-short summary: 25 years before needing an upgrade. :smile:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:07 am

ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:25 am


Thanks. Nothing startlingly new but the evidence is mounting that the purely economic case for renewables is stronger every year.

Peak oil is already helping to save us from climate change, which is a Good Thing, and looks likely to have an even stronger influence soon.
Throw in the efforts of Fossilfree http://www.fossilfree.com.au and similar divestment initiatives, stripping capitalisation from fossil fuel companies and increasing general awareness that they are bad investments, and we are on a roll, CO2 - wise.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:15 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:

Thanks. Nothing startlingly new but the evidence is mounting that the purely economic case for renewables is stronger every year.

I haven't looked through this yet, but I just noticed it and maybe it will interest you:
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-3-319-02939-9
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:21 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:

Thanks. Nothing startlingly new but the evidence is mounting that the purely economic case for renewables is stronger every year.

I haven't looked through this yet, but I just noticed it and maybe it will interest you:
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-3-319-02939-9

Looks great - thanks!

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby KonchokZoepa » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:12 am

If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby ovi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:18 pm

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.
ovi
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:04 am

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.

Thanks for those figures, Ovi - good for perspective.
However, I would argue that "Nobody really cares about sustainability, peak oil, pollution or global warming," is not quite true. Individuals like many of us do care. Members of environmental groups like WWF, Climate Reality and Greenpeace do care. Some governments are beginning to care, bringing in carbon taxes to help wind back our dependence on fossil fuels, or funding research into alternatives. Admitted, small numbers of people and small amounts of money - but look at the growth rates. Annual growth in solar power, globally, is running at 40% according to http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/solar and is doubling every 18 months or so according to http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/16/solars-massive-growth-top-10-solar-countries-charts/. That kind of growth rate won't take long to make a real dent in the market.
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 lies about reserves, their lies about the feasibility of "clean coal", their pathetic greenwash attempts, and the money they spend on disinformation campaigns and on buying politicians all show they care! Their value as companies depends the assets (reserves in the ground) and on being able to pump or mine those reserves. They are caught both by shrinking reserves and (very soon) declines in demand due both to action against climate change and - quite recently - the fact that renewables are now as cheap as fossil fuels for many applications in many markets.

It ain't over yet! We have some very interesting times ahead.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:39 am

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!

:namaste:
Kim

Just came across another great example of this: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/03/3422514/orwellian-op-ed-charles-koch-2/

:rolleye:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:47 am

The breathtaking arrogance of Exxon Mobil:
The 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.

From Bill McKibben at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/03/exxon-mobil-climate-change-oil-gas-fossil-fuels

:jedi:
Kim

P.S. This is what Exxon Mobil is really saying: http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-honest-and-awful-corporate-ad-i-have-ever-laid-my-eyes-on-no-they-arent-drunk-i-swear
:smile:
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak oil

Postby dzogchungpa » Wed May 21, 2014 9:15 pm

ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peak oil

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed May 21, 2014 10:42 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:The Peak Oil Crisis: Parsing 2014:
http://fcnp.com/2014/05/14/the-peak-oil-crisis-parsing-2014/

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.
That's a good news/bad news scenario: oil prices will go up dramatically, but renewables will become that much more competitive and (independently) CO2 emissions will be reduced (either stop rising so fast, or actually fall, depending on coal, etc).
Incidentally, China and Russia have just signed a huge agreement as foreshadowed in the last paragraph - see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-21/china-and-russia-sign-2724400-billion27-gas-deal/5469102

Interesting times ahead!

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Engaged Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

>