On the Realities of Energy Shortage, Problems and Solutions....

[Solon]

I'm expanding the role of "Energy Shortage" to include all the basic fossil fuels and the time lines associated with them. When people talk about Peak Oil, they usually ignore the other two primary sources of fuel that also fuel our and the world's economy. These are Natural Gas and Coal, and yes, there is a peak for them as well. The thing to make clear here is that we are dealing with 3 different time lines before we feel the economic and social effects of localized fuel shortages when demand exceeds supply, in other words, whoever can bribe the highest for access to limited supply, or using arms for the same goal(Iraq).

This is something to make clear when talking about alternatives because all fossil fuels will have to be replaced sometime in the near future as they peak and production declines. Let me talk about the time lines for each, on a rough scale first, then talk about the problems and possible solutions for each. Natural Gas probably has the shortest, and most devastating problems right now, simply because its almost impossible to import outside the Continent and also is used for both a heat source and electricity. It may have already peaked, we may be looking in the rear view mirror, and the time has passed. This can be devastating because, how many of you have a gas heater? How many of you will enjoy rolling blackouts at peak times of the day in the summer? So while you buy that hybrid car or hydrogen car and pat yourself on the back for looking ahead, other people may freeze in the winter or die of heat stroke in the summer for stupid energy policy. Total time line before we start seeing localized and possible national problems is at max within the next year or two. The breathing room for NG is short, extremely short, and it takes many years for us to switch our electrical generators to coal or nuclear power plants, decades at least for sustainable fusion plants, at least. On a positive note, many power plants, particularly nuclear ones, are not running a full capacity, so that may buy us a decade, maybe. However, everyone with NG heaters will probably have to trade them in for heat pumps in a little while, unless you have a fireplace, and that has its own problems.

On to coal, coal has been a bedrock of the Industrial Revolution for 150 years and that has not stopped now, it also has the distinction of possibly lasting the longest of all fossil fuels. This is because of several things, one being that we have supplemented it with other forms of electricity, and another is that we don't import it at all. This gives coal more stability than the other two fossil fuels, and while it is dirty and polluting, more so than the other two, it is lasting the longest and provides most of our electricity. BTW: what I mean by longest time line is that it may actually last about 40 years with little supply problems. As far as coal is concerned, we have the most breathing room to convert over to a more sustainable energy sources.

Now on to Oil, the most versatile and most problematic of all sources of energy in the economy. One thing to make clear about oil, it is the primary source of energy for the world, and the reason for that is its portability. There is no other source of energy that does more work per weight, than oil. The only reason we had for being able to go up into the air is because of oil, and a couple of bicycle builders who saw the advantage of internal combustion engines. They did not go up into the air using a steam engine, nor is nuclear, hydrogen, or any other fuel source an alternative to oil in this regard. This holds true for most major forms of transportation now that are fueled by oil, from our trains in North America, to our transport and military ships at sea, and of course, the automobile. The Chemicals derived from this fuel source fueled the Green Revolution of the '50s, '60s and '70s, and because of it, lead to a population explosion worldwide.

This leads to our problems with the Oil Peak, it has the most far reaching effects, simply because of the lack of alternatives. Yes Natural Gas will probably be the most immediate concern, however, it is much more an infrastructure problem, of shifting loads of electricity on the grid to compensate for shortfalls in other areas *cough*rolling blackouts*cough*Europe last summer*cough*. Actually, I feel that that would actually be like what we here suffered in '93 with the Great Flood, a lot of our electrical grid shorted out during that time, because transformers out on the flood plain were flooded(no idea whose bright idea that was). The biggest problem is time, while the shortest is NG, and we may feel the effects shorterm, they can be short lived and temporary, with little to no threat to our own lifestyles. This is not to belittle the consequences of the problems, but it can be compensated with others that we have plenty of, at least right now.

Back on the subject of Oil, as I said, it is versatile, so its effects will be much more far reaching than the other two. From Fertilizer to Pesticides, to Gasoline, Diesel and Kerosene, all of these derive from oil. Even our roads have oil derivatives on them in many cases, in the form of tar for asphalt. Not to mention rubber for our tires, and plastics, along with their derivatives. As I said above, no other stable fuel source gives us more bang for our buck than oil. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons may produce more energy, but they are not fuel sources that are stable. Also, we will not have anytime in the near future, fusion powered cars or trains, so that's out right now.

One thing to keep in mind is that we are starting to switch to alternatives at high demand already, and it will, to be practical, have to keep up with our demand year after year. Think about this, as of this moment in time, we have consumed all the oil that has ever been produced to this point in time. Right now, to put in perspective, the world consumes about 82 million barrels of oil a day with a 1.5 to 3% growth a year, give or take. That means that any alternative will have to be phased in, but at the same time, it will have to keep up with demand after oil production falls to less than 82 mbpd +1.5-3% yearly growth rate, to keep up with a declining production of oil and growth in energy consumption at the same time. This is a steep proposition, and to be honest, it may be impossible in the long term to do it.

So lets talk about the alternatives to oil first, ones that have a close, or not so close, energy output per gallon or barrel. Let's talk about advantages and disadvantages of each source, and see what is practical and not, including economic and environmental side effects. Hydrogen fuel cells, the supposed savior of our lifestyle, is an energy carrier, and one that actually holds much less than oil ever could. This would mean a few things, for one, traveling more than 10 miles to work every day may become problematic, and any over 50 miles a day is impractical at best. Not to mention that the coming electrical shortfall, at least short term, means that we will have to divert precious electricity to store it in a problematic form to begin with. Not to mention that we will have to expend even more energy building hydrogen stations around the country to keep up with demand of hydrogen as gasoline is phased out. It may not be as smooth as that however, because hydrogen cars do not have the range of gasoline to keep up with current much less future use of cars. Basically you could fill up twice or three times as much in a hydrogen car to get the mileage than you would with a gasoline car. But hey, its damn near pollution free, that's a plus. Even using a renewable resource, such as solar, or hydroelectric, or even geothermic won't solve the problem, because we need time to build the plants needed for it, and it may lead to environmental catastrophes *cough* Three Gorge Dam *cough* extinction of river dolphin *cough*. How about a huge geothermic plant in Yellowstone, that would do wonders for the wildlife there/sarcasm. How about covering hundreds of square miles of Arizona with solar panels, the residents will love that/more sarcasm.

This is not to say that hydrogen is totally impractical, and shouldn't be utilized, however, it is no magic bullet that will save us from ourselves. Now, on to other things, mostly Biodiesel and Oil from other sources, namely organic refuse and coal. First the biodiesel, there is a problem here, and that is two fold, one is that right now, I don't believe that enough grease is thrown out by restaurants to make up for any shortfalls in the future. Second, any other source will have other consequences, for example, derived from crops, we do not have the land area to use for such plants, and also, we will not have, in the long term, the pesticides and fertilizers to allow for large yields. In other words, the government would have to use imminent domain to turn over former sub and exurbs and turn them to fuel production, and possibly food production as well<--less fertilizer means more land use.

Oil from other sources is the next thing I'm taking aim at. OK, big problem here, for one, no matter how good this stuff sounds, it is too good to be true, for one, it is environmentally dirty, for two, the amount to produce for energy put for what you get out of it doesn't amount to much. Also, the one about coal conversion is particularly disturbing, that means that we will have to trade off the years left for coal to add years to oil, in other words, a stop gap measure at best. This also doesn't address the polluting aspects of using organic sources for fuel, neither biodiesel nor Oil from other sources addresses that.

All of these are not practical solutions to our problem because of one big factor, our high energy needs. These needs are exacerbated because of our lifestyles, particularly on this continent, but elsewhere as well. We have what for practical terms is huge stretches of suburbs that last for miles, with low population density between them. This leads to a lot of traveling, for work or play, that is by and large, not necessary if city zoning actually made sense. Our lifestyles, and hence, our economy, is not sustainable within most of our lifetimes, this is a simple fact. But when will it register? When you are kicked out of your "Country Estate" in Oak Ridge "Village" so that we can have enough food to eat?

Perhaps the most practical solution is the most painful, giving up what we built for 50 years. Call it gearing down if you will. I'm not talking about going Amish or anything ridiculous of that sort, but rather, revitalizing urban areas, building new urban areas where within them alone, you can actually walk to the grocery store(no Segways except for old or disabled, talk about waste!), rather than drive. That way, we can actually prioritize fuel alternatives into more efficient means. Hydrogen fuel is much more economical in a bus, than it would ever be in a car, with much less total fuel consumption. Electricity could be utilized for high speed rails between cities as a replacement for "gas guzzling" jet planes. Street cars can come back in vogue outside of San Francisco again. Hell, you could have your own business and live above it as well, never be late for work again!

This is not to say that we can change painlessly, all change is ultimately painful, and this may be the most drastic since the '50s that we would go through a lifestyle change. Basically going back to a time to what life was like back in the first half of the 20th century, but with 21st century know how and technology. This isn't idyllic, buy it would be better than it is now, or was back then either, something in between that isn't quite like either. It can be done, and it should be done, for I don't think we have much choice.

[Texifornia]

1. Good post, but...

I take issue with a couple of points:

Biomass is a bit more promising than you suggest. It produces diesel at a competitive cost with conventional sources. Also, it does not directly contribute to greenhouse gases in that the carbon released is carbon that was recently in the atmosphere. I agree, though, that is will comprise only a small portion of total energy. I forsee it as a source for the shipping and transportation industry.

Coal-fired, 600+ MW power stations are in the advanced planning stages now, not good for CO2 and will hasten the coal peak that you mention. We are currently in the oil-gas-condensate peak =/- 5 years. As you know, one cannot see the peak until it is passed. New technology in the vast tar sands fields in Canada will produce "unconventional" oil at a beneficial energy ratio (about 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 vs. about 7 to 1 for conventional oil). This will serve to extent the peak into a plateau. Realisticly, a decade at best. I can say without reservation that DOE estimates of Saudi reserves are greatly inflated. Abu Dhabi and Kuwait are developing frantically and will hit their peak production within the next 5 years. The vast Kashagan field in Khazakstan will be fully developed in about six years and will produce about 2 MM BPD. It is the only "elephant" field to be found in the last decade.

However, there is good news too. Wind turbine technology has advanced to the point that it is competitive with fossil fueled electricity. The Wind Turbine Company claims its new turbines will produce at a cost of $0.03/KWH, which is actually less that average coal costs. Infrastructure and legislation (to make it easy for wind producers to hook up to the grid) are key to wind generation. Also, there have been some breakthroughs on photovoltaics. PV cells can now be "grown" in a film (similar to growing crystals). I'm not fully informed on this technology but it has something to do with nano-technology. The key to this technology is local use. We cannot cover the desert with black blankets of PV panels. This film can be incorporated into buildings to augment its electrical supply.

Wind, solar, and bio-mass can maintain modern society, but only if per-capita consumption reduces by at least half.

There are some tough times coming.

[Solon]

5. Actually there are some things I did not touch on...

But I stand by the statement about Bio-fuels, mainly in regards to both Ethenol and Bio-Diesel from plants that we grow. The biggest problems there is that they rely on petroleum products to keep the yeilds high enough so it is cheap. But what about down the road when we cannot rely on these fertilizers and pesticides, and require much more land area than is availuable now? That is a huge problem, and will increase the costs in energy and manpower required to produce enough to even make a dent in our supply needs.

Also, as far as your assessment of our oil situation, I agree to a large extent, though I'm not nearly as optimistic about the unconventional sources. The biggest dilemma is what you said, supply will plateau, while demand will still rise, this means, at best, a decade long worldwide recession, and without an overhaul of the economy, depression at the end, when the oil supply actually starts to fall. That is a huge problem because of the fact that our entire economy is only as good as the amount of growth is happening, unlimited growth at that. That is physically impossible to do now, because our primary driver for such growth is a closed system of fossil fuels, and the second law of thermodynamic applies to our civilization just as it applies to the universe. BTW: I agree with you on the coal problem, new technology does have a habit of actually using more resources faster than older techs, just to keep up with demand.

As to you comments on wind and solar power, while they hold promise, at best, they can suppliment our electrical needs, but not really replace them wholesale. I agree in part that we need to diversify our energy sources to an extent, however there are problems with both sources as far as electrical generation. For one, they are unreliable as in they rely on the weather, which is unpredictable in the long term, to produce electricity. They are also geographically linked, some areas are terrible for solar, others are terrible for wind power, so we will still need some type of floor level for electrical usage, actually generators that do not have the unreliability of wind and solar. I agree with you that solar as well as wind can be used to suppliment a buildings power for electricity, just not as a total replacement. This is also a problem in regards to how it is transmitted, and more importantly, stored. You will need either batteries or capacitors for both, and depending on how much electricity you use, that can be extremely expensive. But as suppliments, yes they could be used usefully, they just aren't a magic bullet, as I said in my original post.

As far as your last statement, yes all these combined and then some, with some geothermic and hydroelectric, along with Nuclear, and down the road, hopefully, Fusion plants, we can maintian a modern society, just not as it is currently structured. As you said right after that, we would have to cut energy usage in half, and that is simply impossible to do in our current suburban lifestyle.

[SnoopDog]

2. Thanks for taking the time to write this -

Bottom line is that, yes, we have to make cultural changes in order to survive here in America and on Earth. While we burn oil and coal, we are polluting our environment and not solving our energy problems.

Your /sarcasm about geothermal and solar cells however point to the solutions to our energy problems – not sarcasm. So, are you to say that we should not have solar energy farms because people in Arizona or Nevada 'might not like seeing the solar cells and wind turbines?' Would it be ok then instead to continue to pollute the earth, use up our energy sources and then have nothing.?

I feel that to see acres and acres of clean solar energy farms would be magnificent! Once built and installed, we would be have a clean and reliable source of energy. We could even use solar energy to produce hydrogen energy. The naysayers would way that it uses more energy to build these farms or that energy is only produced during daytime. So what. Once installed, we get free energy forever (maintenance always required for all sources of energy). We then can use the energy, as you said, to construct rail systems between our cities and to power our homes and factories.

What is sad is that our f*cked up government can spend Billions for an illegal invasion but spend no money on our America's infrastructure. Why not take a few billion and make a god damn solar farm. Build these farms and prove and improve the technologies. Do you really care where your energy comes from? Would you really care if instead of polluted air from coal and oil, the mass amounts of mercury spewing into our environment - you see fields of solar cells, especially in the desert where few people venture.

With global warming, our finite resources, and our polluted environment, we as Americans and as inhabitants of Earth better start today to fix these problems. Like I said, we can spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS to KILL people in Iraq, but cannot take one or two billion and make a solar farm?

We all better get off our butt and push for solar energy before it is too late.

I liked your article - thanks for writing it.

[Solon]

3. Actually there could be far reaching enviromental effects...

To solar farms that we may not know about yet. Changing the albedo for the desert can change the local climate, possibly. This is what I'm talking about, we will have to try to find ways to assess enviromental damage with different sources of energy. Not all enviromental effects are due to air pollution, there is light pollution, there is land use, and there is ecosystem disruption, like what could be caused by foraging algae for Bio-Diesel, as an example. Just want to make you aware of that.

[SnoopDog]

4. Sure, maybe, but the current means of...

producing energy does indeed produce harmful pollution. And Global warming is real! These are real problems today that will kill our earth (or at least us).

To say that we need to be concerned about the effects of solar farms- yes, we do. However, we do have scientists that can analyze the proposals and, in my opinion, why not just build a farm and see what happens. Start small, study, analyze... My intuition says that a solar farm is less harmful.

I do have a question for you, Solon, or anybody else who cares to answer. Since you seem to have studied Energy and are a DUer, what is the real reason for invading Iraq? Was it for the oil? For the oil pipelines? Was there talk of NG as well? Or was it just the fact that our president is a killer?

I hope you can respond - I know it is just you opinion - but I would like to read it.

[Solon]

7. As far as Iraq....

I can answer that, we invaded Iraq to secure a steady and reliable supply of crude oil to meet our energy needs. Not only that, but to build a base of operations in Iraq would ensure that we have economic control of most of the oil supplies of the world, that way we can again have the big stick to keep the rest of the world in line with our demands. Money and power along with the oil used to fuel both, is the goal, pretty simple really.

As far as your other comment, yes, Global Climate Change is real, I do not deny that, I even think we are one of the primary reasons for the change. However, I do not think that Solar is the only answer, nor do I think putting solar farms out in the desert will amount to much, we should concentrate on local usages for such alternatives as I said in post 5, so that we can reduce the footprint of enviromental damage. Batteries are dirty and toxic as well, and would be needed by any such farms as you suggest, in fact, there are a few out there already. How would we dispose of those things, imagine the dumping grounds of all that stuff, and people think radiatioactive waste is bad! We need to think locally, and act globally, to solve these problems, this includes streamlining delivery of electricity, to reduce both energy waste and enviromental damage.

[SnoopDog]

6. Oh, another idea...

Why not spend a few billions and put solar cells on top of our roofs. That would preclude the concern of 'land use' etc...

[Solon]

8. Exactly...

Instead of centralized locations for such sources, except for when it is unavoidable like geothermic, we can diversify our sources, both geographically, and physically. If you suppliment your power by putting solar panels on your own roof, you decrease the loads for centralized power plants, and could even sell some of the electricity to the local power grid, if you had a good sunny day that is. To give an example, stay connected to the local grid, put solar panels on the roof, and on good days, you can use the solar panel as your exclusive source of electricity, then at night or bad days, it switches to the local grid, powered by lets say geothermic, wind(if its a good day for that) or some other source. That way the local grid, and your own piece of it, are both more secure, both from disaster(like a falling branch from a tree) and the weather.

[SnoopDog]

9. I am an anti-pollution kind of guy...

It irks me to think that we are killing ourselves and our planet because of stupidity.

Yes, we can place solar cells on our roofs, supply our daily needs and contribute back energy into the power lines. At least that will reduce the amount of coal/oil/ng required to produce energy. Our planet then could start to recover from the mess we put ourselves in.

You do know that on 911 - with our planes grounded - that our air was cleaner - even only for the few days without plane travel. Also, with the power grid problem in the East - same thing - our air got cleaner.

Once again, If they can ask for 80 billion to kill people, why not, each year, take a few billion and put solar cells on our roof. I also still like the idea of solar farms despite your comments.

Thanks for your posts today - I feel this is a problem we need to deal with today for there might not be a tomorrow.

[poe]

10. beware hydrogen=nuclear

:kick: