- advertisements -
Peak oil doesn't matter if we have algae farms and the courage to hope for new technology.
"courage to hope"
You can do better troll. Btw, neither courage nor hope will run the food supply chain.
What about 'Hope and Change' then? Apparently you can run an economy on that.
Hope is a very bad strategy...
Hope is not an executable strategy.
Hope is like fiat, infinite.
Only Extend and Pretend technology has been tested and proven to be a true Free Energy/Perpetual Motion Machine. If it's not E.P. based technology, you're dreamin!!!
A shift I have noticed is that less and less people care about Peak Oil or, people who are concerned about it care less each passing day. I think there's something in the subconscious awareness of the average person which is placing more emphasis on the global economic Time Bomb than Peak Oil. I'm guessing that emphasis is based upon which issue presents a more immanent threat....and 'The Herd' is.....what?
as if the two are not intimately connected?
No, no, no
"Hope and change" runs politics.
The economy runs on "print and pretend"
Don't you mean "Smoke and Mirrors?"
pot and funhouse
I think he fat-fingered it. Should read 'the courage to hype'...
"The Audacity of Hype"... From what I understand, it burns at 451 degrees Fahrenheit
Peak energy is BS. This is from Salon, no less.
Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrongThe future of energy is not what you think it isBy Michael Lind
Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.
What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?
As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.
Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.
The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.
If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.
So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?
The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.
Because shale gas reserves are so widespread, the potential for blackmail by Middle Eastern producers and Russia will diminish over time. Unless opponents of fracking shut down gas production in Europe, a European Union with its own natural gas reserves will be far less subject to blackmail by Russia (whose state monopoly Gazprom has opportunistically echoed western Greens in warning of the dangers of fracking).
The U.S. may become a major exporter of natural gas to China -- at least until China borrows the technology to extract its own vast gas reserves.
Two arguments for switching to renewable energy -- the depletion of fossil fuels and national security -- are no longer plausible. What about the claim that a rapid transition to wind and solar energy is necessary, to avert catastrophic global warming?
The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes -- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it. But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption.
(The majority of renewable energy consists of CO2-emitting biomass -- wood and dung used for fires by the world’s poor, plus crops used to make fuel; most of the remainder comes from hydropower dams denounced by Greens.)
The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have dramatized the real but limited and localized dangers of nuclear energy. While their initial costs are high, nuclear power plants generate vast amounts of cheap electricity -- and no greenhouse gases. If runaway global warming were a clear and present danger rather than a low probability, then the problems of nuclear waste disposal and occasional local disasters would be minor compared to the benefits to the climate of switching from coal to nuclear power.
The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries -- or millennia. The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy. And if the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.
The mainstream environmental lobby has yet to acknowledge the challenge that the new energy realities pose to their assumptions about the future. Some environmentalists have welcomed natural gas because it is cleaner than coal and can supplement intermittent solar power and wind power, at times when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But if natural gas is permanently cheaper than solar and wind, then there is no reason, other than ideology, to combine it with renewables, instead of simply using natural gas to replace coal in electricity generation.
Without massive, permanent government subsidies or equally massive penalty taxes imposed on inexpensive fossil fuels like shale gas, wind power and solar power may never be able to compete. For that reason, some Greens hope to shut down shale gas and gas hydrate production in advance. In their haste, however, many Greens have hyped studies that turned out to be erroneous.
In 2010 a Cornell University ecology professor and anti-fracking activist named Robert Howarth published a paper making the sensational claim that natural gas is a greater threat to the climate than coal. Howarth admitted, "A lot of the data we use are really low quality..."
Howarth’s error-ridden study was debunked by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations and criticized even by the Worldwatch Institute, a leading environmentalist organization, which wrote: "While we share Dr. Howarth’s urgency about the need to transition to a renewable-based economy, we believe based on our research that natural gas, not coal, affords the cleanest pathway to such a future."
A few years ago, many Green alarmists seized upon a theory that an ice age 600 million years ago came to an abrupt end because of massive global warming caused by methane bubbling up from the ocean floor. They warned that the melting of the ice caps or drilling for methane hydrates might suddenly release enough methane to cook the earth. But before it could be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, the methane apocalypse theory was debunked recently by a team of Caltech scientists in a report for the science journal Nature.
All energy sources have potentially harmful side effects. The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation. But the Green lobby’s alarm about the environmental side-effects of energy sources is highly selective. The environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels -- and can be counted on to exaggerate or invent problems caused by alternatives. Many of the same Greens who oppose fracking because it might contaminate some underground aquifers favor wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that slaughter eagles and other birds and support blanketing huge desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation. Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, has been sacrificed to the giant metallic idols of the sun and the wind.
The renewable energy movement is not the only campaign that will be marginalized in the future by the global abundance of fossil fuels produced by advancing technology. Champions of small-scale organic farming can no longer claim that shortages of fossil fuel feedstocks will force a return to pre-industrial agriculture.
Another casualty of energy abundance is the new urbanism. Because cars and trucks and buses can run on natural gas as well as gasoline and diesel fuel, the proposition that peak oil will soon force people around the world to abandon automobile-centered suburbs and office parks for dense downtowns connected by light rail and inter-city trains can no longer be taken seriously. Deprived of the arguments from depletion, national security and global warming, the campaign to increase urban density and mass transit rests on nothing but a personal taste for expensive downtown living, a taste which the suburban working-class majorities in most developed nations manifestly do not share.
Eventually civilization may well run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels that are recoverable at a reasonable cost, and may be forced to switch permanently to other sources of energy. These are more likely to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion than solar or wind power, which will be as weak, diffuse and intermittent a thousand years from now as they are today. But that is a problem for the inhabitants of the world of 2500 or 3000 A.D.
In the meantime, it appears that the prophets of an age of renewable energy following Peak Oil got things backwards. We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.
This isn’t the argument. The argument is that fossil fuel extraction destroys ecology, that is, pollutes and destroys habitats. Coal companies are blowing up the tops of mountains, destroying the surrounding habitat, and when their sludge dams break like in Tennessee, it does the same thing to the surrounding area. Fracking uses chemicals that seep into the water table. The fact that all the easily recoverable oil fields are running dry leads to accidents like the BP oil spill in the gulf, the habitat of which is then ruined for the next couple hundred years with Corexit.
The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes -- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it.
There is no doubt amongst scientists that humans have increased CO2 emissions, though whether this is having any significant impact on climate change is debatable, at least to me - - we could be entering a cyclical ice age, or, more likely, we could be enduring a rare cycle in the sun’s activity with the magnetosphere, which is having a significant effect on the world’s climate and weather (thus all the tornadoes, droughts, increasing seasonal oddities, etc.). This writer’s audience must be high school sophomores.
But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power.
According to who, you? Germany stated its intention to decommission all of its nuclear power plants after Fukishima.
Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption.
Again, this is short-sighted. It’s only this way because that is the status quo, and many powerful people have had interests in nuclear power companies (like George Soros). However those interests are being trumped by Fukishima fall-out.
The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed.
According to your disinformation, yes.
Howarth’s error-ridden study was debunked by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations
Haha. The banker-gangster NWO’s foreign policy “think-tank” tells us that fracking doesn’t destroy the surrounding habitat. I take it all back, you’re right!
and criticized even by the Worldwatch Institute, a leading environmentalist organization, which wrote: "While we share Dr. Howarth’s urgency about the need to transition to a renewable-based economy, we believe based on our research that natural gas, not coal, affords the cleanest pathway to such a future."
What? I thought we were talking about fracking for natural gas v solar and wind power, what does a comment about coal v natural gas have to do with this?
The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation.
Ha!!!!!! That’s rich. The wholly owned federal regulatory institutions have our best interests in mind when it comes to fracking, I’m sure!!! That’s why they were able to successfully lobby to not disclose the chemicals they use ALREADY!!! You, sir, are an IDIOT, and worse, a pseudo-intellectual.
The environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels -- and can be counted on to exaggerate or invent problems caused by alternatives. Many of the same Greens who oppose fracking because it might contaminate some underground aquifers favor wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that slaughter eagles and other birds and support blanketing huge desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation. Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, has been sacrificed to the giant metallic idols of the sun and the wind.
I’m not a part of any Green movement, I’m a part of the common sense movement. First of all, yes, I would rather have eagles die in wind farms than my children die of cancer from chemically polluted water. Second, you are correct, destroying all that vegetation and life IN THE FUCKING DESERT in favor of solar farms is much worse than the human costs of fracking, coal removal or oil drilling. Your logic is flawless! Jesus christ.
Get real douchebag. This of course is the entire issue we are dealing with regarding oil, and it’s going to be a problem in the next 20 years, not the next 500!!!! Holy shit what a disingenuous asshole you are. Your pompous, arrogant tone and foolish “analysis” is enough to make my blood boil. If I ever see you on the street, I will beat the shit out of you. If it’s 40 years from now, I hope they have figured out a way to frack natural gas and run an ambulance on it.
You're beautiful when you're angry.
"If I ever see you on the street, I will beat the shit out of you."
LOL. Another internet tough guy. The green energy revolution is dead. Climate change has been debunked. Al Gore is a douchebag and so are you.
It's over. Go cry in your white wine.
Haha, you douchebag troll. Internet tough guy? Al Gore? White whine? Give me a break you unoriginal cockgobbler.
LOL. Go back to the Oil Drum where they'll give you a rub on the head, little boy. Everywhere else you guys are finished.
lol!!....uh, you are just being funny, right?
"Courage to hope"??? Is this like "Hope and Change"?
People like you assume that technology will always achieve a breakthrough. It might and it might not. Dozens of collapsed civilizations are testament to humanity's failures in the past to account for a changing future that changed in ways for which they were not prepared.
Ans besides, we don't even need a technology breakthrough. What we need is the political and social willpower to decide to change, to decide to stop funding madmen in the Middle East, and to enable our own energy systems like thorium reactors and large increases in high speed electric rail for intercity travel. The technology to build a civilization that is energy independent of religious zealots already exists. It just doesn't look like what most Americans assume is their "birthright" so they reject it. That sort of hubris is what will condemn us all to a hard landing.
But we don't have algae farms or oil shale extraction, or know how to actually do either on a prduction basis. John Galt, Howard Roark and Dagny Taggart working together with a $100 billion slush fund could not get a million barrels a day from either in less than 10 years. Ditto for thorium reactors.
Coal to liquid and gas to liquid could probably be done with government emergency powers, but unless you externalize the environmental costs, which even libertarians agree is a bad thing, it would still be $5-7/gallon vehicle fuel. If the energy operation has to honestly compensate those who get hit with contaminated groundwater and acid rain, nobody is filling up for $2.00/gallon.
working together with a $100 billion slush fund could not get a million barrels a day from either in less than 10 years....
Well, if a $100B doesn't work, then we need to try $200B. Eventually, with the right amount of money, the Earth will burp more oil. It's all about capital flows and the courage to look at new technologies like algae farms and graphene plated solar panels.
Right. And if we need to build a fleet of space tankers and mine hydrocarbons all over the solar system, we'll do that. No matter what it costs. No limits. Just Do It.
We should appoint Nike and Branson joint project managers! "Just do it" & "I'm floating in heaven".
As soon as we discover a few dinosaur remains off the moons of Saturn the problem will be solved...
I understand that there are lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan.
how much DOES a rabbit out of hat cost?
Remember though that money is (or should be in a non-corrupted monetary system) essentially just another representation of energy. If you get to the point where you're putting more money (energy) in than you're getting out, then the process is pointless. EROEI is the kicker for most alternative sources of energy.
Yes, a miracle must be bought. Perhaps some of those billions should go to a few churches so they can pray for the invention.
The result will be the same.
Don't bother - in his next post he will explain how the FRB should just print a solution.
Peak oil doesn't matter if we have algae farms and the courage to hope for new technology.
It reminds me of the story, you know, those typical US citizens who put out studies on the feasibility of alternative energy sources.
They start with oil price steadily higher than $50 then alternates are introduced.
It does not happen so they rise up:
if steady $80 then introduced.
if steady $110 then introduced.
It does not happen.
As they are your typical US citizens, they think they deserve every single cent they make.
PS. You better genetically modify that algae cause Botryococcus braunii isn't gonna cut it.
Algae is just an inefficient solar collector. It can convert about 11% of the energy that falls on it to lipids and it may be tweakable to excrete hydrocarbons (and god help us if it ever escapes into the environment).
If only it mattered.
Oil currently adds 160 exajoules of energy to civilization. Compared to that, algae is a rounding error. You might scale it up a bit, but every square inch of sunlight falling on algae is sunlight not falling on food crops or much more efficient solar panels. In addition, algae requires fresh water, and energy to make the infrastructure that makes growing it possible. While algae would be great for running a small village in a 3rd world country, don't expect it to replace the oil uses by our current civilization - oil which makes your comfortable, well-fed, well-cooled and heated, life possible.
Sorry, but biofuels are not viable. The best algae is less than 2% efficient; that is, less than 2% of the solar energy falling on it is converted to fuel energy. Then you have to convert a soup of organic compounds to fuel which require complex energy intensive refineries. Worse, you end up throwing most of the algae by-products away (or burning it).
The WORST solar cell is about 10% efficient and produces electricity that only has to be 'inverted (converted from DC to 60Hz AC) to be used. Solar farms require almost no maintenance; whereas high productivity algae must be grown in tanks with circulating water, and nutrients. Labor intensive and expensive. We already have solar cells that much more efficient than 10%, whereas, algae MIGHT be improved incrementally through genetic engineering someday.
Clearly we need to make some kind of fuel out the surplus electrical energy, but there are many ways to do this and still be MUCH more efficient than algae. Hydrogen, is not ideal but illustrates the point.
This is something I feel pretty strongly about. Seriously, the sun is a ball of energy that will last for another billion years or so. Common sense dictates that we find a way to derive all our power from it. Develop all cars and rigs into electric vehicles, and convert our electric grid into solar power. Doesn't mean oil has to go away, but we need to start planning now and wean off of it.
From 2001-2010 the top 5 oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, BP, Shell) made $952 billion dollars in profits. There is no incentive for these companies to be looking to the future and planning for a post-oil society. They make way too much fucking money with the status quo.
Whether you like government in your life or not, developing a post-oil alternative energy contingency is something that the government will have to fund with our tax dollars. If a private company could raise the necessary capital I'd be all for it, but I doubt a private company could raise the trillions of dollars necessary. And even if they could, the big oil companies would do everything in their power to prevent it until they extract as much profit as possible from oil. I disagree with Quinn there, Big Oil's regulatory capture is definitely part of the problem.
People who say "solar isn't an option" are totally full of shit, whether they are purposely spreading disinfo or just an idiot. It's not viable, YET. That doesn't mean it couldn't easily become viable with the proper R&D. How about we close all our bases, bring all our troops home, take that money and tell world "hey, we are going to develop a grid that is 100% powered by the sun within the next 30 years. We suggest you do the same, and we will help you do so."
We don't live in this world, of course.
This whole issue just depresses the shit out of me. Why do we always have to be so short-sighted? Where is the sense of responsibility to future generations? Can't everyone see how fucked the USA is when oil runs out or is too expensive? Rhetorical questions, of course, just like why can't our government see how huge of a problem the debt is? We all know the answer: the people don't control the god damn government anymore!
Our world is pathetic. Our leaders soulless with no sense of purpose or obligation to something bigger than themselves. We are the bastard civilization of the universe.
The sun doesn't put out THAT much energy per square foot. Oil is MILLIONS of years of "sun energy" concentrated 1000X. Think about the low voltage needed to light a bulb to produce light...now imagine how little usable energy is found in light.
I disagree, in that I just think we haven't found a way to preserve the sun's energy in high concentrations. Maybe this isn't possible, I don't know. Maybe a unified grid isn't possible either. I'm no scientist. But wouldn't something as simple as a bunch of regional, state or local systems be viable? What if the technology was developed such that every home could be made entirely self-sufficient, including powering their vehicles?
Shit, we are making nanobots and one scientist thinks we will have them the size of blood cells in our body down the road. If we can do that, why can't we find a way to make solar power our primary energy source?
I hear ya, but there are tech limits. I blew a bomb on solar and it's done nothing but gobble up batteries that are full of nasty dick-eating chemicals, plus the rare minerals used in its original construction (no, not silicon). I can run my lights on it, but if everyone wanted it we'd run out of raw materials like silver. That's after a half century of research into solar cells, and a century plus of research into batteries. Scares the willies out of me. We are foooked.
I didn't say solar wasn't an option, I said biofuels are a bad way to harness solar energy, and the even poor quality solar cells are much better. I am a big supporter of one biofuel: methane. It is produced spontaneously by certain bacteria, and currently powers some sewage treatment plants, and dairy farms. All good stuff.
Running vehicles is a different story. Our best batteries have 1/40th of the energy density of gasoline. That means a battery that replaces the energy in a gas tank will be 40 times bigger. Don't believe me? The battery pack in the Tesla weighs 1000 lbs! that 30% of the weight of the car. Don't get me wrong, the Tesla is very cool, but its a $120,000 toy.
So while electric motors are awesome, batteries are awful. Fuel cells or ultra capacitors would have to improve just to be better than batteries. The answer is simple: convert electrical energy of all kinds into a reasonable fuel that can power vehicles autonomously (no extension chord; i.e. no pantograph or third rail). This solves the energy storage problem, and the energy density problem.
My choice is methane, which can be made form electricity, agricultural waste, or straight from coal if necessary. All these sources of methane could be intermixed and used any way you want: heating, vehicle fuel, cooking, or localized electrical generation. The best thing is we can use our existing natural gas infrastructure to store and transport it to wherever and whenever its needed.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, was agreeing with your comments about solar. The battery issue is a good point, I've read different theories on the deficiencies of lithium batteries, but like I said above, I'm no scientist. I'll have to look into methane.
False. Metal air batteries have the same energy density as gas.
EROEI's a bitch, bitchez.
You seriously think you're going to replace 26 MILLION barrels a day consumption with "algae farms"?
I can't believe that no-one has noticed that he is just trolling. This is RNR, regurgitating my words in a facetious manner.
But he is a lying sack of shit. I never said I like algae. I said it is a technology that exists.
And I am highly disappointed in the rest of you. I have posted article after article showing technological advances in renewable energy, but you are all still sitting around circlejerking to the death worship cult.
You don't need to replace 26 million barrels in a day with algae farms. You need to produce 500,000 with genetically engineered fuel producing bugs. Then a million. Then two million.
You need to get rid of oil burning power plants, and buy solar panels that are mass produced from graphene, cost as much as a newspaper, and last for 100,000 years, and are totally indestructible.
You don't need to accept death. You need to gather capital, and apply it to whatever problems you are confronted with, and overcome them. Unlike Red Neck Repugnicunt here, who thinks you should just seize all the money, and pay the Dems to save us all from ourselves SOMEHOW.
We have to subsidize ethanol production because it would cost too much to make corn in gas versus straight oil. I think I'm more worried about peak corn at this point.
Japanese Supercane will grow in the Southern US and Puerto Rico.
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.