This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Renewable Technologies And Our Energy Future - An Interview With Tom Murphy

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by James Stafford of OilPrice.com

Renewable Technologies And Our Energy Future - An Interview With Tom Murphy

Rising geopolitical tensions and high oil prices are continuing to help renewable energy find favour amongst investors and politicians. Yet how much faith should we place in renewables to make up the shortfall in fossil fuels? Can science really solve our energy problems, and which sectors offers the best hope for our energy future?

To help us get to the bottom of this we spoke with energy specialist Dr. Tom Murphy, an associate professor of physics at the University of California. Tom runs the popular energy blog Do the Math which takes an astrophysicist’s-eye view of societal issues relating to energy production, climate change, and economic growth.

In the interview Tom talks about the following:

Why we shouldn’t get too excited over the shale boom
Why resource depletion is a greater threat than climate change
Why Fukushima should not be seen as a reason to abandon nuclear
Why the Keystone XL pipeline may do little to help US energy security
Why renewables have difficulty mitigating a liquid fuels shortage
Why we shouldn’t rely on science to solve our energy problems
Forget fusion and thorium breeders – artificial photosynthesis would be a bigger game changer

Oilprice.com: Whilst you have proven that no renewable energy source can replace fossil fuels on its own. Which source is the most promising for providing cheap, abundant, clean energy?
  
Tom Murphy: First let me say that I think "proven" is too strong a word.  But yes, I have certainly indicated as much.  When it comes to cheap, clean, and abundant, I am drawn to solar.  I don't care if it's two or three times the cost of fossil fuel energy - that's still cheap. Abundance is unquestionable, and I don't see manufacturing as being inordinately caustic. The fact that I have panels on my roof feeding batteries in my garage only confirms for me the viability of this source of energy. Wind and next-generation nuclear also deserve mention as potential large-scale sources. Yet none of these help directly with a liquid fuels shortage.

Oilprice.com: Bill Gates has stated that innovation in energy can take 50-60 years to take effect. How then do you believe that that the ARPA-E's short term objectives for projects can be helpful for solving current energy problems?

Tom Murphy: I applaud any effort that takes our energy challenge seriously, and gets boots on the ground chasing all manner of ideas.  If nothing else, it raises awareness about our predicament.  At the same time, I worry about our technofix culture with a tendency to interpret news clips about ARPA-E projects to mean that we have loads of viable solutions in the hopper. Many of the ideas are just batty.  And right - to the extent that implantation of innovation can take decades, we may find ourselves in a squeeze - wondering where all those funky news blurbs went.

Oilprice.com: What do you think is the most exciting energy science or energy technology being researched at the moment?

Tom Murphy: As cautious as I am about techno-giddiness, I do have the giggles for artificial photosynthesis. Combining universally available sunlight (in my own backyard) with a liquid fuel that can support personal and commercial transportation on land, sea, and air with minimal changes to infrastructure is too juicy for me to resist.  More so than thorium breeders or even fusion, this is a real game-changer.  The catch is that our finite periodic table may not avail itself to our wishes.  Groups are now shaking the periodic table by its ankles, hoping that some new and unappreciated catalysts clank to the floor.  I'm rooting for them, but at the same time advocate not relying on its realization.

Oilprice.com: A recent report stated that replacing all coal based power stations with renewable energy, would not affect climate change, and in fact after 100 years the only difference would be a change of 0.2 degrees Celsius. What are your views on climate change?

Tom Murphy: I see climate change as a serious threat to natural services and species survival, perhaps ultimately having a very negative impact on humanity. But resource depletion trumps climate change for me, because I think this has the potential to effect far more people on a far shorter timescale with far greater certainty.  Our economic model is based on growth, setting us on a collision course with nature.  When it becomes clear that growth cannot continue, the ramifications can be sudden and severe.  So my focus is more on averting the chaos of economic/resource/agriculture/distribution collapse, which stands to wipe out much of what we have accomplished in the fossil fuel age.  To the extent that climate change and resource limits are both served by a deliberate and aggressive transition away from fossil fuels, I see a natural alliance.  Will it be enough to avert disaster (in climate or human welfare)?  Who can know - but I vote that we try real hard.

Oilprice.com: Do you think that the shale gas boom will lead/has led to reduced investment in alternative energy, and could therefore limit the advancement of alternative energy and its mainstream implementation?

Tom Murphy: I do worry about the sentiment that "our problems are solved" based on a very short history of tapping low-hanging shale-gas fruit.  David Hughes presented a sobering report to put these claims in perspective.  Even though it is clear that shale gas will contribute to our net energy demands in an unanticipated way, I worry that A) extrapolations based on the "gusher" equivalents is risky; B) natural gas is not a direct answer to a liquid fuels shortage; and C) the associated exuberance can stifle the imperative that we have an all-hands-on-deck response to the looming challenges.

Oilprice.com: What are your thoughts on Biofuels? Will they ever be able to compete with fossil fuels? If you were to pick one that you think has the best potential which would it be?

Tom Murphy: The scale of our fossil fuel use prohibits replacement by biofuels at a substantial level.  They certainly can and do play a role, which I anticipate will increase with time - up to a point.  The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) tends to be pretty poor (less than 10:1) even for the best examples like sugar cane.  And it's a heck of a lot of year-in-year-out work to manage harvests - much depending on the increasingly erratic weather.  Of the biofuels, I am most intrigued by algae: mainly because it can be grown and moved about as a liquid medium in sealed tubes.  That said, I worry about gunking up the works with bio-sludge, the algae contracting disease, and the fact that we have not yet found/created a viable hydrocarbon-excreting critter.

Oilprice.com: Following the Fukushima disaster many have been calling for the end of nuclear power. What are your views? Should we abandon nuclear power? Are we in a position to abandon it?

Tom Murphy: I don't think Fukushima should be seen as a reason to abandon nuclear. True, nuclear has its challenges, its risks, its hazardous wastes.  But it's one of the few things we know how to do that can scale.  Of course conventional nuclear again stares right down the barrel of limited resources, which is a déjà-vu we would rather not experience.  So next-generation concepts - particularly thorium - are preferable. Then again, we are not prepared to execute such schemes this moment, so they are not much help in a near-term crisis.  And ultimately, like so many things, nuclear is yet another technique to create electricity.  That's not where the pinch will come.  I think nuclear will remain part of our energy mix in any case, so I don't think Fukushima spells an end.

Oilprice.com: What are your thoughts on the Keystone XL Pipeline? Is it vital for America's energy security?

Tom Murphy: Canada produces something like 1 million barrels per day (Mbpd) of oil from tar sands.  This is about 5% of U.S. demand.  Ambitious plans call for 5 Mbpd production, but even this does not amount to half of our current oil imports.  So could it play a role in America's energy security?  Possibly. Will it guarantee it?  Not likely.  We should remember that Canada is a separate country.  In a global petroleum decline scenario, how much of that oil will Canada sell to the U.S.?  How much will China pay for it?  How much of this precious lifeblood will Canada decide to keep for themselves? I won't say that I'm opposed to the pipeline, but like every other "solution" out there, it's complicated, and not a crystal clear win.

Oilprice.com: I've come across many comments and articles online about human ingenuity and that we shouldn't be too concerned with peak oil and fossil fuel depletion because our scientists are surely close to an energy breakthrough. Although this thinking is dangerously naive i was hoping to get your opinion on which technology you think is closest to providing this possible breakthrough?

Tom Murphy: I worry about the strength and pervasiveness of faith in science and technology to fix our problems.  And I say this as a scientist who is no stranger to high-tech design and development.  We deserve better than blind hope that someone somewhere will pull off a transformative energy miracle. Some things peak.  We should acknowledge that once our inheritance is spent, we may not live like the kings we want to be.  I can hope along with the rest of us that this isn't true.  But I don't feel like gambling: I'm the type to cash out when I'm a bit ahead, rather than keep betting my purse that the next hand will hit paydirt.  More concretely, I can say that most physicists I meet in departments around the country are not aware of peak oil and associated challenges.  Hardly anyone I meet is working on the problem.  No one (i.e., funding) has told us this is a real problem that deserves our full attention.  And I sense that it would be political suicide to do so.  So which technology do I think will save our bacon? Most ideas on the table provide electricity, which does not address our most critical need.  As I said before, artificial photosynthesis hits the sweet spot, and batteries are tremendously important.  But let's also prepare a plan B that may be less about techno-fixes and more about behaviors and attitudes.

Oilprice.com: Giant batteries the size of a football pitch are being constructed in order to store energy from renewable sources and release it during times of low power production, for a more consistent supply. Do you think this is the future for renewable energy, or would we be better served creating a giant grid, linking many different renewable sources together so that they can cover for each other?

Tom Murphy: Batteries work, we know.  I think we absolutely should be gaining experience on the practical issues/economics of giant batteries.  Making large-scale storage more practical resolves the single-biggest technical barrier to widespread solar and wind deployment.  I am sceptical about giant grids especially the global variety based on the simplistic notion that "It's always sunny somewhere."  I am more attracted to resilient local solutions.  Transmission loss today tends to be less than 10% on an old, dumb grid.  High-voltage DC would reduce this loss somewhat, and the science fiction superconducting grid would eliminate loss (until the inevitable cryogenic failure vaporizes the lines; and let's not ignore the considerable energy investment needed to keep the lines at cryogenic temperatures).  On a moderately ambitious scale, a continental grid will reduce the need for storage, but it will not eliminate it.  We still benefit from super-sized batteries.

Oilprice.com: What do you think about the idea that it would be more useful improving the efficiency of current power systems, rather than researching new types of energy production?

Tom Murphy: Efficiency is a lovely thing, and it has always been seen as a lovely thing.  Because of this, efforts to improve efficiencies of the big stuff like power plants have been continuous.  And we have seen improvements at the level of 1% per year.  In rare instances, One can get dramatic leaps via co-generation strategies, but that relies on power plants being situated near demand for waste heat.  So realistically, I think incremental efficiency improvement does not have nearly enough bite to "solve" our problem, and in any case tends to be limited to factor-of-two level changes even in the long term.  We need much more than that, in the end.  I have found behavioural modification to be far more effective, achieving factors of 2, 3, 5, etc. in short order without grossly changing lifestyles.

Oilprice.com: Oilprice.com published an article a few months ago on space-based solar plants. Do you think that constructing space-based power plants could be a valuable option in the future?

Tom Murphy: I have to admit to being somewhat baffled by the concept.  Why make solar power even more expensive with exorbitant launch costs (which only increases as energy costs increase), placing the equipment in an unserviceable, hostile space environment (cosmic rays, debris) while only gaining a factor of five in night/weather avoidance?  The microwave link is no joke either.  The required dishes are huge for both diffraction and ground safety reasons.  I have just made a detailed post on Do the Math on Spaced based Solar.  But let's think about storage, and save ourselves absurd machinations.

Oilprice.com: Despite the rather public failure of Solyndra and other less well known companies investments in green energy are growing. Which sectors would you be willing to invest in and do you feel offer the greatest potential to investors? Wind, solar, wave, geothermal? Or none of the above?

Tom Murphy: I am not myself an investor, but I would surely like to see more funding for battery research and development, and for anything that can synthesize liquid hydrocarbons using a non-fossil input.  Investors want to make money, but I'd rather tackle the important problems.  Sometimes timescales make these two goals incompatible.  Can you make money on wave or geothermal?  Possibly.  I'll leave that for others to determine. But I'm not too excited about niche solutions, which may distract us from the real prizes - to the extent that they exist.
  
Oilprice.com: What role do you think the smart grid has to play in the future?

Tom Murphy: I'd sooner have smart people than a smart grid, deciding that it's in our collective interest to scale back energy use at a personal level.  Failing that, a smart grid helps distribute demand in such a way that intermittent renewables are more easily accommodated (using energy when it's available). Some things may work well like this, but I don't think this is a realistic way to hide variable energy supply from the consumer.  They may be irked that they lose control over when the laundry decides to start - possibly resulting in clothes smelling of mildew, or that they are not present to fold clothes at 2 AM when the dryer is finished.  Loss of control may not play well.  If, instead, informed people accepted limitations of future energy supplies, and modified their own behaviour accordingly under their own control, we would break the habit of people taking energy for granted: an attitude that the smart grid attempts to preserve.  We want greater personal awareness of energy, not less.

Oilprice.com: Cold Fusion (or LENR) has been deemed impossible for many years, yet Andre Rossi claims to have mastered it.  However he won't let anyone examine his E-Cat machine, and some believe that it may be a fraud. Where do you stand? Do you believe that he has mastered an "impossible" science, or that the claims of fraud have merit?

Tom Murphy: This appears to be outside the domain of known physics, so I'll not comment further.

Oilprice.com: The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring an advanced civilization's level of technological advancement. A Type I civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy. Whilst just a bit of fun, do you think that in the future, whether it be millennia or eons, we will ever reach Type I or Type II, or do you believe it impossible?

Tom Murphy: I think it is fallacious to think that humans will master the energy flow and resources even of Earth.  Successful examples of long-term sustainable living tend to see people living as part of the energy/resource flow, but not as masters of it.  We are only good at mastery in our fertile imaginations.  The real world tends not to care what we can imagine. Titanic hubris.  I would rather see humans try to live in equilibrium with natural services, rather than attempt foolhardy domination. Our attempts thus far are not very impressive: we're failing to hold it all together even now.

Oilprice.com: Popular focus is on the global energy crisis, but an equally important crisis is looming. Rock phosphate is vital for creating fertiliser, which in turn is necessary for producing large quantities of today's food. It is depleting at a rate similar to crude oil, which could soon mean that the world will experience food shortages. How do you believe this problem could be solved? Should more media attention be focussed on the potential food shortage of the future?

Tom Murphy: Sigh.  Another problem we must "solve."  How about this solution: one billion people on Earth would obviate many of our problems. Any takers? Any acceptable path to this state? The original question does remind us that our problems are numerous. It is no surprise that the phenomenal surge in population and living standards/expectations in the last few hundred years - both a direct consequence of exploiting our fossil fuel inheritance - should be exposing fault lines every which way.  Aquifers, soil, forests, fisheries, coral, ice pack, and species counts are in decline.  The very simple answer staring us in the face, yet somehow unthinkable, is to consume far fewer resources and aim to reduce population.  Hopefully we can do this in a more controlled way than nature may enforce if we ignore the myriad warnings.  This "solution" will no doubt offend many, but just because we want to continue growth does not mean we can.  We need to take control of our destiny, and that starts with us as individuals.  Decide to reduce; mentally abandon the growth paradigm.  Let's maximize our chances of preserving our accomplishments by easing off the gas for a bit.

Oilprice.com: Oil companies are mainly driven by the aim of pleasing shareholders, which generally means pursuing large dividends and high share prices. Surely this profit seeking mentality is detrimental to the advancement of green energy technologies, as the companies have little incentive to seriously invest in new types of energy whilst old, cheaper types still exist. What are your views? Is there any way to change this dynamic?

Tom Murphy: I sense that plenty of people are waiting to cash in on green energy, and investment begins to flourish when energy prices soar.  But as soon as high energy prices trigger recession, demand flags, prices crash, and the volatility wipes out many green efforts.  A year or two of high prices is simply not long enough for a transformation, which takes decades to accomplish.  I hope that we can tolerate smoothly and continuously escalating energy prices for conventional sources, but those high prices hurt large segments of the (conventional) economy and self-generate volatility.  In principle, governments could "artificially" keep energy prices high enough to maintain the impetus for developing alternatives, pumping the revenue into a national alternative energy infrastructure.  But governments are bound by voters who simply don't want sustained high energy prices.  I don't know how to evade this dynamic in a functioning democracy, except via education about the challenges we face - including a sober confrontation of the fact that failure is a likely result of our not bucking up to the challenge.

Oilprice.com: How would you best describe the current situation with oil reserves?  Do you believe we have reached Peak oil or are pretty close to it?

Tom Murphy: The simple observation that a peak in global discovery in the 1960's must be followed by a peak in production some decades later is unassailable.  So we know the decline is coming, as most major oil-producing countries have experienced already.  That part is easy, it's the when that is always hard.  The fact that the current petroleum production plateau has hardly budged through factor-of-three price fluctuations is very suggestive that no one has spare capacity at the ready.  If we can maintain high prices without re-experiencing a spike and crash like we did in 2008, we might see sub-prime production come online fast enough to maintain the plateau.  But A) this might not happen, and B) it's not a resumption of production growth.  So I would not at all be surprised if a decline makes itself clear by the end of this decade.  I, would, on the other hand, be surprised to see a 5% increase of conventional petroleum production over recent (plateau) levels.  But in the decline case, volatility, deliberate withholding, recession, unemployment, wars, etc. can stir in enough complexity to hide the physical truth from us for years.  Will it be obvious to the world when we pass into the land of inexorable decline?

Thank you Tom for taking the time to speak to us. For those who wish to see more of Tom’s work please take a moment to visit his blog: Do the Math

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:38 | 2299559 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ akak

Haven't seen much of Leo in a long time!

Sincec I am just back in the USA (from Peru), I have already started losing all that weight I gained eating up a STORM down there!

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:00 | 2299670 akak
akak's picture

Glad to hear that you enjoyed your trip DoChen!

I am REALLY wanting to go back to Suramerica one of these days --- *sigh*, when I ever get up enough of both money and time.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 04:20 | 2299863 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Be sure to investigate the longeity/maintainence issues.  These are considerable.  Example, lift off of the Ag interconnects due to extended UV light exposure.  Cleaning to remove dust buildup etc.  And, there's the most expensive component:  batteries to store the energy until you actually need it.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:04 | 2299248 Lumberjack
Lumberjack's picture

From a practical standpoint the 'green energy boondoggle' is just that. There is nothing Tom, Bill McKibben or Al Gore can do to change that. The grid was not designed to accomodate INTERMITTENT wind and solar. I am a former (I stress former) wind consultant and know how the industry works. It is non viable for large scale production, but might be useful to someone who is living OFF GRID at the right location and can afford the technology or may have a utility intertied system used for net energy billing purposes and again that is very site specific. Other than that, the only use I can see for large scale wind and solar is for raping ratepayers, taxpaters and idiotic investors. 

 

I have seen wind farms developed at several sites that I have personally conducted wind resource assessments at, and know FOR A FACT that the sites are not conducive to large scale production (or even small scale) due to low windspeed and high turbulence intensity. So much so that the developers claim that the production numbers are proprietary and will not dislose them so I have on several occasions published my data to show how the turbines are actually doing. Others have also published their data regarding solar and the output is show to also be very intermittent during the daytime. In order for the grid to respond to this intemittency, conventional plants need to be fired up and ready (spinning reserve) to accomodate the variablity of the wind/solar plants. This does not eliminate any conventional power plants. The green boondoggle must come to an end once and for all. Stay Tuned. 

 

 

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:08 | 2299252 meetired
meetired's picture

Another testimony to failure in storage.  TG for broccoli!

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:14 | 2299262 Cursive
Cursive's picture

@Lumberjack

The grid was not designed to accomodate INTERMITTENT wind and solar.

Completey right.  What is often lost in debates about electricity is the nature of power generation and power distribution.  We must have baseload, intermediate and peaking units and highly volatile supply of "green" power is extremely difficult to the proper planning of a resource stack.

Other than that, the only use I can see for large scale wind and solar is for raping ratepayers, taxpaters and idiotic investors. 

I also agree with this, but regulated utilities have been raping ratepayers for a long, long time.  I'm going to look into solar panels because of the huge subsidies (i.e. taxpayer raping) and a chance to escape the huge stranded costs that my utility is passing on to me.  This is Amerika; we don't solve any problems, we create new and better ones.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:26 | 2299278 meetired
meetired's picture

Get back to us when you find the 40K to decorate your roof.

The BS is a BS tax rebate.  Or post your CC bill, if you have one.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:09 | 2299370 Cursive
Cursive's picture

@meetired

Where I live, I can get a 7kv system for $5000 (thank you, bond buyers and future generations of Amerkans!).  I passed on it 3 years ago becuase I don't like the liability implications of fixing it to my roof.  Now there's a new vendor that builds a stand-alone unit for the yard.  That's more appealing to me, but it may raise the cost to a prohibitive level.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:06 | 2299493 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Just make sure that no one touches the panels.  They are live and conducting! 

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:16 | 2299265 Theos
Theos's picture

Capacity... what a downer. Cant we just shove all the energy into the ether and suck it out at will???

Anyone want to guess what the capacity derate on solar/wind is?

 

EFORd bitchez.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:45 | 2299285 meetired
meetired's picture

All I know is that the utilities don't buy the excess power.Interferes with that big investment in a solar farm FPL did 40 miles away.  Utility charges at work.

EFers charge me more than the roof can produce for the 'project'.

 

(Thank you for letting me edit my'al' error.)  Like any of you diks have a clue.  Probably looked good to you.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:35 | 2299433 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Agreed. But, on the bright side, windfarms may still become useful in the future in changing the migratory patterns of some annoying birds. I'm building a VAWT for personal use. Using the buildings and the terrain to funnel and accelerate the wind for low wind periods.

 

BTW, If the government would change the net-metering laws to make it reasonable for individuals to become mini-entrepeneurs our grid would become more diverse and stable and energy would become cheaper. It would unleash a little people power and utilize the land already owned.

In my state, energy companies reap all the benefits. The wannabee mini-producers, like me, still ends up paying the energy company. They pay me nothing for the energy I give them and I would have to pay them extra for monthly "safety checks" on my net-metering system. They also strictly limit application approvals for such net-metering systems to only 2% of all applicants statewide each year.

Just by changing the net-metering laws we could vastly help the energy problem by allowing people to diverisfy the grid. It would make it cost effective for individuals to become mini-entrepeneurs and create jobs right now.

 

 

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:04 | 2299480 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Great observation.  The new grid should be the plugged-in 'off grid'.

The key to a robust and resilient larger grid is empowering on a large-scale numerous small independent energy producers (hello effective tax abatements) to deliver their surplus wind and solar energy to feed and balance the larger dependent consumption grid.

Just like 80% of the economy is composed of small businesses, effective and reliable energy independence could be constructed from networking a similar structure of numerous small surplus power producers.

Unfortunately your experience just proves that their mercantilism derives from forced dependence and limited choices. 

The energy business is a power game.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 00:34 | 2299645 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Agree with both of you.

The electric utilities have been major political and economic players since the days of Edison and Westinghouse. They are integral to the whole power structure. The very last thing they want is for folks to be independent, and they sure don't want competition in the energy production business.

Nonetheless, I really like the idea of opening the grid. Opening up the grid at par to local electric rates would induce an explosion of investment that would probably shock most people. With so much money sitting on the sidelines, just waiting for an investment that pays returns, opening-up the grid could actual lead to some real growth rather than the make-believe kind and it would give us a bit more flexibility going forward.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:35 | 2299703 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

If you haven't seen it already, you might be interested in this documentary about Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest applied physicists of the last several centuries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJB4SYc-J6I&feature=related

Tesla envisioned a world where energy could be delivered freely and globally to all the citizens of the world to emancipate them from a poverty and control inflicted by deprivation.

Guess what won.  Free energy? Or a stealth program dedicated to energy weapons research?

Energy is a power and control game.  We must never forget nor ignore the forces alligned against free humanity.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:58 | 2299708 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Look Tesla was a smart guy.... but you can file his wireless energy distribution ideas in the same folder as the quote from the  guy that said nukes would make electricity to cheap to meter back in the 1950s....

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 02:33 | 2299780 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Yo Propmeister,

How about in the same folder as the guy who coined the term "fossil fuels"?...Wait, you'll never guess who...

Rockefeller and early resource scarcity marketing!

I bet you already knew that....

http://thedailybell.com/3719/VIDEO-The-Origins-of-the-Phrase-Fossil-Fuel

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 09:05 | 2300177 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Vying for Clown of the Thread, are we?

Ascribing to a crackpot theory like abiotic oil does wonders for your credibility....

You can't provide any argument for it that has not been debunked... hell, you can't even understand things like the the Suess Effect let alone the presence of biological markers....

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:10 | 2299255 nothing can go wrogn
nothing can go wrogn's picture

Olduvai Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory

The Olduvai theory states that industrial civilization (as defined by per capita energy production) will have a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years (1930-2030). The theory provides a quantitative basis of the transient-pulse theory of modern civilization. The name is a reference to the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.

The Olduvai theory claims that exponential growth of energy production ended in 1979, that energy use per capita will show no growth through 2008, and that after 2008 energy growth will become sharply negative, culminating, after a Malthusian catastrophe, in a world population of 2 billion circa 2050. 

The decline of the industrial phase is broken into three sections:

  • The Olduvai slope (1979–1999) - energy per capita 'declined at 0.33%/year'
  • The Olduvai slide (2000–2011) - 'begins ... with the escalating warfare in the Middle East... marks the all-time peak of world oil production'.
  • The Olduvai cliff (2012–2030) - 'begins ... in 2012 when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire'. This is partly connected to fossil fuel production, as coal and natural gas are significant fuel sources in electricity generation, but it is unclear how nuclear power generation fails, if at all. (update, see Fukushima).
Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:21 | 2299263 meetired
meetired's picture

Defeatist.  Try a self infilcted injection of lead to the head.

Or vote RP.  Same effect, only slower.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 00:44 | 2299658 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

You might want to stick to threads where one-liners are fun, like the MF global hearings today. (You do have a knack for one liners)

I think Duncan is a bit wrong on the timing, but his central argument is sound. Lacking an intelligent and/or coherent rebuttal ("Defeatist" is not a rebuttal), you are unpersuasive. 

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:09 | 2299674 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Standard commenting practice for the asshats who don't like the consequences of the path we are on but cannot for the  life of them offer any constructive input....

Fri, 03/30/2012 - 02:35 | 2302811 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I came across this article "Why generators are terrified of solar"

It seems in Germany, solar is making a rather dramatic difference in energy consumption patterns. The article includes two plots showing how daily power consumption has changed as a result of increased solar. Definitely worth a look.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:23 | 2299273 Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

Forget renewables, oil, nuclear... Rossi is going to change the world. NASA is researching it too and was granted a patent recently. I would say cold fusion is very hot.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/406981-cold-fusion-a-cure-for-high-gas-p...

 

 

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 08:58 | 2300183 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep.... sure thing... I am glad that you can harbour such hope, ignorance is truly bliss...

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:24 | 2299277 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Oh, I say, is that a proper English accent? Clearly he must be the smartest chap in the room what?

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:37 | 2299306 meetired
meetired's picture

Damn, only an unbounced dick can discern accents.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:58 | 2299354 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Sticky wicket what!

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 02:52 | 2299809 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

That's quite the cunning stunning stunt.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:43 | 2299455 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

Is that you Trav7778?

I can't tell.....

Access denied

You are not authorized to access this page.

 

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 08:16 | 2300081 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

LOL

80 posts on the 28th vs 7 on 26th-27th, and no priors

Christ-on-a-broomstick, it WAS Trav!

Good sleuthin' Lancelot Link.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:41 | 2299317 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Tom Murphy should be sentenced to have sex with Elena Kagan and Janet Napolitano 3 times a day for the rest of his life for writing such garbage.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:47 | 2299328 meetired
meetired's picture

Is that a loaded question to bring out the Libs?  Good luck.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:11 | 2299677 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Surprise us all with some intelligent commentary...

So what is going to save us?

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 21:52 | 2299338 meetired
meetired's picture

I want to know what Jack Ambramoff thinks.

Or Monica.  Let's get serious here.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:05 | 2299364 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Dr. Tom "Strangelove" Murphy says photosynthesis? But we've already been using firewood for thousands of years. If he's an "Algae Boy" like Obama then who needs another loser idiot? Algae is a huge waste because of the thermodynamics of low density energy sources like algae which removes them from serious consideration and is their demise. (Fair disclosure on behalf of Dr. Murphy: UC professors gave more to Obama's election in 2008 than any other group including Goldman Sachs.)

Why not Thorium reactors?? Thorium reactors are shovel ready and some Brits have a new laser assisted version that works great, and can even be scaled down for small town applications and can be built very cost effectively and safely -- no radiation, and no cooling towers with Thorium. Let's do it already. But Murphy rejects it out of hand... er..., why?  It's perfect.

Even if Murphy wants something more 'exotic,' surely even he must realize you can't just go from A to Z.  We will still have to use transitional resources to pay for the R&D and infrastructure to build out and make the conversion to a final energy source.  That means using gas, coal and oil and stopping with the global warming fraud alarmism already.

 

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:08 | 2299502 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

It's going to be a portfolio regardless.  There is no single silver bullet. 

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:13 | 2299374 barwar
barwar's picture

Great article. Sober, realistic, honest. This is why I read ZH. Kudos.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 03:33 | 2299836 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

My pet cat can troll better than you.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:13 | 2299375 barwar
barwar's picture

Great article. Sober, realistic, honest. This is why I read ZH. Kudos.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 22:58 | 2299476 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

"Hey, y'know that North Sea gas drilling platform that we evacuated because it's leaking high pressure gas? Well we left a burning flare on it. So, like, we can't go back to fix the leak. But it'll be like fine or something. If it doesn't massively explode or whatever. Have a great day!"

--Total Petroleum Co.

BBC News - Flare still burning at North Sea gas leak Elgin platform

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-17522086

 

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:30 | 2299549 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

For my money, the most efficient thermal energy systems are the ones used for natural gas power plants--combined cycle.  You get a lot more power out of the same fuel.

So, anything you can make into gas becomes a preferred energy source.  And yes that includes sustainably harvested biomass. But it's not easy, and the key R&D is both very expensive and kind of not sexy (hot gas cleanup, catalytic tar removal).  But there's lots of ways to get gas into the existing pipeline systems and power plants.

Wind is an amazing success story.  No one would have thought that wind turbines would be clocking over 40% capacity factors as they are in Texas, or that Spain and Colorado would be approaching half wind in certain nighttime hours already.  Both true.  And yet, there is an intermittency limit, we just don't know exactly where it is, and the cost-effectiveness of wind plummets as you leave the prime geographic zones.  So no silver bullet there.  Ditto solar, still struggling to get over 15-20% capacity factor, and the solar thermal/storage schemes reintroduce many of the cost and centralization/single point of failure problems that make decentralized solar attractive to begin with.

Bunch of energy efficiency, nice slice of wind if the location is right, some bit of solar and all the natural gas/biogas/syngas you can scrounge up.  Pushing coal and nuclear to a smaller share of the pie, not eliminated but a critical residual slice.  That would be the model, and actually that is where the US is headed right now.  Except for the gasification R&D.  Which is bad to skip.  The enviros are trying to badmouth biomass and 'leapfrog' solar into the #2 spot after wind as the go-to renewable, but that is a grave error.  Storage economics and technical barriers just look terrible, although a pile of pumped hydro would be interesting. 

Cost?  Oh yeah...plenty of cost.  But electric power is only about 1-2% of GDP, so you know, it all depends on your other priorities. Certainly affordable in the big picture.  And let's face it, the vast majority of new capacity in the US has been gas or wind for like 20 years now.  That, and energy efficiency almost flat-lining demand, IS reality.  It's a pretty clean reality.  Just not enough.

All of that makes electric or electric-hybrids the vehicle of choice.  Again, heinous amounts of R&D and infrastructure work to be done.  And let's be clear, oil is an amazing energy resource, you can lift it halfway around the planet, store it, process it, ship it, refine it, store it some more, distribute it to 200,000 gas stations and it's STILL as cheap as bottled water at the convenience store. 

So in all likelihood we'll burn all the oil no matter what else happens.  The climate battle is all about leaving SOME Chinese and US coal in the ground.  Transportation post-oil is still a huge mystery.  Personally I doubt that the most elegant solution will prevail.  In fact the US would regionally fragment in terms of vehicle fuel if only we weren't so damn attached to our personal cars.  Electric in the Southwest, natgas in Texas, biofuel in Chicago, maybe fuel cells in Florida....but that can't happen so it'll be a semi-random, semi-political 'lock in' by a winner.  No way will it be as satisfying and liberating as the Gasoline Age has been.  Oh well.

http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/3/0/f/3-fasterpussycatkillkic90-g.jpg

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:31 | 2299550 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

The article would have been more appropriately titled The Hunger Lames

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 02:42 | 2299796 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

More like hungry hippo's, i loved that game.

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:44 | 2299566 billsykes
billsykes's picture

Fuck this uncle tom. This is totally crap, I wish ZH would vet their contributers better.  Offers only problems, no solutions.

I agree with population control but not the living.

Have 1 kid and pop a rubber on. I never did understand the people who have shitloads of kids and then complain why daddy has to work 2 jobs. WEAR A FUCKING RUBBER.I don't understand the draw of having 3+ kids.

 

 

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:54 | 2299682 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So you think asshats that say "drill baby drill" or equivalently "Dig baby dig" for coal are properly vetted for ZH?

This is not a liberal thing... the moment you bring ideology into this debate you label yourself a  know nothing asshat....

Let me guess, you can't even tell me if the US imports or exports on a net basis, oil, NG or coal....

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 13:35 | 2301161 JimBowie1958
Fri, 03/30/2012 - 08:44 | 2302201 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Umm...

How much crude oil does the US import on net basis each day?

How much *refined* products does the US export on a net basis?

No fucking wonder we have the problems that we do when people are so easily fooled....

Edit: You now  have  zero credibility on any matters pertaining to energy...

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 23:58 | 2299598 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

"I don't care if it's two or three times the cost of fossil fuel energy - that's still cheap"

8 to 12 dollar gas.  That should give the economy a boost.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 00:48 | 2299656 malek
malek's picture

Stupid interview.

On the key questions like battery technology Mr. Murphy tries to induce warm fuzzy feelings about "viability", but the important issue of scaling he conveniently ignores there, while on other areas well considering it.
I don't need a professor if I want sugarcoating.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 01:42 | 2299684 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes... the interview is a bit fluffy...Murphy is capable of deeper insight...

But do you think the asshats here can follow a EROEI discussion?

Here is an article by Murphy

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8526

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 02:22 | 2299763 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It is part of US citizen consumption scheme (the race to deplete Earth resources) to sustain a legion of propagandists.

All these US citizen scientists pay to exhibit their eternal US citizen nature in the realm of science.

The answer is known:

US citizenism:

first stage: maintain as long as possible US citizen societal organization.

Second stage:make money of the crash resulting from US citizen societal organization.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 04:58 | 2299887 akak
akak's picture

A mind is a terrible thing to waste --- even a chinese dishwasher's mind.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 06:10 | 2299935 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

 

The answer is known:

US citizenism

Chinese citizenism and Chinese citizenism comments, as usual. Nothing new here.

More offuscation and Chinese citizenism babboonism.

 

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 02:41 | 2299793 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

My two cents after spending the last few years at my aunties firm.

(this particular auntie had six sisters)

Research spending on clean water tech overtook research spending on oil extraction tech.

They already know whats coming and are attempting to hedge accordingly.

Renewables? meh, if i'm your dealer and i sell you the seeds to grow your own i'd be outa business pretty darn quick.

9% decline in oil discoveries gotta be fixed somehow tho....

Dont even get me started on what the industry calls "proven" reserves.

You think the fiat crash is gonna be bad, wait till they realise fort knox has more crude in it than Ghawar.

Just my two cents.....

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 04:41 | 2299876 chebetts
chebetts's picture

I would think we'd have to change the monetary system before we can "invest" in any kind of research and technology. Root out ye bastards in the US patent office who have denied thousands of patents along the lines of new energy.

You know Tesla and his friends are around here somewhere, we just have to remove the safety net.

I don't see how Fukushima is still a distant memory as it continues to rage on uncontrollably. Check out Arnie Gunderson's latest little trip to Tokyo: http://www.fairewinds.com/  taking random soil samples....and all, yes all, are considered radioactive waste here in the US. How far away is Tokyo from Fukushima? Are we willing to start drawing even more boundary lines on this Earth? Bah, nuclear can work, if we remove the economic factor / corporate greed from the picture. Also, how's that radioactive waste going? What's that? You guys still don't know what to do with it? Hmmm that's funny.....

We continue to bicker about the nothingness while we burn our emptyness.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 06:29 | 2299950 Reptil
Reptil's picture

Weak sauce article on the nuclear plant part. If the writer has no clear, defined opinion about it, then STFU!

Regrettable sheeple science. Rated "poor" for that.

Thu, 03/29/2012 - 07:58 | 2300054 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Awesome interview. Mostly intelligent answers you don't see very often (specially here on ZH) about energy issues. Specially the issue "change of attitudes" and population. Rather than the Deus-ex-machina solution of the facilists, what's needed is a change in the way we do things and how and why we use energy and resources.

Of course, that's too much to ask for fast food eating mamooths who can't even move 100m without using a combustion engine or mechanical aide, while distracted of their monstrosity by the shining colours of their ipads and the faux safety of their guns.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!