81–90 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
52 years is a blip in human civilization. I'd be curious to see how in the grand scheme the depletion of oil looks. Will our tech/development boom grind to a halt all of a sudden? Do we switch to nuclear?
Planes? There's no other alternative than biofuels unless you are happy landing every 2 hours.
Good. The quicker it fades, the quicker the US can stop supporting this brutal, vile regime and its disgusting human rights practices and culture. Also, the more pressure there will be to switch to a non fossile fuel energy source. It can't happen quickly enough.
Well the US supports another vile regime and its disgusting human rights practices and culture, namely Israel. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would codify into law a $38 billion aid package to Israel. Clearly the US is about many things but ethics and human rights are only fringe concerns, let’s not pretend that Saudi Arabia is their only shady ally.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say
edit:
This seems to be your only comment ???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US was a net exporter of crude oil as recently as December, 2018. Indeed, only an idiosyncrasy of the law, reversed in 2015, prevented the comparably colossal, richest country in the world from being a net exporter until very recently.
This is complete and utter rubbish. I do not know where you got this from, care to share? The US used to be the worlds largest net importer of crude oil since at least the 1950s, and only recently (2016 or 2017) got overtaken by China. The US is by far the largest consumer of oil, using circa 20 million barrels per day, while producing around 12.5 million. Besides China, no other country even uses as much oil as the…
Basically, the main differences were in products counted (CNN's headline includes natural gas and refined petroleum products as "oil exports", categories where the US is a heavy exporter) and in timescale. The production stats you cite are rising very rapidly - for reference, in 2018 alone U.S. production increased by 3 million barrels/day, almost 30% yearly. That's growing faster than the tech industry. So the government predicts that by 2021, the import/export shortfall will be completely erased and we'll be a net exporter of petroleum.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/business/us-oil-exports-saudi...
[2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks it translated pretty well. So I think this story sounds incomplete. I do not think it is mutually exclusive to say that the Bosch burner factory is shutting down and that 95% of all new cars sold worldwide are combustion engine powered. German labor is extremely expensive and German taxes are incredibly high. Welcome to the global economy. I find it much more likely that much like everything else, the Chinese…
If you follow the links, you see that the reduced demand forcecasts are worldwide and most of the layoffs involved are in low-cost countries. Most the companies mentioned are global leaders in their small field (like one of the companies mentioned, which produces not cars, not engines, not cylinders, but parts for cylinders, and 80% of its workforce are in low-wage countries, and its customers are all over the world)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Renewable" doesn't mean "free energy". Constructing renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc) takes more energy than constructing an equivalent non-renewable energy source - this is the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). There's also space limits - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o What's apparent to me is that we live in a unique era where energy is abundant and cheap, which may never be re…
His conclusions seemed suspect to me - I remember doing out the calculations myself and came out with the conclusion that a 50x50 mile solar array in the Arizona desert could power the U.S. A 150x200 mile array in the Sahara could power the world. These are large arrays - they would be visible from space - but they are far from "country-sized", and quite doable if production costs come down (which they are - solar an…
Yes, the UK does have issues by these metrics, and the US is in the unique position of a huge per capita energy consumption and huge land reserves. Therefore, it is somewhat feasible in the US to just keep building wind and solar farms. However, I wonder how the economics of the non-renewable minerals needed would affect the price. It also doesn't (as far as I know) take into account all the extra infrastructure required to support the fluctuating nature of renewable energy sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His conclusions seemed suspect to me - I remember doing out the calculations myself and came out with the conclusion that a 50x50 mile solar array in the Arizona desert could power the U.S. A 150x200 mile array in the Sahara could power the world. These are large arrays - they would be visible from space - but they are far from "country-sized", and quite doable if production costs come down (which they are - solar an…
Your figure of 15W/sq foot assumes no gaps between panels - hard to imagine on a 50mile+ array. The bigger problem is that it assumes overhead, direct sunlight. You'd have to cut that at least in half ;) Yes, the UK does have issues by these metrics, and the US is in the unique position of a huge per capita energy consumption and huge land reserves. Therefore, it is somewhat feasible in the US to just keep building w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your figure of 15W/sq foot assumes no gaps between panels - hard to imagine on a 50mile+ array. The bigger problem is that it assumes overhead, direct sunlight. You'd have to cut that at least in half ;) Yes, the UK does have issues by these metrics, and the US is in the unique position of a huge per capita energy consumption and huge land reserves. Therefore, it is somewhat feasible in the US to just keep building w…
Also, with a higher cost to manufacture these energy sources, it's inevitable that the cost to consumers will rise.
I thought about the rare-earth issue, but there's a simple solution that bypasses both it and the energy-storage issue: use solar-thermal plants instead of photovoltaics. These require only mirrors and steam turbines, both made out of abundant materials. Efficiency is actually higher than photovoltaics (30% or so), and energy can be stored as heat for up to 5 hours before it's used. (Ironically, they have the same issues relative to photovoltaics that photovoltaics have over fossil fuels; in theory they're simpler and more environmentally friendly, but implementing the theory correctly requires solving a number of engineering problems that together make them cost more and generate more hiccups than photovoltaics have.)
The higher cost isn't actually true anymore, for photovoltaics and wind at least. Solar hit grid parity with fossil fuels in late 2015, and is now actually cheaper than coal power plants. This (rather than subsidies) is why the coal industry is in deep shit: it just doesn't make economic sense anymore, and the electric industry is rapidly switching over to renewables & natural gas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oil isn't somehow magical in any manner - everything that oil does today can be boiled down to supplying kinetic energy. We don't use its chemical properties in any special way, it just happens to be among the most efficient in terms of calories per kg. With advances in battery tech, and large-scale shift to renewables, I think running out of oil is largely a non-issue in the long run (of course we'll have pains in s…
The biggest issue is actually food - most of the seeds grown today are engineered to depend upon fossil-fuel based chemical fertilizers, and cannot actually survive on their own without both the chemical fertilizers and a large helping of herbicides/pesticides/fungicides (many of which are also produced by the chemical industry). Break that dependency and you have to undo the Green Revolution that multiplied agricult…
Here's a quote I found in [1]
"The macronutrients required by plants are N (Nitrogen), K (Potassium) and P (Phosphorus). Oil is hydrocarbon, made from H (Hydrogen) and C (Carbon). There are no plant nutrients in oil.
Nitrogen fertilizer (N) is made from ammonia, which in turn is manufactured from natural gas, not oil"
[1] http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/28-isnt-fertiliz...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me as a casual observer it has always been obvious that the price of energy over the long term is going to zero. This is not at all obvious to this casual observer. Earth radiates heat away at a constant rate. We can never produce more energy than the earth radiates away, for obvious reason. With current trajectories we will release more energy than earth radiates away in less than 200 years. I'm not sure how th…
Earth radiates heat away at a constant rate only because Earth's temperature is approximately constant. Actual black-body radiation is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law [1], and is proportional to temperature^4. A small increase in temperature significantly increases the amount of energy radiated, which then serves to moderate the temperature. In practice, the total energy consumption of the Earth is bounded by th…
The temperature in the formula is given in Kelvins, so for all practical purposes (300K less than 10°K variation), the 4th power means every degree increase the amount of energy radiated by ~1.3%