[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

This isn't directed at any post in particular, but I think every "big box" store built in the US (with few exceptions) should have their useless empty roofs packed with solar panels.

The up front costs would scare them away.

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Another is the fact that there is no way to transfer that power across the necessary distances without losing most of it.

This is actually not the big problem it is being described as. Instead of regular AC, we can do a point-to-point HVDC from the plant to a distribution point in something like northern Italy. Run it under water as far as you can to avoid the approval issue. The longest HVDC in existence is about 2000 km - this is barely 1500 no matter how I measure.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

We can't even work out sensible technology and financing to transfer electricity from the North to the South within Germany. And that's just a (relatively) tiny single country (okay, we have a fairly effete government whose commitment to renewable energy happened after a flip-flop initially reversing the public will to renewables. But still.).
Sahara-to-Rotterdam? Holy hell.

We have the same issue in Sweden (which is notably longer and with a smaller population, but still), but I think that this is easier for a headline project like this. All political problems go away when there is enough public will to fix them.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Any links ?

I'm not familiar with this. Google isn't much help w/o additional relevant keywrods.

-t

The new Corvette gets 30mpg on the highway, while still being able to do 0-60 in 3.5s. That's pretty big, especially for a Corvette.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The new Corvette gets 30mpg on the highway, while still being able to do 0-60 in 3.5s. That's pretty big, especially for a Corvette.

Still confused. What does ICE stand for ?

-t

[P]

Internal Combustion Engine.

[turtle777]

Oh, duh. Ok. Makes sense.

It's 1 out of 186 ICE acronyms. ICE - Definition by AcronymFinder

-t

[turtle777]

Ok, so re: ICE - yes, progress is being made, but much slower than the decline in EROI.

Therefore, unless there's some magic breakthrough technology that can increase ICE efficiency by the order of 5-10, there's going to be big problems down the road regarding liquid fossil fuels.

-t

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Why not solar? We could easily cover the world's entire energy need by placing arrays in the right spot!

Now that the myth government and big oil had been spreading about solar panels 'never paying off' has been debunked, solar is taking off. On new home builds one can purchase panels and roll them into the loan allowing them to start paying off since day 1. The extra amount for the loan is cheaper than to not have them and be paying for power. Here's some trends starting to happen around me.

[ghporter]

Solar power needs a few things to be completely viable and universally accepted as a major power source throughout North America. First, it needs a major improvement in electrical storage technology. Even the best-case solar site only produces electricity between sunrise and sunset, and that averages out to be about 12 hours a day, and while you could "feed the grid" during those 12 hours, there's another 12 hours that those megawatts are going to be missed.

Another thing needed is an improvement in the physical grid itself. Many chunks of the North American grid are isolated enough that it takes serious hardware to synchronize them when it comes time to link "section A" with "section R" to get power where it's needed. That shouldn't be needed; synchronizing the AC power frequencies could be done nation-wide in a number of ways, including using GPS satellite clock signals to sync all producers to within a very small level of error, which would make the grid far more transparent throughout the continent.

Also, like our roads and bridges, the electrical infrastructure of North America is getting old, and it's not been as flexible as needed during very stressed periods, like blizzards, extended heat waves, and of course in disasters. One of the biggest issues in storm cleanup is making sure the overhead power lines that have been pulled down by trees or blown down by wind are properly isolated and those lines shut down. If the power companies started looking at the cost over time for re-re-repairing overhead lines, they might just finally realize that underground lines are the way to go almost everywhere, even though it costs more to install them initially.

Finally, consumers need to feel comfortable with the notion that "electricity is electricity," whatever source it comes from. But at the same time, consumers need to demand that producers provide less expensive, and very dependable power, without the need for "fuel surcharges" due to some kerfluffle in the Mideast, or a pipeline issue in Montana, or anything else. Most large power producers are married to a single generation technology, which puts them at the mercy of their fuel source; that's bad business per Business 101, but "it's how we've always done it." It needs to change, so that everybody has access to more reliable electricity that is not dependent on even a handful of specific fuels or technologies.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Solar power needs a few things to be completely viable and universally accepted as a major power source throughout North America. First, it needs a major improvement in electrical storage technology. Even the best-case solar site only produces electricity between sunrise and sunset, and that averages out to be about 12 hours a day, and while you could "feed the grid" during those 12 hours, there's another 12 hours that those megawatts are going to be missed.

Yup, storage is one of the technologies thats really due for a breakthrough. I don't mind that solar only powers during the day though. I think our society needs to consider that when it comes to the energy of the future, we should be relying on a variety of sources to back each other up rather than looking for 'the best'. What I like so much about solar is everyone can have their own personal power plant.

[subego]

I vaguely recall some tinfoil hat stuff that there's good early era of electricity designs for batteries which due to lack of planned obsolescence, killed their own market.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Solar power needs a few things to be completely viable and universally accepted as a major power source throughout North America. First, it needs a major improvement in electrical storage technology. Even the best-case solar site only produces electricity between sunrise and sunset, and that averages out to be about 12 hours a day, and while you could "feed the grid" during those 12 hours, there's another 12 hours that those megawatts are going to be missed.

You mentioned "storage" which resonates with me. I had done some research several years ago on what it would take to both supply and maintain solar energy for my small, 1500 sq ft home. First, I'd need a second garage just to store the batteries that will store the energy and the batteries' lifespan of about 9 years at several thousand dollars a pop seemed a bit cost-prohibitive for me. Not to mention how difficult it is for many to keep shingles on their roofs during the harsh storm months of the midwest, let alone expensive solar panels. Others are discussing means of producing the energy en masse and then distributing it through a "grid" which seems intriguing, but in terms of producing and maintaining this energy exclusively for my home -- did not seem efficient enough to make the leap.

I was corrected by Turtle777 on my notions of new extraction technologies with a clarification; "cheap oil". This is something he's been passionate about for years so I'm genuinely curious --

To Turtle777: How much cheaper is "cheap oil" than "the other kinds" and once the new technologies are, not-so-new within a few short years and the related expenditures level off? I ask because if you had asked in the late 70's what our state of consumption would be by the year 2010 and in light of our supply at the time, we would've concluded a peak cheap oil crisis then. What has happened since then is the discovery, and ongoing discovery of new sources of cheap oil. New technologies are able to identify new sources of not only oil and in using new techniques for extracting the commodity, but of natural gas which itself has experienced a relative boom. What's wrong with this? Educate me.

[Phileas]

Earlier on this year, I bought myself this:



It's a 1984 34' Airstream International. We're completely renoing this old trailer, which includes making it as off-grid as we possibly can. A Nature's Head Marine composting toilet got rid of the need for a black tank and next spring I'll be adding an additional 300 watts of solar to the existing 100 watt panel.

Using this trailer during the summer, mostly in isolated locations, has been a lesson in resource preservation. For example, an Airstream (like most other RVs) has two separate electrical systems. One of 12V and powered by two deep cycle marine batteries. These are charged either by shore power, i.e. plugged in, by a trickle charge from the tow vehicle, a generator or solar panels.

The battery powers all internal lights, the water pump to pressurize the plumbing, the furnace fan on cold nights, some electronics in the fridge (fridge itself runs on propane) and some other gizmos. When used responsibly, it'll last for about three to four days before a recharge is required.

Earlier this summer, I replaced all incandescent bulbs with LED lighting, which instantly increased the time to recharge to about two weeks. We use less energy when we're out camping with the trailer in a week than we use within the hour when we're at home, I am sure. With 400 watts of solar on the roof, we will have all the power we need to run the on-board systems and recharge phones, tablets etc as required. With the space where the black tank was converted to additional fresh water storage, we can stay out at a lake for two weeks without needing to refresh stores of anything - indefinitely once my plans for a lake water filtration system come to fruition.

[ghporter]

Are the actual lamps 12v, or does the 12v system run an inverter? While being able to use standard AC devices would make getting replacements easier and probably cheaper, an inverter is an energy sink by itself.

The problem I've found in composting toilets is that they are often hard to keep clean and odor-free inside. I hope yours will be easier to contain - but technology keeps getting better in everything...

I've seen Airstreams with a shelf of tankage over the propane tanks on the trailer tongue, and I assume those are water tanks (polyethylene tanks with hoses that look an awful lot like "drinking water-safe" hoses, etc.). It would seem to be a "less invasive" way to increase water storage onboard.

Sounds very exciting; I'm looking forward to seeing the end result.

[Phileas]

The actual lamps are 12V - and LEDs, which makes them even more efficient. The trailer is double wired, for 12 and 110V. We don't have an inverter installed as we don't need 110V when out camping. It's amazing how far 12V will get you with today's technology. All lights are 12V, the fridge/freezer runs on 110V, 12V or gas, depending on what's available and the stove is gas.

The composting toilet is a marine model, made by Nature's Head. I too was concerned about smell, but the reviews are unanimous in their praise. Tanks on an Airstream, at least when fitted factory, are always either between or just aft of the axels, for the optimum centre of gravity. Apart from the gas bottles, nothing should really be stored or installed on the tongue, it messes with the tongue weight and, in extreme cases, can lead to body from frame separation.

[P]

Halogen bulbs are often 12V by design, I think, with a transformer to get the power down if run off 110 or 230V - at least mine are. Some LEDs are design as drop-in replacements for such halogens, so they would work off 12V.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To Turtle777: How much cheaper is "cheap oil" than "the other kinds" and once the new technologies are, not-so-new within a few short years and the related expenditures level off?

I think it's a misconception to think that new extraction methodologies will become become cheaper over time, and therefore, make unconventional oil cheaper.
Yes, technology and equipment itself might become cheaper. But the driving force behind the cost is the energy and resource INPUT required by those technologies / equipment. E.g., I'm talking electricity, oil, gas, water etc... to run fracking to extract shale oil and gas.

Unless there is a break through in producing cheap electricity, I see no levelling off or lowering of resources that are required to run the extraction technologies.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I ask because if you had asked in the late 70's what our state of consumption would be by the year 2010 and in light of our supply at the time, we would've concluded a peak cheap oil crisis then.

I'm not sure what your question is.
Beginning of the 70s, crude oil was $2 / barrel. Today, it's close to $100. A FIFTY TIMES increase.
File:Crude oil prices since 1861 (log).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coincidentally, oil production in the US hit its peak in early 70s, and then went down.
File:US Crude Oil Production and Imports.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a 50 times increase in price after hitting peak production doesn't prove Peak [Cheap] Oil, then I don't know what ever would. Even if you take constant dollars, $2 in 1970 would equate to $12 in 2013. So you would have eight times increase.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What has happened since then is the discovery, and ongoing discovery of new sources of cheap oil.

I have seen no evidence that any oil discovered after 1970 was CHEAPER than before.
The facts are, there were no CHEAP[er] oil discoveries, only more expensive oil discoveries.
That's the whole reason that we are now doing deep sea drilling and tapping tar fields and shale gas. Because we have already run out of cheaper oil fields.

It's absolutely amazing how acurate M. King Hubbert was when he stated his Peak [cheap] Oil theory first in 1956. As predicted, we have hit a top in the 2000s, and plateaued from there.
Hubbert was probably not predicting oil to be squeezed out of sand and rocks, and this is buying us some time. But it only extends the plateau. There is not much growth to be had any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hu...k_oil_plot.svg

-t

[mattyb]

You tend to forget that a cartel calling themselves OPEC has a large say in what the price of oil is.

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then there are other political events : 1979 energy crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTHING to do with how much oil is left. How much did it go up when they Barak and Frankie wanted to bomb Syria?

PS. Don't get me wrong, I also think that we should have cleaner energy.

[subego]

IMO, the key factor in how much oil is left is how much China slurps up.

They use way more than we do.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You tend to forget that a cartel calling themselves OPEC has a large say in what the price of oil is.

Because...they control by and large the cheapest and most plentiful supply, right?

I've already pointed out that the cartel countries largely require oil to be at least somewhere near the $100/barrel range; otherwise, they can't generate enough revenue to pay for increasingly expensive first-world-esque governement expenditures (i.e. social programs).

A bare modicum of research would tell you that oil extraction is getting increasingly expensive - stemming from turtle's EROI concept - and that current prices will have to go up in order to sustain future production.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

And as soon as they can't force oil prices to keep rising due to the competitiveness of other energy sources they collapse into chaos.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

IMO, the key factor in how much oil is left is how much China slurps up.

They use way more than we do.

They also have three times the population that you do.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They also have three times the population that you do.

Not for much longer. The one child policy that was designed to regulate population growth has instead lead to a huge gender imbalance. The Chinese population is predicted to plummet in the next 50 years.

[Spheric Harlot]

In which case their energy requirements will likely rebalance compared to those of the United States, as well.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Because...they control by and large the cheapest and most plentiful supply, right?

I've already pointed out that the cartel countries largely require oil to be at least somewhere near the $100/barrel range; otherwise, they can't generate enough revenue to pay for increasingly expensive first-world-esque governement expenditures (i.e. social programs).

Social programs?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

A bare modicum of research would tell you that oil extraction is getting increasingly expensive - stemming from turtle's EROI concept - and that current prices will have to go up in order to sustain future production.

The Economist says it best : Oil prices: The triple-digit barrel | The Economist

After you've understood the above, please explain to me how a pump jack thats been working for 5 or 10 years actually gets more and more expensive. The price of oil has nothing to do with what is left in the ground.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In which case their energy requirements will likely rebalance compared to those of the United States, as well.

Just in time for gas to be $15 a gallon.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

After you've understood the above, please explain to me how a pump jack thats been working for 5 or 10 years actually gets more and more expensive. The price of oil has nothing to do with what is left in the ground.

This explains nothing, it's typical Economist bullshit. Just pick one example: they claim the new shale oil supplies are not priced into today's oil prices ?
Really ? Show me the data. This claim sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Supply shocks ?

Right, that explains why oil has been going up consistently for more than 40 years, by 50 times (8 inflation adjusted).

Shale oil myth: I just want to ask you: have you studied the shale oil issue beyond newspaper headlines ?
I have. A the story is far more complex and far less rosy than it is made to be. Right now, there is a political interest to make shale oil a long-term viable competition to OPEC. However, the economic reality behind shale oil is far more sobering. The decline in flow rates after very short time makes most finds economically unviable at current ($100/barrel) prices.

-t

[Shaddim]

Well, the big 3 oil companies have posted record profits, by percentage, for 4 years running (and 6 of the last 7). Obviously there's still a lot of meat on the bone.

[subego]

I like to think of it as a hambone.

[turtle777]

In a nutshell

We are in the third act of the industrial melodrama now where the dire sub-plot of peak oil has taken stage. Despite the wishful thinking and happy-talk propaganda lighting up the media-space, we have arrived at the problematic point of the story: the end of cheap oil. This is poorly understood by the public and, apparently, by leaders in business, politics, and the media, too. They misunderstand because they insist on thinking that peak oil was simply about running out of oil. It’s not. It’s about running out of the ability to extract it from the earth in a way that makes economic sense — that is, at a price we can afford in terms of available capital and energy invested (and also ecological destruction). That dynamic is now exerting a powerful influence on modern civilizations. We ignore it -- even at the highest levels of intellectual endeavor -- because we have made no alternate plans for running the complex operations of everyday life, and because the early manifestations of the dynamic present themselves in the realm of finance, which is dominated by academic viziers and money-grubbing opportunists who benefit from obfuscating reality.

Guest Post: Growth Is Obsolete | Zero Hedge

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Just in time for gas to be $15 a gallon.

It's already at 8-9$/gallon here in Germany (though much of that is taxes).

[Shaddim]

I paid that this weekend, but it was the 110RON stuff that smells like real gas from back in the 70s. Awesome fuel, we broke the dyno*. :o



*just another roller bearing

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Dammit, hamster just ate my post. In brief:

The Economist says it best : Oil prices: The triple-digit barrel | The Economist

After you've understood the above, please explain to me how a pump jack thats been working for 5 or 10 years actually gets more and more expensive.

Decline rates. Look it up. Anywhere from 4% to 20s% (Gulf of Mexico) declines in output for mature oil fields. Decline in output from existing fields means production has to be sustained by new discoveries/fields - and extraction is increasingly expensive in those fields. Cost of domestic US extraction over the last 5 years for example is very high - companies are not breaking even for quite a few years after oil is flowing, and that sort of up-front capital is not available to many operators that are not Exxon/Statoil/etc.

Lots of speculation that if OPEC wanted to assert some muscle, it might refuse to lower production in the face of increasing US domestic production; the drop in prices would likely make most US extraction completely uneconomical.

Why? EROI.

The price of oil has nothing to do with what is left in the ground.

The price of oil has a lot to do with what is currently in the ground.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Dammit, hamster just ate my post. In brief:


Decline rates. Look it up. Anywhere from 4% to 20s% (Gulf of Mexico) declines in output for mature oil fields. Decline in output from existing fields means production has to be sustained by new discoveries/fields - and extraction is increasingly expensive in those fields.

This is 100% true and it's what I do for a living. And even as field pressures decline, the energy required to process doesn't necessarily decrease along with it. The plant is designed for a certain capacity and if available processing material is below that capacity, machines have to expend energy recycling gas to maintain enough throughput to continue running safely.

I was just at a customer location commissioning a $6,000,000,000 installation intended to extend field life by 15-20 years.

[turtle777]

It's just absolutely astounding that the MSM and politicians don't get it.

And readsing about shale gas, you get the impression thyat decline rates are no issue. They are a HUGE issue.

Laminar, do you do work with shale oilgas as well, or only conventional fields ?

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Speaking as a layman, I think the reason the average consumer doesn't buy that oil prices should be this high is because 10 years ago they spiked (3-5x I believe) in the lead-up to the Iraq war (on speculation) and never came back down. Did global supply dramatically shift in 2003 to never recover? I don't believe so. It could be a case of it being artificially low in the lead-up, but good luck communicating that.

[subego]

It did dramatically shift.

Early aughts was when China took off.

Also compare the strength of the dollar then and now.

[The Final Dakar]

You know, looking online the spike isn't nearly as steep or sudden as I remembered. I guess I might be mixing crude oil and gas at the pump prices in my head.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And readsing about shale gas, you get the impression thyat decline rates are no issue. They are a HUGE issue.

Laminar, do you do work with shale oilgas as well, or only conventional fields ?

-t

I go anywhere they compress gas - petroleum, coal gasification, steel, copper, NASA wind tunnels, pipelines, fertilizer, power production, sometimes wastewater. Just got back from an offshore job in Africa last night.

[subego]

Isn't "offshore" mutually exclusive with "in Africa"?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Speaking as a layman, I think the reason the average consumer doesn't buy that oil prices should be this high is because 10 years ago they spiked (3-5x I believe) in the lead-up to the Iraq war (on speculation) and never came back down. Did global supply dramatically shift in 2003 to never recover? I don't believe so. It could be a case of it being artificially low in the lead-up, but good luck communicating that.

As a relevant aside, I don't know if I mentioned it earlier, but I've read somewhere that sector income margins are at their lowest since oil started to rise in the early 2000s; i.e. extraction is getting increasingly expensive and unless that changes (which does not seem like an option), the price of oil will need to keep going up in order to make it economically viable (which is exactly what helped fuel North America's latest oil boom).

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I go anywhere they compress gas - petroleum, coal gasification, steel, copper, NASA wind tunnels, pipelines, fertilizer, power production, sometimes wastewater. Just got back from an offshore job in Africa last night.

You ever do much work in eastern Canada?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

As a relevant aside, I don't know if I mentioned it earlier, but I've read somewhere that sector income margins are at their lowest since oil started to rise in the early 2000s; i.e. extraction is getting increasingly expensive and unless that changes (which does not seem like an option), the price of oil will need to keep going up in order to make it economically viable (which is exactly what helped fuel North America's latest oil boom).

Their margins are the lowest and their profits are the biggest. Maybe it's a fine line, but they appear to be treading it well.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

As a relevant aside, I don't know if I mentioned it earlier, but I've read somewhere that sector income margins are at their lowest since oil started to rise in the early 2000s; i.e. extraction is getting increasingly expensive and unless that changes (which does not seem like an option), the price of oil will need to keep going up in order to make it economically viable (which is exactly what helped fuel North America's latest oil boom).

Interestingly enough, this phenomenon plagues base and precious metals mining as well.

Although price for the metals has gone up multiple times in the last ten years, the cost of energy and extraction has gone up more than the price of the metals.

That's why many mining shares got crushed in the past years.

One has got to keep in mind how mining works (oil and gas is a form of mining, in the braoder sense): the easiest (highest yield) resources are always tapped first. Only later, the lower yield resources are extracted, when the "low hanging fruit" have all been harvested.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't "offshore" mutually exclusive with "in Africa"?

Well...yeah.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You ever do much work in eastern Canada?

I've been to Nova Scotia once but most of my Canadian work has been in Alberta.

[Phileas]

Conversations like this are why I am looking for 10 acres close enough to the city for reasonable access and far enough away for a degree of isolation should the proverbial hit the fan anytime soon.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Conversations like this are why I am looking for 10 acres close enough to the city for reasonable access and far enough away for a degree of isolation should the proverbial hit the fan anytime soon.

Do you subscribe to PeakProsperity.com ?

Take a look at it. I think this aligns very well with what's you're trying to do.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

You need a place at least a weeks walk from anyplace populated.

[subego]

Other good things to have:

A hill upon which to place your fortress.
At least 11 other people if you want to cover four directions in three shifts.
Ammo. Lots of ammo.
Boy German Shepherd.
A still.
Girl German shepherd.
Food.
Porn.
Moar ammo.

[Shaddim]

We have a couple of Leonbergers as guard dogs, they're a lot like a cross between a shepherd and a bear. Really they're big ~170lb babies, unless they're being protective or told to attack. My daughter loves to play with them.

[Laminar]

My attack dog would eff you guys up.