in a major way don't be fooled that life in our Western based capitalist, consumer economies reliant on endless growth will continue as it does today. I get the impression too many people think that at some point the guys in the white lab coats will produce a new fuel (hydrogen, bio-diesel or whatever), some infrastructure changes will be made to deliver this new fuel, and then bingo everything will continue as per normal except that when we pull up to the gas pumps in our single occupant SUV we'll just fill up with hydrogen or bio-diesel instead of gasoline.
Major adjustments are going to have to be made to our economies and our transportation systems since it is very unlikely at our present state of knowledge that any alternatives will be able to do the job energy wise that conventional oil does for us today. Note that I am not saying we shouldn't be investigating, researching, developing and utilizing alternative energy sources, but it would be a mistake to simply assume that technology will at some point come to our rescue and provide a magic elixir which will meet our energy needs with the same high efficiency as conventional crude oil.
The EPR (energy profit ratio) of conventional crude oil from what I've seen seems to be running around 10 to 1 although it was higher in the past. An EPR of 10 to 1 means that for every unit of energy we invest in conventional crude oil production to get a barrel of oil, we get 10 units of energy out the other end in the resulting end product. EPRs of non-conventional sources are usually much lower than those for oil. For example to derive ethanol from corn actually takes 70% more energy to grow, harvest and process the corn into ethanol than the ethanol end product provides. Unfortunately our current economies have evolved to run on an energy source with a comparatively high EPR (petroleum).
When one examines suggested alternatives to petroleum, two facts stand out. First, the use of oil and natural gas as a huge supply of raw material for myriad petrochemical products importantly including fertilizer and pesticides, is unrivaled. Second, energy is energy in a sense, as it is defined as the ability to do work. The common thought is therefore that one energy form such as electricity can substitute for another energy form, gasoline. But, clearly this is not readily the case. (my emphasis /jc) A gallon of gasoline has the same energy content as one ton of conventional electric storage batteries. Physics of the storage of electricity cannot compete with the convenience of gasoline where a five gallon can of gasoline can be carried, if needed, hundreds of miles to a remote location to be used in some machine. The equivalent would have to be several tons of storage batteries.
The inability of fuels to be easily interchangeable in their end uses is a major problem. The fuel to effectively power the huge machines used in large scale farming, or even in smaller operations with smaller machines, beyond gasoline or diesel, is not yet in sight. The versatility of oil in convenience of handling and transport, and in end uses (motors of all sizes, useful in all climates, able to be stored over long periods of time in remote areas) is unequaled by any other energy source.
Biofuels and the Ethanol Myth
Oil derived from plants is sometimes promoted as a fuel source to replace petroleum. However, a comprehensive study by Giampietro and others (1997) concludes: "Large-scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it." (my emphasis /jc) The facts and experience with ethanol are an example.
<snip>
A recent review of the future prospects of all alternatives has been published. The summary conclusion reached is that there is no known complete substitute for petroleum in its many and varied uses (Youngquist, 1997). The distinguished British scientist, Sir Crispin Tickell (1993), expresses a similar view: "... we have done remarkably little to reduce our dependence on a fuel which is a limited resource, and for which there is no comprehensive substitute in prospect" (p. 20). (my emphasis /jc)The Post Petroleum Paradigm -- and PopulationA person living in a First World city requires the equivalent of about 4.5 hectares (11.1 acres) of productive land for food, water, housing and goods (as well as carbon sinks to soak up the carbon dioxide produced by their energy use). Applying this "ecological footprint" standard to Australia shows that Sydney needs an area of productive land 35 times as big as the city to sustain itself. For 11 billion people to live like people in Sydney, we'd need about 50 billion hectares (124 billion acres) of productive land—around six times all the productive land on the planet.
By the year 2060, if the world maintained a mere 3 percent annual economic growth rate and all the world's people were to benefit equally, world economic output would have to increase to 80 times its current rate.
These limits-to-growth themes have been debated in academic circles for more than 30 years, but they almost never appear in the mass media.
We must almost entirely scrap the prevailing model of a competitive, growth economy and adopt materially simple economies that stress cooperation and participatory control. Above all, we must move to a steady-state or zero-growth economy. There is now a global ecovillage movement pioneering the development of new settlements that are required for sustainability. Hopefully, the coming "mother of all oil shocks" finally will get all this on the public agenda.The Death of the Oil EconomyRegarding the proposed switch to a hydrogen economy see:
Why Hydrogen is no Solution and
Fuel Cell FollyFrom Fuel Cell Folly:
A very important number is the cost of the electricity, generated by whatever process used, which is converted to the “form” of hydrogen. The December 2002 issue of BioScience Magazine contained an article entitled "Renewable Energy: Current and Potential Issues". The author, David Pimentel, notes “The energy required to produce 1 billion kWh of hydrogen is 1.4 Billion kWh of electricity. Later on the same page he says “The conversion of hydrogen into direct current (DC) using a fuel cell is about 40% efficient”. One might conclude that this means 60% is wasted, or that, of the 1 billion kWh produced, only 400 million kWh is used. Using 1.4 billion kWh to produce hydrogen of which 400 million kWh implies a total cost of 1.4 Billion kWh to realize 400 Million kWh in useful energy, a loss of about 70% of the original energy available. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
