What if we never run out of oil?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
AndyH said:
This piece start with the suggestion that a "little-known energy source" exists and that "fossil fuels may not be finite."
May not be finite??? What a ridiculous statement, even if a lot of the methane hydrates could economically harvested. The fact that there might be another source of fossil fuels would suddenly make them "not finite"? After reading that statement I have to question the authors grasp of the simple term finite. This is unlike solar energy which for practical purposes on our time scale (thousands or ten thousands of years) will go on "forever".
 
Stoaty said:
May not be finite??? What a ridiculous statement
Well, if you really want to be pedantic, they truly aren't finite. It's not like the processes that formed those methane/oil deposits have stopped, and it's impossible to extract 100% of these deposits. These resources won't exist in usable quantities, but they will exist! Of course, that's not what anyone means when they talk of "finite" resources.

And we'll never stop needing gas and oil, either. Both of these are used for far more than energy production and are necessary as raw materials for manufacturing damn near everything modern society relies on. So if you're looking for an argument other than an environmental one for why we should stop using fossil carbon for energy, here's one: If you burn it all you won't have any left to make iPhones!

I'm still a supporter of compressed/liquified natural gas as a vehicle fuel to replace diesel. I understand the damage fossil methane extraction causes and I champion renewable methane (bio or synthesized) whenever I get the chance. I think renewable methane - and closing the "carbon loop" - is an important piece of the energy puzzle and hopefully we can transition to such a scheme quickly.
=Smidge=
 
AndyH said:
Don't we have a number of models that show wind and solar can and do provide their own baseload power?

Well, AndyH, I'm not convinced by these models. I went and looked carefully at one of the studies of wind power.

What I found was that a large network of wind turbines could be as available as an average coal fired or nuclear power plant, at three times the cost.

It would seem to me, at least, that the most effective way to use wind power or solar is peak canceling. As the electric load is correlated with wind speed, install enough wind turbines so that the peak load on the rest of the power sources is when the wind isn't blowing. Same with PV solar.

Thermal solar can shift some of the produced power later in a day. So can pumped storage.

Biofuels require a conversion of a lot of land to produce fuel. We need to use some, of course, but this needs to be limited. Just producing food is going to be a strain.

Geothermal is great, where there is some. But mostly, there isn't enough to matter. Same with hydro.

I don't see how to get a highly available grid at a reasonable cost with zero carbon, all of which I think are important, without some nuclear power.
 
WetEV said:
AndyH said:
Don't we have a number of models that show wind and solar can and do provide their own baseload power?

Well, AndyH, I'm not convinced by these models. I went and looked carefully at one of the studies of wind power.

What I found was that a large network of wind turbines could be as available as an average coal fired or nuclear power plant, at three times the cost.
Cost? Is that with or without externalities? As for the rest - the appearance of a need for traditional baseload power is either a myth or an artifact of the way one looks at the problem.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm
http://www.canrea.ca/site/wp-conten...providing-base-load-power-from-wind-feb09.pdf
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16 BaseLoad.pdf
http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.d...able_Energies_and_Baseload_Power_Plants-1.pdf
http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/Baseload_Factsheet.pdf

WetEV said:
It would seem to me, at least, that the most effective way to use wind power or solar is peak canceling. As the electric load is correlated with wind speed, install enough wind turbines so that the peak load on the rest of the power sources is when the wind isn't blowing. Same with PV solar.

Thermal solar can shift some of the produced power later in a day. So can pumped storage.
Of course. The problem is not one of removing 100GW of coal and plugging-in 100GW of wind or solar. We are allowed to learn from the past 100 years and redefine the problem.

WetEV said:
Biofuels require a conversion of a lot of land to produce fuel. We need to use some, of course, but this needs to be limited. Just producing food is going to be a strain.
Nobody is talking about biofuels (as in ethanol or biodiesel), what's used for power generation is bioMASS. This includes wood waste, sustainably-grown and used wood and other plant matter, and biomethane (landfill gas, miomethane generated from animal waste, etc.). This material is used in a conventional thermal power plant. This has nothing to do with more land or food.

WetEV said:
Geothermal is great, where there is some. But mostly, there isn't enough to matter.
Geothermal could be a significant player because of the same horizontal drilling tech used before hydraulic fracturing. I'm pretty sure it's warmer underground nearly everywhere there are humans on the planet.

WetEV said:
I don't see how to get a highly available grid at a reasonable cost with zero carbon, all of which I think are important, without some nuclear power.
That's fine. I think we'll be able to watch Germany. Stay tuned...
 
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
What I found was that a large network of wind turbines could be as available as an average coal fired or nuclear power plant, at three times the cost.
Cost? Is that with or without externalities? As for the rest - the appearance of a need for traditional baseload power is either a myth or an artifact of the way one looks at the problem.

Comparing wind power to wind power, so no difference between "with or without" externalities. The more available wind power needs to be, the more it costs. Using wind power as peak reduction is far more economical than trying to use it as baseload power.


AndyH said:
WetEV said:
Geothermal is great, where there is some. But mostly, there isn't enough to matter.
Geothermal could be a significant player because of the same horizontal drilling tech used before hydraulic fracturing. I'm pretty sure it's warmer underground nearly everywhere there are humans on the planet.

Geothermal can not be a significant player, other than locally. Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust.
 
WetEV said:
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
What I found was that a large network of wind turbines could be as available as an average coal fired or nuclear power plant, at three times the cost.
Cost? Is that with or without externalities? As for the rest - the appearance of a need for traditional baseload power is either a myth or an artifact of the way one looks at the problem.

Comparing wind power to wind power, so no difference between "with or without" externalities. The more available wind power needs to be, the more it costs. Using wind power as peak reduction is far more economical than trying to use it as baseload power.
Using energy efficiency for peak reduction is even less expensive.

It appears you're trying to use wind the same way we use coal and nuclear today in our current grid. That's not how one integrates wind and solar into a renewable grid. That's really the point of the other studies and examples we've talked about on the forum for more than a year. Wind and solar are providing baseload power today in the real world. That makes the baseload myth a myth.

As for judging what's economical, it's pretty clear that the current assumptions and economic 'truth' about energy generation has led us into a heap of trouble. Maybe it's just me, but it appears it's long past time to redefine the problem and shift priorities around.

How about this: Including externalities, is it less expensive to install natural gas thermal generation or enough wind to replace it?
WetEV said:
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
Geothermal is great, where there is some. But mostly, there isn't enough to matter.
Geothermal could be a significant player because of the same horizontal drilling tech used before hydraulic fracturing. I'm pretty sure it's warmer underground nearly everywhere there are humans on the planet.

Geothermal can not be a significant player, other than locally. Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust.
Isn't all generation local to the power plant?

As to the available resource here are two views. The first is an average resource map:

geothermal_resource2009-final.jpg

Full-size here:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/geothermal_resource2009-final.jpg

This chart doesn't include lower temperature areas, or current oil reservoirs that can be used to generate steam - such as these:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/en...-energy-is-gaining-ground-in-Texas-784784.php
http://smu.edu/geothermal/Oil&Gas/GeothermalEnergyUtilization.htm
 
AndyH said:
It appears you're trying to use wind the same way we use coal and nuclear today in our current grid. That's not how one integrates wind and solar into a renewable grid. That's really the point of the other studies and examples we've talked about on the forum for more than a year. Wind and solar are providing baseload power today in the real world. That makes the baseload myth a myth.

I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.

Can wind and solar provide "baseload power"?

Or is baseload power a myth?

Pick one.


AndyH said:
Including externalities, is it less expensive to install natural gas thermal generation or enough wind to replace it?

Why restrict the choice to wind vs natural gas? Oh, and over what time period, and how much total energy production? With or without carbon sequestration?

Minor point: Natural gas is best used in a combined cycle plant, with 60+% efficiency, than a thermal plant with 40% efficiency.

WetEV said:
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
Geothermal is great, where there is some. But mostly, there isn't enough to matter.
Geothermal could be a significant player ...

Thermal mining, could, perhaps, for a while, if assorted technical problems can be solved. Thermal mining isn't renewable geothermal. Do note, however, that thermal mining of "hot dry rock" is not without externalities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity_in_Basel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even more interesting is the realization is that this is fossil heat. The flow of heat and the generation of heat by the decay of radioactive elements is far too slow to support even current uses of energy. Trandor doesn't work. And the realization that extracting enough heat will have an impact on plate tectonics. Stopping plate tectonics would be a very bad thing.

Renewable geothermal is tiny.
 
WetEV said:
AndyH said:
It appears you're trying to use wind the same way we use coal and nuclear today in our current grid. That's not how one integrates wind and solar into a renewable grid. That's really the point of the other studies and examples we've talked about on the forum for more than a year. Wind and solar are providing baseload power today in the real world. That makes the baseload myth a myth.
I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.

Can wind and solar provide "baseload power"?

Or is baseload power a myth?

Pick one.
There's no need to 'pick one' when both apply and are accurate. Can you see how and why?

Here are some hints:
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/15/running-the-numbers-and-the-country-on-renewables/
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/14/a-renewable-new-york-state/
http://www.rmi.org/ReinventingFire
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOn1FkwPjMA[/youtube]

WetEV said:
AndyH said:
Including externalities, is it less expensive to install natural gas thermal generation or enough wind to replace it?

Why restrict the choice to wind vs natural gas?
I'm allowed to 'restrict' the choice because it's my question. Either you can or will answer the question or you won't/can't. ;) So far there are plenty of Eeyore moments (It won't work) but no indication that some are capable of considering solutions. Prove me wrong!

WetEV said:
Even more interesting is the realization is that this is fossil heat. The flow of heat and the generation of heat by the decay of radioactive elements is far too slow to support even current uses of energy. Trandor doesn't work. And the realization that extracting enough heat will have an impact on plate tectonics. Stopping plate tectonics would be a very bad thing.

Renewable geothermal is tiny.
Right - don't frack on fault lines. Duh! Is that all you've got? Wait - you might have hit on something important - maybe we shouldn't put nuclear plants on faults either? Or near the ocean?

Are you truly suggesting that we're talking about 1. using geothermal as a sole energy supply or that 2. we're capable of sucking all the heat out of the planet? Seriously? Shall we toss solar because the sun will eventually die too?
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
As to Mann's article, your takeaway is very different from mine. You think it's all about hydrates and the miracle of fracking; my take is that Mann's worry is that it will allow us to remain complacent about AGCC for years yet, and may well lead to increased instability in various countries around the world. Same story, different parsing.
Not the same story at all! This piece start with the suggestion that a "little-known energy source" exists and that "fossil fuels may not be finite." The author then proceeds to interweave a bit of history with info on fracking and hydrates while doing little more than brushing aside the negative impact of fracking on water (and completely ignoring the rest of the problems that include surface water and land contamination, emissions from the drilling/fracking process, and effects on human health). Then he does a what-if as if to suggest that we can recover enough methane from hydrates to completely upset the world's geopolitical power.
The 'negative impact from fracking' is still largely speculative. When and if it's proven, it may well be able to be mitigated; certainly it will be regulated more tightly than it is now. As to the waht if, sure. That, along with the worries abotu complacency, was the point of the piece, as I read it. He never said hydrates would work, in fact he put in plenty of caveats.

AndyH said:
Natural gas isn't that clean... (Toss a small bone...) But man, o man look at how much of this stuff we have and how fast it's growing and how much money it's creating and... Wait - WHAT?! "...natural resources cannot be used up..." ??!!!

This article is using many of the same tactics used to create any other controversy - peak oilers VS non-peak-oilers, economists VS. geologists, ASPO VS. OPEC...
Oh, nonsense. The argument that extractable natural resources can't be used up is an economic one, and Mann wasn't the person making it, he was providing contrasting views. It is an economically accurate statement, but not how most non-economists look at things. As to the rest, natural gas use is growing owing to its economic advantage, and we are seeing a shift in this country and elsewhere to it. But it's by no means a guaranteed one-way shift that will never be reversed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578430751849503848.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Mann didn't just 'throw a bone'; here's the complete quote:

"Yet natural gas isn’t that clean; burning it produces carbon dioxide. Researchers view it as a temporary “bridge fuel,” something that can power nations while they make the transition away from oil and coal. But if societies do not take advantage of that bridge to enact anti-carbon policies, says Michael Levi, the director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations, natural gas could be “a bridge from the coal-fired past to the coal-fired future.”

"“Methane hydrate could be a new energy revolution,” Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me. “It could help the world while we reduce greenhouse gases. Or it could undermine the economic rationale for investing in renewable, carbon-free energy around the world”—just as abundant shale gas from fracking has already begun to undermine it in the United States. “The one path is a boon. The other—I’ve used words like catastrophe.” He paused; I thought I detected a sigh. “I wouldn’t bet on us making the right decisions.”"

AndyH said:
He talks about the tar sands (at least he calls them tar...) and describes in situ mining (as if to suggest it's just like regular oil drilling) but ignores the whole 'open pit mine' and 'cutting all the trees' and 'poisoning complete downstream environments' things... He suggests that tar sands dilbit will be conveyed to its "biggest potential markets, in the United States" - that in itself is incorrect - and the truth of it is well documented.
The final destination of the oil will be wherever it makes sense to send it. Whether it stays here or gets shipped overseas will be determined by economics and environmental regs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AIUI it will be refined here, regardless of where it ultimately ends up.

AndyH said:
And those pipeline protesters - not citizens concerned about their land and water - no - they're "vituperative" - bitter and abusive. Seriously? It's bitter and abusive when landowners work to stop corporations from condemning their land without permission in order to build a pipeline? The State Department's process to approve or deny the pipeline is "stalling"?
While a bit over-generalizing, 'vituperative' certainly describes some of the anti-pipeline rhetoric I've read. Trans-Canada undoubtedly came in for its share of vituperation. Over-the-top rhetoric is pretty standard for a segment of the green crowd (I include myself in the crowd, but not the segment). And 'stalling' is exactly what the State Dept. and the administration was doing during the campaign last year. They didn't want to make a decision either way, because they wanted to avoid alienating anyone who might vote for them. I'm in no doubt that they could have made a decision then, but instead they punted until after the election.

AndyH said:
Renewables aren't ready for prime time? "Natural gas, both from fracking and in methane hydrate, gives us a way to cut back on carbon emissions while w work toward a more complete solution."
Yup, and excepting mention of hydrates, that's basically what Amory says in "Reinventing Fire". Mann gives the two opposing viewpoints of NG, one purely economic/nat. security, one as a bridge to zero carbon.

AndyH said:
If Mann wanted anyone to consider him to be a serious journalist, rather an an opportunist writer profiting from the "greenies VS oilies" debate, then we would have published only his conflict of interest statement and left it at that.
What conflict of interest? He says he dismissed fracking as having any practical value, and as is obvious he and many other people were wrong, so he's reserving judgement on hydrates.

Have a nice holiday weekend, I'm off for some diving tomorrow.
 
GRA said:
The 'negative impact from fracking' is still largely speculative. When and if it's proven, it may well be able to be mitigated; certainly it will be regulated more tightly than it is now.
No - the negative impact is not speculative at all!

As the Eagle Ford shale play is developed SW of San Antonio, for example, local roads are being destroyed (yet counties aren't paid enough to repair or replace them), massive amounts of water are being used, massive amounts of hazardous waste are being produced. Rent is increasing faster than locals can pay it, and some are forced to move or declare bankruptcy. Then we get to the longer-term problem:

In order to protect the aquifers through which the wells are drilled, the wells must be leak-free "forever". Yet the drilling industry confirms that 6% of wells will leak immediately, while 50% will fail in 15 years.

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/theskyispink_annotdoc-gasl4final.pdf
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/eagle-ford-shale/
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/05/10/fracking-problems-and-complaints-increase-in-eagle-ford-shale/

Seriously Guy - when people suggest problems are "...largely speculative..." it suggests they're not paying attention.
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
The 'negative impact from fracking' is still largely speculative. When and if it's proven, it may well be able to be mitigated; certainly it will be regulated more tightly than it is now.
No - the negative impact is not speculative at all!

As the Eagle Ford shale play is developed SW of San Antonio, for example, local roads are being destroyed (yet counties aren't paid enough to repair or replace them), massive amounts of water are being used, massive amounts of hazardous waste are being produced. Rent is increasing faster than locals can pay it, and some are forced to move or declare bankruptcy. Then we get to the longer-term problem:

In order to protect the aquifers through which the wells are drilled, the wells must be leak-free "forever". Yet the drilling industry confirms that 6% of wells will leak immediately, while 50% will fail in 15 years.

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/theskyispink_annotdoc-gasl4final.pdf
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/eagle-ford-shale/
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/05/10/fracking-problems-and-complaints-increase-in-eagle-ford-shale/

Seriously Guy - when people suggest problems are "...largely speculative..." it suggests they're not paying attention.
Back again. Yesterday's dive reports indicated lousy conditions with more of the same forecast for today, so diving fell through as I don't like to drive down for just one day.

I said 'largely speculative' because so far there has been no sign of the widespread, inevitable environmental damage that the numerous environmental groups were proclaiming would happen in their usual hyperventilating fashion. Doesn't mean that fracking, just like any extractive activity, can't be done badly and/or may need to be restricted in some places, and that's why I mentioned mitigation and regulation. Unless and until it can be shown that fracking, when done using best practices, can't be done almost anywhere for an affordable price without large-scale, long-term damage, it will be used.
 
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.

Can wind and solar provide "baseload power"?

Or is baseload power a myth?

Pick one.
There's no need to 'pick one' when both apply and are accurate. Can you see how and why?

No. To both. Doesn't mean that wind and solar is "bad", just means not a full solution. Oh, and it is not just electric power that needs replacing, it is also other uses of energy, such as industrial.


AndyH said:
running-the-numbers-and-the-country-on-renewables

Read carefully. And read the source http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , not the fuzzy blog. And from the source, read this:

O&M power costs for GIV (grid integrated vehicles) are considered to be zero because there is no additional maintenance due to GIV power. Maintenance is not increased due to power capability for GIV, it is calculated as proportional to energy in a separate column. The maintenance costs for controls that are particular to the GIV system, not otherwise required for the vehicle, are considered negligible"

Assuming almost free storage is available makes the problem almost easy. Without almost free storage, it's not.

AndyH said:
2. we're capable of sucking all the heat out of the planet?

Out of the continental crust (not the whole planet), over very many years, perhaps yes. Geothermal heat flow (44 TW) comparable in size to current energy use (15 TW), especially considering the efficiency of generating power from heat at low temperatures is required by physics to be low (Carnot efficiency), and a large fraction of geothermal heat flow is probably out of reach (mid ocean ridges, ocean floor, etc). Long enough term, geothermal power needs to be a small fraction of current energy usage. Unlike solar, for example, which would be usable until the Earth is no longer habitable.
 
GRA said:
Back again. Yesterday's dive reports indicated lousy conditions with more of the same forecast for today, so diving fell through as I don't like to drive down for just one day.
Sorry to hear the dive trip fell through. A friend living north of the Bay suggested rain this time of year is somewhat unusual. I hope you get better dive weather along with a chance to take advantage of it soon.

GRA said:
I said 'largely speculative' because so far there has been no sign of the widespread, inevitable environmental damage that the numerous environmental groups were proclaiming would happen in their usual hyperventilating fashion.
There appears to be a 'reality gap' between reports of what 'environmentalists' say and what some groups are suggesting environmentalists are saying. There also appears to be gap between what some are saying and the 'conditions on the ground'. ;)

Some of the most damming reports of the negative effects of the shale boom are coming from former free-market supporters that invited drilling companies into their towns. Google the former mayor of Dish, TX for one example. The fact remains that people are being harmed, land is being harmed, and water is being harmed - yet the drillers don't have to disclose the chemicals they inject (the same ones that ARE contaminating aquifers, and that are running into rivers and over land when unlined ponds overflow, and in some areas are being dumped into the municipal water treatment system - a system that doesn't have a way to test or treat these wastes).


GRA said:
Doesn't mean that fracking, just like any extractive activity, can't be done badly and/or may need to be restricted in some places, and that's why I mentioned mitigation and regulation. Unless and until it can be shown that fracking, when done using best practices, can't be done almost anywhere for an affordable price without large-scale, long-term damage, it will be used.

This, I think, is one of the major disconnects, Guy. The only way the industry can conduct this activity at a price affordable to the oil companies is to have the 'Haliburton loophole' that completely exempts the industry from water pollution rules. They have to maintain secrecy of their chemical soup. Why? Because when people in the area get sick - from bleeding sinuses through bizarre cancers - the industry must have the plausible deniability. "No, Mr. Landowner, the known carcinogens in our hydraulic fracturing fluid - the stuff that's spreading across your land and and that your family's been drinking - could not be causing any of your health problems. Maybe you've been drinking raw milk? Now THAT stuff'll kill you!"

Fracking CAN be done safely, it CAN be done using industry best practices, it CAN be done in ways that protect land, water, and people. But it won't because each of those three options are more expensive. As long as none of the local residents are 'hyperventilating', and as long as regulations are squashed faster than they can be written, and as long as people believe the one-sided messages from the industry and their paid supporters, then your suggested conditions will not be met.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/20...s-professor-behind-water-contamination-study/

Hit Google maps and/or Google Earth and look around W Texas, New Mexico, and S Colorado for three examples of how the gas boom looks. Start by scanning the area from Midland/Odessa/Monahans, TX, to Roswell and Carlsbad, NM. Look at the roads and pads. Here's a starting point for the S Texas Eagle Ford shale: https://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=....004046,0.0103&t=h&mra=mift&mrsp=1&sz=18&z=18

There's a whole lot happening that won't be found on an industry filing with the IRS...

edit.... Like this, for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/1235009 and this: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-Plants-Struggle-Treat-Wastewater.html And this: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/wastewater/

And this:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/fracking-doctors-gag-pennsylvania
http://www.amednews.com/article/20120827/government/308279957/1/
When several unrelated patients visited McMurray, Pa.-based plastic surgeon Amy Paré, MD, she initially was unsure what to make of the bleeding, oozing legions covering their faces.

The wounds were not cancerous, but the inflammation was severe and becoming worse. Dr. Paré’s suspicions grew when she learned that the patients lived near the same natural gas drilling site. Tests later found that the patients had phenol and hippuric acid in their urine, two contact irritants rarely found in humans. The patients improved after they stopped drinking water from their underground wells.
 
WetEV said:
I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.
Considering this is precisely what Guy and I have been discussing, and since this has been answered at least three times already in the past page or three, I'll leave it at that. ;)

WetEV said:
AndyH said:
running-the-numbers-and-the-country-on-renewables

Read carefully. And read the source http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , not the fuzzy blog. And from the source, read this:

O&M power costs for GIV (grid integrated vehicles) are considered to be zero because there is no additional maintenance due to GIV power. Maintenance is not increased due to power capability for GIV, it is calculated as proportional to energy in a separate column. The maintenance costs for controls that are particular to the GIV system, not otherwise required for the vehicle, are considered negligible"

Assuming almost free storage is available makes the problem almost easy. Without almost free storage, it's not.
I ALWAYS read the source documents. Sometimes I even jump to unsupported conclusions - like your suggestion that not including V2G O&M numbers in the same column as power generation O&M somehow makes the storage "free". ;)
...we attribute GIV O&M cost to the electric system only proportionally to the additional energy moved through the batteries to serve as grid storage.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/...onstration - Willett Kempton, U. Delaware.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/docs/V2G-Cal-ExecSum.html
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/uploads/1/sgnr_2007_12031.pdf
http://spinnovation.com/sn/Articles...Grid_Demonstration_and_Evaluation_Program.pdf

Nits aside, the assumed 'need' for large amounts of grid storage is a combination of fossil-fueled anti-renewables propaganda and someone's assumption that a renewable grid will look exactly like our current grid with the same limitations and monopolies. While we certainly can mess-up an overhaul project this badly, I'm hoping we chose not to...
 
WetEV said:
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.

Can wind and solar provide "baseload power"?

Or is baseload power a myth?

Pick one.
There's no need to 'pick one' when both apply and are accurate. Can you see how and why?

No. To both. Doesn't mean that wind and solar is "bad", just means not a full solution. Oh, and it is not just electric power that needs replacing, it is also other uses of energy, such as industrial.
Editorial comment:

I think, Wet, that your position perfectly illustrates the damage done by (how to say this nicely...) anti-renewable propaganda and/or disinformation. ;)

Such skeptics often point to a number of familiar criticisms: that high penetrations of renewables are not possible; that such a future requires major technological innovation; that it requires unreasonable amounts of energy storage to balance variable wind and solar; that it requires massive build-out of transmission infrastructure, biomass generation capacity, large-scale hydro, or all of the above; that it requires major investment that simply isn’t there; that it is uncompetitively costly (at least without large subsidies); that variable renewables will undermine the reliability of grid power.
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_05_22_2013_is_a_high_renewables_energy_really_possible_part_one

Why would the currently deregulated energy monopolies propagate lies? Because they cannot control or profit from widespread adoption of renewables - and they're very afraid as they start to see their empires being eroded one roof-top solar panel at a time.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/
http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf
Disruptive Challenges:
Financial Implications and Strategic
Responses to a Changing Retail
Electric Business

Disruptive, indeed!
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/28/solar-energy-this-is-what-a-disruptive-technology-looks-like/

Who's supplying disinformation?

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/22...tiny-paranoid-disinformed-koch-funded-fringe/
I’ve pointed out in the past that efforts to slow down the adoption of Renewable Energy are coordinated and enabled by Koch and Fossil Funded groups like Americans for Prosperity. They rely on the same media manipulation that has given us everything from Weapons of Mass Destruction to the “Romney Landslide”, to Climate denial, to Kenyan birth certificates – and, they’ve even succeeded to some degree in poisoning the mainstream media dialogue.


In the mean time, it looks like V2G is moving out of the research stage - I expect researchers will be able to tweak the GIV/V2G O&M numbers a bit if necessary. ;)

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/26/getting-paid-to-charge-your-car-first-steps/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/b...s-begin-to-earn-money-from-the-grid.html?_r=0
The market that Professor Kempton is tapping into, known as frequency regulation, has become increasingly important as the mix of generators on the grid has changed.
In the Delaware project, each car is equipped with some additional circuitry and a battery charger that operates in two directions. When the cars work with the grid, they earn about $5 a day, which comes to about $1,800 a year, according to Willett M. Kempton, a professor of electrical engineering and computing. He hopes that provides an incentive to make electric cars more attractive to consumers, and estimates that the added gadgetry would add about $400 to the cost of a car.
 
WetEV said:
AndyH said:
(how to say this nicely...) anti-renewable propaganda and/or disinformation.

So everyone that disagrees with AndyH is spouting lies, propaganda and/or disinformation.

Amusing.
No. Only the people that are.

Not at all amusing.

I did provide links to source info (no, not the blog - the source info in the article) in written (not video) form. Please feel free to provide audio, video, or documents that prove my position incorrect - I do reserve the right to learn should the opportunity present itself...
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
Back again. Yesterday's dive reports indicated lousy conditions with more of the same forecast for today, so diving fell through as I don't like to drive down for just one day.
Sorry to hear the dive trip fell through. A friend living north of the Bay suggested rain this time of year is somewhat unusual. I hope you get better dive weather along with a chance to take advantage of it soon.
Thanks, but it's not a big deal. I live close enough and have enough dives there (ca. 300) that I cherry pick my Monterey weekends far more than I used to. It didn't rain except maybe on Monday, but rain per se isn't a problem; it's not like we're worried about getting wet :D Although heavy rain does cause a lot of runoff from the storm sewers, which roils things up and puts a lot of crap in the water (literally, as Monterey Bay sewage treatment facilities jut barely handle routine conditions), reducing visibility and turning the bay into a cesspool.

That wasn't the issue last weekend, it was the long-period swell combined with moderately high waves. The swell means there's strong surge down to quite deep depths, and aside from the back and forth movement from that (zooming 10-15 feet first one way and then the other in heavy surge), it also tends to kick up lots of sediment, reducing visibility. The Sunday forecast was marginal for the surveying we wanted to do, so we bailed. Turns out it was probably doable, depending on where you were. Deeper sites were okay, shallow ones weren't, and the site we wanted to work could have gone either way.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
I said 'largely speculative' because so far there has been no sign of the widespread, inevitable environmental damage that the numerous environmental groups were proclaiming would happen in their usual hyperventilating fashion.
There appears to be a 'reality gap' between reports of what 'environmentalists' say and what some groups are suggesting environmentalists are saying. There also appears to be gap between what some are saying and the 'conditions on the ground'. ;)

Some of the most damming reports of the negative effects of the shale boom are coming from former free-market supporters that invited drilling companies into their towns. Google the former mayor of Dish, TX for one example. The fact remains that people are being harmed, land is being harmed, and water is being harmed - yet the drillers don't have to disclose the chemicals they inject (the same ones that ARE contaminating aquifers, and that are running into rivers and over land when unlined ponds overflow, and in some areas are being dumped into the municipal water treatment system - a system that doesn't have a way to test or treat these wastes).
There will always be a variety of accounts from a variety of places. The ones I was referring to were some of the early ones in the Bakken shale [Edit: actually the Marcellus shale; brain fart], which is where many of the early apocalyptic claims by environmental groups were unsupported by the science at the time and/or used wholly without context (and which is why I can no longer whole-heartedly support many of them). Not that this is restricted to green groups; most pressure groups rely on extreme, apocalyptic claims of the damage that may result from some particular action to generate donations and boost membership - that's certainly been the case with say gun or abortion groups, and is my experience of most green groups.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
Doesn't mean that fracking, just like any extractive activity, can't be done badly and/or may need to be restricted in some places, and that's why I mentioned mitigation and regulation. Unless and until it can be shown that fracking, when done using best practices, can't be done almost anywhere for an affordable price without large-scale, long-term damage, it will be used.

This, I think, is one of the major disconnects, Guy. The only way the industry can conduct this activity at a price affordable to the oil companies is to have the 'Haliburton loophole' that completely exempts the industry from water pollution rules. They have to maintain secrecy of their chemical soup. Why? Because when people in the area get sick - from bleeding sinuses through bizarre cancers - the industry must have the plausible deniability. "No, Mr. Landowner, the known carcinogens in our hydraulic fracturing fluid - the stuff that's spreading across your land and and that your family's been drinking - could not be causing any of your health problems. Maybe you've been drinking raw milk? Now THAT stuff'll kill you!"

Fracking CAN be done safely, it CAN be done using industry best practices, it CAN be done in ways that protect land, water, and people. But it won't because each of those three options are more expensive. As long as none of the local residents are 'hyperventilating', and as long as regulations are squashed faster than they can be written, and as long as people believe the one-sided messages from the industry and their paid supporters, then your suggested conditions will not be met.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/20...s-professor-behind-water-contamination-study/

Hit Google maps and/or Google Earth and look around W Texas, New Mexico, and S Colorado for three examples of how the gas boom looks. Start by scanning the area from Midland/Odessa/Monahans, TX, to Roswell and Carlsbad, NM. Look at the roads and pads. Here's a starting point for the S Texas Eagle Ford shale: https://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=....004046,0.0103&t=h&mra=mift&mrsp=1&sz=18&z=18

There's a whole lot happening that won't be found on an industry filing with the IRS...

edit.... Like this, for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/1235009 and this: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-Plants-Struggle-Treat-Wastewater.html And this: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/wastewater/

And this:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/fracking-doctors-gag-pennsylvania
http://www.amednews.com/article/20120827/government/308279957/1/
When several unrelated patients visited McMurray, Pa.-based plastic surgeon Amy Paré, MD, she initially was unsure what to make of the bleeding, oozing legions covering their faces.

The wounds were not cancerous, but the inflammation was severe and becoming worse. Dr. Paré’s suspicions grew when she learned that the patients lived near the same natural gas drilling site. Tests later found that the patients had phenol and hippuric acid in their urine, two contact irritants rarely found in humans. The patients improved after they stopped drinking water from their underground wells.
Andy, all the above just makes my point, that better regulation may well be needed. Anecdotal claims of health issues and damage are just that, and need epidemiological studies comparing them to the general population to determine causation instead of just correlation.

As to your claim that it can't be done affordably using best practices, that remains to be seen, but it is certainly beyond either of our competence to judge. To say that such regulation can never be achieved because of the power of oil and gas companies flies in the face of 50 years experience of environmental regulation, which has reduced air and water pollution, including reducing air pollution from cars by more than 99% (and made them much safer), made drilling and mining safer and less environmentally damaging etc., despite the resistance of the industries involved. The process is never quick, easy or inexpensive and will likely be fought every step of the way by the industries concerned, but despite that we do make progress. And I expect we'll continue to do so, despite my natural cynicism.
 
Guy, As recently as 2011 I would have agreed with your comments 100%. Then I went back to school to work on an environmental science degree. The environmental regulations are Swiss cheese thanks to industry lobbying and money. Once the Swiss cheese is law, those same companies employ environmental scientists, engineers, and legal teams to take the best advantage of the holes and as many of the unintended consequences as possible. Frankly, coming from someone that really wants to believe that this country has at least something that works as intended, the more I learn the more ill I feel about the entire process.

Go back to acid rain - we had the same industry-funded denial industry that delayed action until entire industries in the US were damaged. When there was too much evidence for their disinformation to stand any longer, they made sure everything currently in operation was grandfathered - the sulfur requirements only applied to new plants. And to add insult to injury, one loophole was the height of the power plant smokestack - taller stacks didn't have to comply. New coal plants simply used taller stacks and didn't have to comply at all. That we've cut sulfur emissions as much as we have is surprising - and yet since the Clean Air Act of 1977 we've only cut sulfur emissions about 35%.

(See Environment, 7th edition, Raven, P32 and Merchants of Doubt, chapter 3)

As to causation and scientific support, I agree with you! Yet this is another area the industry will not allow study! As long as there are no studies to support the negative health effects of fracking, the industry is free to continue as they are. That's why industry focuses on breaking the chain.

I've already provided you one example affecting doctors today. To recap: The gas industry 'tunneled through' the EPA clean water rules by VP Cheney's 'Haliburton loophole'. This allows them to not disclose the chemicals used in fracking fluids - to ANYONE. That means when people go to their doctor with faces bleeding and their skin falling off, the doctor has ZERO information to work with - they have to start from scratch and try to figure out what's happening. Enough of this has happened that the industry must disclose the chemicals when asked by doctors in order to treat a patient - but the doc must sign a non-disclosure agreement to get the info. This means 1. the medical system cannot prepare or prevent illness - they can only respond after the fact, and can only get the info they need when they put 2 and 2 together and it spells 'fracking' in neon-green letters and 2. that also means the doctor cannot disclose the chemicals to the patient so they can sue the gas company for damage. Scientific study and causation? Forget about it! It won't happen because researchers cannot get access to the info they need! That's why environmental scientists are activating in a number of areas to get air, water, and soil samples before the frackers come to town - so they can start to get the data they need to prove causation!

Seriously - it's a mess! I realize that nobody likes anything they consider to be an 'extremist' - but it's taken years of 'gentle' treatment and 'gentlemanly' behavior to come to the realization that no progress is being made. That's why pressure's ramping up. The damage - air, water, ground, human, and animal - has been going on from the beginning. As with CO2 and global warming, there's no debate.

That's why books like "Merchants of Doubt" are so important - once we know there's a disinformation campaign, we can learn how to steer around it to get the info we need. Obstruction and disinformation is wedged firmly between 'facts' and 'scientific studies' - and that's a problem! Because folks that are not in affected areas have no personal experience of a problem, and they won't 'believe' there's a problem until they see a peer-reviewed paper - yet there will be no papers, in spite of the illnesses and deaths, because industry has 'broken the chain of evidence' that connects their pollution with injury and death.

That's important to understand, I think.

edit... Here's another broken link between drilling/fracking and water contamination:
http://desmogblog.com/2013/01/16/br...erford-tx-shale-gas-water-contamination-study
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-changed-course-oil-company-protested-082012084.html
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing. Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination.

http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/02/28/the-silent-treatment/
It was authored by Geoffrey Thyne, a geologist formerly on the faculty of the Colorado School of Mines and University of Wyoming before departing from the latter for a job in the private sector working for Interralogic Inc. in Ft Collins, CO.

This isn't the first time Thyne's scientific research has been shoved aside, either. Thyne wrote two landmark studies on groundwater contamination in Garfield County, CO, the first showing that it existed, the second confirming that the contamination was directly linked to fracking in the area.

It's the second study that got him in trouble.

"Thyne says he was told to cease his research by higher-ups. He didn’t," The Checks and Balances Project explained. "And when it came to renew his contract, Thyne was cut loose."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ris-vbRP-uo[/youtube]
 
Back
Top