4 ms·

You should look at the graph [1: the article, 2: a hotlink] labeled "Welcome to the Terrordome..." showing the prices of various oil sources vs solar over time

by x0x0 12y ago

You should look at the graph [1: the article, 2: a hotlink] labeled "Welcome to the Terrordome..." showing the prices of various oil sources vs solar over time. If the fantastic decline in solar prices continue, many oil sources will soon be not economical. And yes, I know there's storage problems and energy density problems for mobile vehicles, but oil is still a riskier bet than I think you portray. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-... [2] http://media.gotraffic.net/images/iQYuKSosjb3U/v16/-1x-1.jpg http://media.gotraffic.net/images/iQYuKSosjb3U/v16/-1x-1.jpg

tptacek 12y ago
This is pretty weak. The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: it’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. That's true of shale oil extraction as well. The corresponding chart conflates all natural gas extraction under the "Henry Hub" label, and all crude extraction under "Brent". Meanwhile, it tries to show an exponential price decline in solar by starting the time series for solar energy costs in 2007. What are we meant to be comparing here?
- msandford 12y ago
  > it’s a technology, not a fuel Maybe! But nothing has an infinite lifetime, so while solar is a technology, the actual solar panels that get made aren't, they're a durable good or an asset, depending on your point of view. Right now, in a lot of ways a solar panel is simply a way to burn a fossil fuel to make more fuel. Since the lifetime isn't infinite you can compute the amplification factor. Depending on how you calculate it might be a factor of a couple up (just based on price) to a couple dozen (joules to joules). But it's not infinite. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-... This finite lifetime and substantial capex is one of the reasons people criticize basically any kind of ocean power; the environment is so harsh that it's hard to do a lot of energy amplification. If your maintenance costs aren't completely trivial then you're opening yourself up to a sensitivity failure. The difference between 2% and 4% per year doesn't seem huge but over 20-30 years is big. 1.02 ^ 30 = 1.8 1.04 ^ 30 = 3.2 That's one of the reasons that people like fossil fuels so much. The amplification factor is huge and it's well known. It might take two weeks to drill a well (on land) and during that time you might use 3000 horsepower continuously (about 2MW). But if you do the math, that's only 672 MWh. A BOE is about 1.7MWh so you only need to produce 400 barrels to get ahead on the well. Add in another couple of thousand for everything else (pumps, piping, etc) and you've still got a very low bar to net energy gain.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Here's solar back further: http://io9.com/solar-powers-epic-price-drop-visualized-510448484 http://io9.com/solar-powers-epic-price-drop-visualized-51044... What we're meant to be comparing -- and I don't think that chart mean to lump all lng or all oil in together -- is that solar is now comparable to oil and/or lng in certain locations. Oh, and I don't think anyone anticipates efficiency gains in shale oil extraction comparable to the ongoing efficiency increases in anything silicon related.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  "That's true of shale oil extraction as well." If you're arguing that the price of shale-oil extraction can and will only fall, you're almost certainly in error. Yes, there's some room for improvement in any technical process, initially, but in virtually all (IT and IC design specifically being the notable exception), diminishing returns set in. For oil, the challenges are twofold. One is accessing ever more difficult to extract resources -- further offshore, more remote, tighter shale, etc. US EIA's own estimates call for a peak in US shale / tight-oil extraction likely before 2020. http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_05212013.pdf http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_0521201... (p. 11, "reference case") Per-well extraction rates fall off tremendously in 18-24 months, and constant new exploration and drilling (both expensive) are required. Contrast with First Oil Well, Bahrain, completed in 1931, and still providing 35,000 bbl/day nearly 85 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Oil_Well,_Bahrain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Oil_Well,_Bahrain They don't make 'em like they used to. The other is the increasing likelihood that fossil carbon assets will be stranded -- prohibited from access until climate and environmental impacts are addressed. Almost certainly a process of a century or centuries. Solar costs (direct PV) have been falling consistently, though other associated costs (labour, installation, structures, inverters, interconnects) haven't declined as much. The relatively fixed costs then become a larger

by x0x0 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

This is pretty weak. The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: it’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. That's true of shale oil extraction as well. The corresponding chart conflates all natural gas extraction under the "Henry Hub" label, and all crude extraction under "Brent". Meanwhile, it tries to show an exponential price decline in solar by starting the time series for solar energy costs in 2007. What are we meant to be comparing here?

msandford 12y ago
> it’s a technology, not a fuel Maybe! But nothing has an infinite lifetime, so while solar is a technology, the actual solar panels that get made aren't, they're a durable good or an asset, depending on your point of view. Right now, in a lot of ways a solar panel is simply a way to burn a fossil fuel to make more fuel. Since the lifetime isn't infinite you can compute the amplification factor. Depending on how you calculate it might be a factor of a couple up (just based on price) to a couple dozen (joules to joules). But it's not infinite. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-... This finite lifetime and substantial capex is one of the reasons people criticize basically any kind of ocean power; the environment is so harsh that it's hard to do a lot of energy amplification. If your maintenance costs aren't completely trivial then you're opening yourself up to a sensitivity failure. The difference between 2% and 4% per year doesn't seem huge but over 20-30 years is big. 1.02 ^ 30 = 1.8 1.04 ^ 30 = 3.2 That's one of the reasons that people like fossil fuels so much. The amplification factor is huge and it's well known. It might take two weeks to drill a well (on land) and during that time you might use 3000 horsepower continuously (about 2MW). But if you do the math, that's only 672 MWh. A BOE is about 1.7MWh so you only need to produce 400 barrels to get ahead on the well. Add in another couple of thousand for everything else (pumps, piping, etc) and you've still got a very low bar to net energy gain.
x0x0 12y ago
Here's solar back further: http://io9.com/solar-powers-epic-price-drop-visualized-510448484 http://io9.com/solar-powers-epic-price-drop-visualized-51044... What we're meant to be comparing -- and I don't think that chart mean to lump all lng or all oil in together -- is that solar is now comparable to oil and/or lng in certain locations. Oh, and I don't think anyone anticipates efficiency gains in shale oil extraction comparable to the ongoing efficiency increases in anything silicon related.
dredmorbius 12y ago
"That's true of shale oil extraction as well." If you're arguing that the price of shale-oil extraction can and will only fall, you're almost certainly in error. Yes, there's some room for improvement in any technical process, initially, but in virtually all (IT and IC design specifically being the notable exception), diminishing returns set in. For oil, the challenges are twofold. One is accessing ever more difficult to extract resources -- further offshore, more remote, tighter shale, etc. US EIA's own estimates call for a peak in US shale / tight-oil extraction likely before 2020. http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_05212013.pdf http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_0521201... (p. 11, "reference case") Per-well extraction rates fall off tremendously in 18-24 months, and constant new exploration and drilling (both expensive) are required. Contrast with First Oil Well, Bahrain, completed in 1931, and still providing 35,000 bbl/day nearly 85 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Oil_Well,_Bahrain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Oil_Well,_Bahrain They don't make 'em like they used to. The other is the increasing likelihood that fossil carbon assets will be stranded -- prohibited from access until climate and environmental impacts are addressed. Almost certainly a process of a century or centuries. Solar costs (direct PV) have been falling consistently, though other associated costs (labour, installation, structures, inverters, interconnects) haven't declined as much. The relatively fixed costs then become a larger