5 ms·

I always enjoy a good energy discussion, but I'm a little dismayed when someone claims to come to the conclusion that we can have a renewable energy economy wit

by markbnj 11y ago

I always enjoy a good energy discussion, but I'm a little dismayed when someone claims to come to the conclusion that we can have a renewable energy economy without lifestyle changes, and then doesn't deal with any of the really hard problems. National grid? Electric cars? Pfft. We already know how to do the first, and the second is closer every day. What about electric over-the-road trucks? Container ships? Jet airliners? Trains we can do. What about bulldozers and all the stuff we use to shape the earth to be the way we want it? Will we be able to use electricity to heat asphalt for road repair? For some of these things the answer is surely yes, but for a lot of stuff centrally generated and transported electric power just won't cut it. There's a staggering amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline, and part of why we are where we are as a species is because you can carry a gallon and a chainsaw five miles into the woods and clear half an acre in a day. And then we could talk about rubber substitutes, plastic, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pharmaceuticals, etc., etc. That tasty carbon-rich brew is in fact the underlying basis for the entire Western way of life.

marcosdumay 11y ago
Just replacing grid electricity and cars to renewables you get us 80% there, and make that looming peak oil 5 times easier to handle. Once we get there, we can start thinking about every niche that still uses fossil fuels. People don't need to replace all energy usage at once. Also, people can't do that, and shouldn't anyway because it's a huge risk to throw everything away and start anew.
- markbnj 11y ago
  I don't disagree, and it will happen because it has to, or we all go out of business. But the article just seemed to me to paint too rosy a picture of a painless transition to renewables without actually getting into the really hard stuff. And by that I mean the things for which we currently have no replacement, or only early concepts of what a replacement might be for fossil fuels.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > And by that I mean the things for which we currently have no replacement, or only early concepts of what a replacement might be for fossil fuels. Can you expound on this? Biofuels will (hopefully) be used for aircraft (best case, algae produced at airports, converted into biofuels), and we can already create plastics from corn and other crops.
    - markbnj 11y ago
      >> Can you expound on this? Biofuels will (hopefully) be used for aircraft (best case, algae produced at airports, converted into biofuels), and we can already create plastics from corn and other crops. The difference in energy density between bio- and fossil fuels is extraordinary. The very simple reason is that fossil fuels represent the concentrated results of millions of years of decaying biological material. I'm not sure there is enough accessible biomass on the planet to totally replace fossil fuels in their current applications.
      - marcosdumay 11y ago
        The difference in energy density of bio-fuels and the most dense liquid fossil fuels can be none depending on which one you choose. You know, ethanol is not the only bio-fuel.
        markbnj 11y ago
        I wasn't very clear, I think. Yes, you can make higher density biodiesels and there are even denser biofuels on the horizon. What I mean to say was that you can't compare the accumulated energy of a few millions of years of biomass with what you can extract from what is growing on the planet right now, even if you could turn it all into fuel. The world is currently consuming around 100 million barrels of petroleum per day. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2 http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pi...
        11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- elsiecream 11y ago
  If we go by your comment, where is 80% renewable energy going to come from? Current renewable energy production in US by most liberal standards is not even 10%. That is after all these years and spending billions of dollars. On the side note obum in his commencement speech told coast guard (below), in his words, so no one thinks that I made it up, as it is that ridiculous. And this comes out of Harvard today. Surprise? May be not. His Coast Guard commencement speech "So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now."
Cushman 11y ago
Except we don't need to stop burning fuel, right? We just need to stop using it for net energy. With enough "free" electricity we can "buy" fuels via carbon sequestration, and you can run your (somewhat pricier) camp stove as much as you want.
- Symmetry 11y ago
  Or you can turn electricity and air and water into hydrocarbons only slightly less efficiently than you can turn electricity and water into hydrogen. This'll give you oil at something like $300 or $400 a barrel at current electricity prices. Which is to say that it's really energy that's the problem.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Energy is not the problem. Enough sunlight hits earth every 5 minutes to power the entire world for a year. Energy storage and energy density are the problems.
    - markbnj 11y ago
      Yes, but that is the equivalent of surveying a flooded city and declaring that the water isn't the problem, it's location is. The reality is that our society depends on expending massive quantities of energy to do work, and we've been wallowing in extraordinarily energy dense, stable, transportable happy juice for almost almost 150 years. It took 4+ billion years to make the stuff, and by all accounts we've used a good portion of it in a century and a half. It's like putting sugar next to an anthill. Fun times for the ants until the sugar is gone.
    - stephengillie 11y ago
      And energy transportation.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Yes, agreed. That can be solved with transmission lines, we just need to start building them. Curious. Could we build transmission lines over existing freight tracks across the US? And have them serve double-duty? Both transporting power up top at very high voltages, and down below providing traction power to locomotives?
bglazer 11y ago
I realize this doesn't really address the core of your comment, but I heard an interesting argument that aircraft will never become electric because lose fuel weight as they fly. This is a huge efficiency gain over carrying a battery the entire way. That said, maybe biofuel (algae?) can replace fossil fuels for aircraft.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by markbnj 11y ago

marcosdumay 11y ago

Just replacing grid electricity and cars to renewables you get us 80% there, and make that looming peak oil 5 times easier to handle. Once we get there, we can start thinking about every niche that still uses fossil fuels. People don't need to replace all energy usage at once. Also, people can't do that, and shouldn't anyway because it's a huge risk to throw everything away and start anew.

markbnj 11y ago
I don't disagree, and it will happen because it has to, or we all go out of business. But the article just seemed to me to paint too rosy a picture of a painless transition to renewables without actually getting into the really hard stuff. And by that I mean the things for which we currently have no replacement, or only early concepts of what a replacement might be for fossil fuels.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > And by that I mean the things for which we currently have no replacement, or only early concepts of what a replacement might be for fossil fuels. Can you expound on this? Biofuels will (hopefully) be used for aircraft (best case, algae produced at airports, converted into biofuels), and we can already create plastics from corn and other crops.
  - markbnj 11y ago
    >> Can you expound on this? Biofuels will (hopefully) be used for aircraft (best case, algae produced at airports, converted into biofuels), and we can already create plastics from corn and other crops. The difference in energy density between bio- and fossil fuels is extraordinary. The very simple reason is that fossil fuels represent the concentrated results of millions of years of decaying biological material. I'm not sure there is enough accessible biomass on the planet to totally replace fossil fuels in their current applications.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      The difference in energy density of bio-fuels and the most dense liquid fossil fuels can be none depending on which one you choose. You know, ethanol is not the only bio-fuel.
      - markbnj 11y ago
        I wasn't very clear, I think. Yes, you can make higher density biodiesels and there are even denser biofuels on the horizon. What I mean to say was that you can't compare the accumulated energy of a few millions of years of biomass with what you can extract from what is growing on the planet right now, even if you could turn it all into fuel. The world is currently consuming around 100 million barrels of petroleum per day. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2 http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pi...
        11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
elsiecream 11y ago
If we go by your comment, where is 80% renewable energy going to come from? Current renewable energy production in US by most liberal standards is not even 10%. That is after all these years and spending billions of dollars. On the side note obum in his commencement speech told coast guard (below), in his words, so no one thinks that I made it up, as it is that ridiculous. And this comes out of Harvard today. Surprise? May be not. His Coast Guard commencement speech "So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now."

Cushman 11y ago

Except we don't need to stop burning fuel, right? We just need to stop using it for net energy. With enough "free" electricity we can "buy" fuels via carbon sequestration, and you can run your (somewhat pricier) camp stove as much as you want.

Symmetry 11y ago
Or you can turn electricity and air and water into hydrocarbons only slightly less efficiently than you can turn electricity and water into hydrogen. This'll give you oil at something like $300 or $400 a barrel at current electricity prices. Which is to say that it's really energy that's the problem.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Energy is not the problem. Enough sunlight hits earth every 5 minutes to power the entire world for a year. Energy storage and energy density are the problems.
  - markbnj 11y ago
    Yes, but that is the equivalent of surveying a flooded city and declaring that the water isn't the problem, it's location is. The reality is that our society depends on expending massive quantities of energy to do work, and we've been wallowing in extraordinarily energy dense, stable, transportable happy juice for almost almost 150 years. It took 4+ billion years to make the stuff, and by all accounts we've used a good portion of it in a century and a half. It's like putting sugar next to an anthill. Fun times for the ants until the sugar is gone.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    And energy transportation.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Yes, agreed. That can be solved with transmission lines, we just need to start building them. Curious. Could we build transmission lines over existing freight tracks across the US? And have them serve double-duty? Both transporting power up top at very high voltages, and down below providing traction power to locomotives?

bglazer 11y ago

I realize this doesn't really address the core of your comment, but I heard an interesting argument that aircraft will never become electric because lose fuel weight as they fly. This is a huge efficiency gain over carrying a battery the entire way. That said, maybe biofuel (algae?) can replace fossil fuels for aircraft.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]