Drumbeat: November 27, 2010
Posted by Leanan on November 27, 2010 - 10:57am
Neither apocalypse nor paradise
I am grateful for people who make predictions with a healthy humility. I'm sure that both Nicole Foss and Jeff Rubin are aware of the moral responsibility that comes with giving financial advice. But since Foss says that families should prepare now for deflation and Rubin says they should prepare now for inflation, one of them will be wrong. Even as some people benefit from their advice, others will suffer.I also don't know if the post-peak future will be generally better or worse than today. I hope that Dave Ewolt is right that peak oil will bring mostly good things. But I think he's too quick to welcome the end of affordable consumer goods because "$225/barrel oil would help people discover they don't actually need the stuff in the first place." Expensive oil will also mean diabetics will have trouble affording insulin, families will lose their homes, and many more children will go hungry.
Independence, risk, and energy: a view from Saudi Arabia
From Saudi Arabia, US bluster about energy independence must look delusional.Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, a former ambassador to the US, didn't express the kingdom's view in those stark terms in a Nov. 11 lecture at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston. But he raised issues frequently overlooked in American discussions of the subject. He asserted, for example, that the pursuit of energy independence eventually will drive producers and consumers toward interdependence. And he supported work on energy other than oil.
"No country can or should power itself from one form of energy," said Faisal, who was ambassador in the US in 2005-07 and in the UK and Republic of Ireland before that. "It is strategically, economically, politically, socially, and environmentally irresponsible."
Airlines' lessons in safety for oil industry
One senior oil industry manager, interviewed anonymously by researchers from the Aberdeen Business School of Scotland's Robert Gordon University for an independent study commissioned by OPITO, described the problem thus: "The biggest difficulty you face in this industry is that while nothing is going wrong everybody is happy … and it is only after a major incident that suddenly things start to come out."Said another respondent: "Unfortunately a lot of training has been developed because people have been killed."
The study also revealed a lack of internal consistency in safety standards within large international oil firms, as well as a lack of co-operation between companies.
"They don't speak to each other. They don't share standards with each other," said an interviewee. "This is how ridiculous it is. Basically in the oil and gas companies, each individual operating unit seems to stand and fall on its own. There is very little sharing of information."
Mexico closes Gulf oil port due to bad weather
(Reuters) - Mexico closed the oil exporting port of Coatzacoalcos on Saturday due to bad weather, the government said.
Uganda: Museveni to Blame for Oil Sector Confusion
The introduction of the Income Tax Amendment Bill before the Petroleum Act epitomises a muddled, unsystematic approach by government to the emerging oil industry in Uganda that leaves it vulnerable to corruption, say analysts. Recent events in the industry demonstrate that oil is being governed by presidential fiat rather than institutions and the rule of law.
The IEA has a typically lopsided view of subsidies. When it comes to oil, "getting prices right" means abandoning subsidies. When it comes to renewables, "getting prices right" means abandoning markets. The IEA bemoans that fossil fuel subsidies were some US$312-billion in 2009, but these were overwhelmingly lower local prices to subsidize industry or pacify those living under petro-tyrranies, not grants to Exxon Mobil. Subsidies in Iran alone approached US$70-billion, while the other big subsidizers were -- in descending order -- Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, China, Egypt, Venezuela and Indonesia.
As early as the mid-1990s energy forecasters warned about the demise of cheap oil. But was the world overlooking a potentially larger problem: the end of cheap coal?In a comment article in the Nov. 18 issue of Nature, Richard Heinberg and David Fridley of the Post-Carbon Institute in California argue that growing demand for coal—particularly in China, where it is needed for steel making.—cannot be met by global coal reserves because estimates of the amount of easily retrievable coal are outdated and optimistic.
All the provincial and federal offices of government, banks and private offices, public/private schools were open on Saturday as the 6-day working week has been resumed following government orders. Only Sunday will be observed as holiday, while Saturday will be a working day.It may be mentioned here that the government had decided to observe two weekly holidays in order to overcome energy crisis.
Gas shortage doesn't stop drivers from idling
Yellowknife, N.W.T. - Yellowknife drivers have had mixed reaction to the gas shortage this week.While many have been lining up to buy gas when it's available, contractor Derry Pond notes how many drivers continue to idle and use up gas.
"It just blows me away that there's no fuel left in town and everybody, ah not everybody, but a lot of people are still leaving their vehicles running," he said. "You know, they can't walk or they just can't let it run for five minutes. It's been like 30 minutes, one lady here, I just timed her."
Friction leaves North Korea hungrier
Desperate for food, people eat tree bark and rodents, according to defectors. Thanks to some improved equipment and fertilisers, the UN expects this year’s harvest, 2010-2011, will be 3 per cent higher than 2009. Still, the improvements were not as great as expected because of heavy snows and flooding.Floods are a constant problem as hillsides are deforested by people foraging for fuel.
The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture
Despite a significant growth in food production over the past half-century, one of the most important challenges facing society today is how to feed an expected population of some nine billion by the middle of the 20th century. To meet the expected demand for food without significant increases in prices, it has been estimated that we need to produce 70-100 per cent more food, in light of the growing impacts of climate change, concerns over energy security, regional dietary shifts and the Millennium Development target of halving world poverty and hunger by 2015. The goal for the agricultural sector is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption outcomes. However, there remain significant challenges to developing national and international policies that support the wide emergence of more sustainable forms of land use and efficient agricultural production. The lack of information flow between scientists, practitioners and policy makers is known to exacerbate the difficulties, despite increased emphasis upon evidence-based policy. In this paper, we seek to improve dialogue and understanding between agricultural research and policy by identifying the 100 most important questions for global agriculture. These have been compiled using a horizon-scanning approach with leading experts and representatives of major agricultural organizations worldwide. The aim is to use sound scientific evidence to inform decision making and guide policy makers in the future direction of agricultural research priorities and policy support. If addressed, we anticipate that these questions will have a significant impact on global agricultural practices worldwide, while improving the synergy between agricultural policy, practice and research. This research forms part of the UK Government's Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project.
Can energy retrofit loans bring wonderful life to economy?
Energy saving and renewable energy projects can more than pay for themselves by cutting the energy expenditures of households and businesses. Though they take up-front dollars to implement, a steady monthly stream of utility bill savings pays off the cost of the project.An energy loan on good terms can convert the cost of the energy saving and renewable energy projects into a monthly payment that is less than the savings. The family budget improves from Day 1 of project completion.
In California, Carports That Can Generate Electricity
SAN JOSE, Calif. — And California begat cars, and the cars begat asphalt parking lots. And the lots spawned electricity, transforming the hills and the deserts.Ersatz roofs made of solar panels have sprouted above dozens of school parking lots in the state, altering vistas and promoting a philosophy of green thinking among the young. Yet the primary driver of the solar roofs is economic.
By forming partnerships with banks and other backers, school districts get guarantees of reliably cheap electricity for their buildings for as long as 20 years. The institutions, which finance the systems and sell the electricity back to the schools, also receive tax incentives from the federal and state governments.
Oil Futures Decline on Concern Ireland Crisis May Spread, Tension in Korea
Crude oil fell from a one-week high on concern Ireland’s debt crisis will spread to Portugal and Spain, reducing economic growth and fuel demand, and as tensions in Korea mounted.Oil dropped as the euro declined to a two-month low against the dollar, curbing investor demand for commodities. Euro-area finance ministers plan to complete an agreement on an Irish bailout on Nov. 28, a European Union official said on condition of anonymity. North Korea warned its confrontation with South Korea could lead to war.
“Concerns that the European debt crisis will spread pushed the euro to a new two-month low against the dollar,” said Tom Bentz, a broker with BNP Paribas Commodity Futures Inc. in New York. The oil market is down “primarily on European debt worries.”
Crude Oil Prices May Hold Steady Amid European Debt Concern, Survey Shows
Oil prices are forecast to be little changed next week as signs of U.S. economic recovery are balanced by concerns that Europe’s debt crisis may hurt growth and fuel demand, according to a Bloomberg News survey.Fifteen of 36 analysts, or 42 percent, predicted crude oil will be little changed through Nov. 26. Thirteen respondents, or 36 percent, estimated prices will rise and 8 predicted a decline. Last week, 47 percent said futures would rise.
China May Become a Net Importer of Diesel This Month, JPMorgan Chase Says
China may become a net importer of diesel in November as new supplies are brought into the country to meet rising domestic demand, JPMorgan Chase & Co. said.Diesel fuel imports will rise “significantly” as the country tries to refill declining stockpiles and alleviate shortages at service stations, according to a report by Brynjar Eirik Bustnes yesterday. The jump in new outside supplies may be “short-lived” as refiners return from maintenance.
Mexico, Peak Oil, and Immigration
To put it lightly, it seems unlikely that the Mexican economy will be saved by windmills. Nonetheless, Webber and Kirshenbaum should be applauded for recognizing the probability and consequences of Mexico's economic meltdown. And, of course, for attempting to think about mass immigration outside of the cliches of multicuturalism and xenophobia.
'Iran produces 1bn liters of gasoline'
Iran's oil minister says more than one billion liters of gasoline has been produced in the country so far, rendering enemy efforts to ban gasoline sales to Iran ineffective.
Shell Said to Delay FCC, Hydrocracker at Pernis Refinery, Europe's Largest
Royal Dutch Shell Plc delayed the start of processing units at Pernis, Europe’s largest oil refinery, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.A fluid catalytic cracker that was shut for unplanned work at the refinery in Rotterdam, and a hydrocracker, which had been halted for planned repairs, are expected to resume operations next month, the people said, declining to be named because the information is confidential. They weren’t able to give a specific restart date. Wim van de Wiel, a Shell spokesman based at company headquarters in The Hague, declined to comment.
Ghana far from OPEC status: official
Ghana was nowhere near the status of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and was no dream of joining it, Ato Ahwoi, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), declared here on Friday.Addressing a dialogue between Ghana's oil development partners including Tullow, Kosmos, Anadarko, GNPC, EO Group and Sabre, Ahwoi warned Ghanaians against higher expectations on the offshore oil field that was discovered in 2007.
“But we have hyped the prospects of Ghana’s oil so much that the expectations now far outweigh the reality on the ground,” he said, calling on all stakeholders to help manage the expectations.
China said ready for big oil sands move
LAKE LOUISE - Billions of dollars of Chinese investment are poised to be invested in the Canadian energy sector as it plays catch-up with the rest of the world, a business forum heard Friday."Chinese companies are coming out and they are looking for investment overseas," said Jiang Shan, minister counsellor of commercial affairs for the Chinese Embassy, speaking at the Bennett Jones Lake Louise World Cup Business Forum.
Energy companies blame green taxes for high bills as Ofgem launches prices inquiry
Energy firms have blamed the Government's green taxes for rising customer bills, after Ofgem launched an inquiry into whether they are acting anti-competitively over prices.
Rain, failures halve Venezuela oil upgrader output
(Reuters) - Venezuela's heavy crude upgraders were operating at half capacity on Friday as heavy rain delayed the start-up of one unit and mechanical problems kept another offline, a senior PDVSA source told Reuters.
Belarus, Venezuela, Azerbaijan to cooperate on oil transport
President Alexander Lukashenko said Friday that Belarus, Venezuela and Azerbaijan would launch a joint logistic venture to transport oil and other freight.Lukashenko earlier pledged to provide Azerbaijan with oil transported from Venezuela, in exchange for Azeri oil supplies to Belorussian refineries.
Enbridge pipeline back at full capacity next week
Enbridge Inc. expects to return its 670,000 barrel-per-day Line 6A pipeline to full capacity Nov. 30, after an electrical problem on Thursday trimmed flows through the critical U.S.-Canada crude connection.A power failure at an electrical substation near Enbridge’s terminal in Lockhart, Ill., forced the company to warn crude shippers that the pipe would not operate at full capacity. The substation is owned by a local utility, which expects to complete its repairs by Monday morning, Enbridge spokeswoman Jennifer Varey said in a statement Friday.
Feds seeking Gulf spill data sue Transocean
The Department of Justice has filed a civil suit against drilling giant Transocean, saying the firm refuses to turn over documents subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.The suit, filed in a New Orleans federal court, says Transocean is not releasing documents related to safety audits on its rigs and safety training for particular workers that were requested by the joint U.S. Coast Guard-Interior Department panel investigating the accident.
Official: Iran's nuclear power plant fueled up
TEHRAN, Iran—Iran's nuclear chief says the country's first nuclear power plant has been loaded up with fuel required before it can go on line.
A green light for nuclear power
For years, Ontario's Liberal government has woven dreams of an alternative-energy future for the province: homes, cars and factories powered by clean wind, solar, hydro and biofuel. On Tuesday, though, provincial Energy Minister Brad Duguid laid out an energy strategy for the next 20 years that relies on nuclear power, which the Minister claimed has been the "backbone" of the province's energy supply for 30 years. Apparently all the government's grand and expensive scheming has led it back to where it began.
GM already working on 2nd generation Chevrolet Volt
Even before the public gets to see the first generation of the Chevrolet Volt, General Motors was reported to already be working on the second iteration of the Chevrolet Volt. It appears that GM has discovered ways to cut production costs so that all the upgrades will be featured on the second version of the car. Autocar reports that General Motors will focus on the 1.4-liter gasoline engine. However, there are rumors that the parent company might replace it with a newer version specifically optimized for better mileage. Slated to go on sale in the next few days, the first generation Chevrolet Volt will be priced at $41,000, or $33,500 net of full federal income tax credit.
Salford Christmas Books To Make You Think
And all this is just one tiny chapter (10) of the whole book which looks at alternative ways to make housing work for communities – be they made of straw, hemp or mud. This book is generally a tour of Britain where social housing is working – both for the community and for keeping energy costs down, with the by product of saving the planet.And it's crucial because, as Bird says, "as we reach peak oil, it becomes increasingly difficult to continue building and using our houses in the same old way. Look around your home. What can you find that doesn't depend on cheap oil or other fossil fuels…
Advent calendars mark the beginning of the Christmas season – a time of gift giving and celebration.The Advent Sharing Calendar takes it one step further by helping us to be mindful of those in need every day of the year. The idea is to add monetary gifts every day of Advent, based on a particular theme. In keeping with growing concerns about climate change, rising energy prices and peak oil, this year’s theme is energy conservation.
Since last year, the United States Embassy has been issuing hourly Twitter updates on Beijing’s air quality, and some of the readings have been pretty shocking. The tweet emerged last week when levels of tiny particulate matter (known as PM 2.5) rose to over 500 micrograms per meter cubed. That’s about 20 times the limit that the World Health Organization regards as “acceptable and achievable” for a 24-hour period.
Can We Blame Extreme Weather on Climate Change?
No matter how bizarre the weather, the mantra of climatologists has been that one cannot attribute any single event to changing climate. All science can do is conclude that extreme events are getting more likely as humankind pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Finally, climate scientists see a way to stop being so wishy-washy and start assigning blame, through a technique called “fractional risk attribution.”
Most wanted list of climate change culprits rewritten
China is the new number one cause of global warming, yes? It just got ahead of the US, right? Maybe not. It all depends how you look at the numbers, says a new analysis that finds new heroes and villains in the story of global warming.
Global action is not going to stop climate change. The world needs to look harder at how to live with it.
Medical Panel Urges a Low-Carbon Diet
A network of the world’s leading medical academies on Friday urged nations to adopt policies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants because it would have a salutary effect not just on the planet but on human health.
U.N. panel issues 20 million carbon offsets
(Reuters) - A United Nations panel overseeing trade in carbon offsets under the Kyoto Protocol decided late on Friday to issue 20 million tonnes of offsets, the information company Point Carbon reported.
Front-Line City in Virginia Tackles Rise in Sea
NORFOLK, Va. — In this section of the Larchmont neighborhood, built in a sharp “u” around a bay off the Lafayette River, residents pay close attention to the lunar calendar, much as other suburbanites might attend to the daily flow of commuter traffic.If the moon is going to be full the night before Hazel Peck needs her car, for example, she parks it on a parallel block, away from the river. The next morning, she walks through a neighbor’s backyard to avoid the two-to-three-foot-deep puddle that routinely accumulates on her street after high tides.
For Ms. Peck and her neighbors, it is the only way to live with the encroaching sea.
As sea levels rise, tidal flooding is increasingly disrupting life here and all along the East Coast, a development many climate scientists link to global warming.
The rate of change along the Antarctic Peninsula is shocking. Over the last few years, I have spent a total of six months at a 40-person U.S. science base, Palmer Station, on the western Antarctic Peninsula. On my first visit in 2004, a gaping hole opened up in a section of the retreating Marr Ice Piedmont, connecting two bays that probably hadn't been linked for thousands of years. Scientists who have been at Palmer since the mid-1970s have seen the Marr glacier withdraw 1,500 feet behind the station. The disappearing sea ice has caused populations of ice-dependent Adelie penguins near the station to plummet from more than 30,000 breeding pairs in 1975 to roughly 5,000 pairs today.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Re: In California, Carports That Can Generate Electricity
Using land otherwise wasted for parking cars to also provide PV electricity is a no brainer. It's been an obvious solution for quite a while, one just awaiting the reduction in PV costs to the point that the economics becomes favorable. Well, the future is here and now these schools can meet most of their electricity demand via the PV generated from these installations. Next up, roofing over the streets and interstate highways, which would provide an added benefit of reduced accidents from precipitation events. There is a way forward to move beyond fossil fuels...
E. Swanson
Agreed but try and get any infrastructure investment out of committee. All anybody can talk about is the budget shortfall and 12.5% unemployment. CA has such an overdeveloped govt. bureaucracy that it takes mountains of paperwork to get the simplest project done while at the same time municipalities have laid off staff to cut costs without reducing red tape.
On a lighter note I saw this video about an in-home plastic to gas converter: http://www.flixxy.com/convert-plastic-to-oil.htm I think about it every time I take the trash out to the street: Why can't we convert this trash back to oil? Also celebrated my 3 year Oil Drum Anniversary yesterday.
Joe
"Agreed but try and get any infrastructure investment out of committee"
Done!!
Roofs of solar panels cover the parking lot of Milpitas High School and Marshall Pomeroy Elementary School in Milpitas, Calif.
So far, solar carports have been installed at some 75 elementary, high school and community college campuses in California, the majority of them in the San Francisco area
While their is no denying that solar panels being put on existing roofs seems like a good idea - I would suggest that for schools it is not necessarily a good idea.
PGiven that education standards in California are falling, I suggest that the schools would be better off to spend their scarce money on improving education for their students.
Lease the roof area to a 3rd, party, or something like that, but to have shiny new panels while the kids are in buildings that are falling apart, or have outdated equipment, not enough teachers, etc just seems like false priorities.
The function of schools is to educate children - every single spending decision they make should pass the test "is this actually helping t educate the children". I think they have better things to spend money on than building solar sheds over teachers parking lots.
The article mentioned that many of the school districts actually expect to save money...but that question aside, I don't think it's hard to make the case that the panels promote the goal of learning. Shouldn't kids learn about the energy they use and whence it comes? If that were part of the standard curriculum, we might not have the problems we do with citizens, both young and old, living as energy illiterates and failing to understand the origins of the resources we all use. Are these not the most pressing educational questions of our time?
I would think high school chemistry and physics classes would get a lot out of it in particular, and maybe even get kids interested in the subjects, making connections with their own lives. Considering how we lament the state of education, especially in the physical sciences, something tangible that can give kids hands-on experience could go a long way if the school really utilizes solar energy as a resource for learning. Education doesn't just happen in classrooms, and doesn't happen at all when the only tools of learning are dry textbooks, and investing in real education is a necessary prerequisite for progress or even livability in the future (something certain "Austerians" need drilled into their brains). So yes, we should make sure money spent promotes education, but we should also recognize the extent to which the classroom model has failed us and look to new methods.
Hi WE,
I put together a quick, two-page handout for the first elementary school that we had upgraded under Nova Scotia Power's Small Business Lighting Solutions programme (you can view a PDF copy at: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2403093/shannon-park-hand-out-pdf-novemb...). The intention was to get students and staff interested in energy matters and to help promote a greater conservation ethic. As part of this, we had intended to provide weekly feedback on the school's energy usage so that students could monitor their progress on an ongoing basis, and we would offer small prizes and various other incentives to help spur things along.
As luck would have it, the school is located in an area of declining enrolment and so the Board decided to take over a wing and relocate part of their IT operations on-site, along with racks of power-hungry servers. That pretty much brought everything to a screeching halt.
Cheers,
Paul
I do understand the concept of subsidizing an industry to build critical mass, and approve of it;but it seems to me that the typical comment in favor of schemes such as the pv over parking lots is made by folks addicted to a kind of magical thinking-this being that such projects are truly profitable or economic in any honest sense of the word-to paraphrase an old childrens song, olf farmer had a subsidy here a subsidy there, here a subsidy, there asubsidy, subsidies all over the place;pretty soon everybody thinks he is getting rich because of getting a handout, but when the tax bill arrives....what we find is that a billion peed away here and another billion peed away there, and pretty soon, we're talking about real money.
So it boils down to this-do you as an individual think you are going to be able to collect more subsidies than you are paying out?
Did you really get your moneys worth when they built a new stadium for your local football team with your tax dollar?
Or should this money be spent on something else?A fleet of school buses would be a much better investment-a super insulated building would be a better investment.
Conservation is a much , much better use of scarce funds than pv in nearly every case-especially since the industry has apparently already achieved critical mass and prices of panels in real terms will probably decline fast enough that it would be far more sensible to delay installations for a few years.Now it might be that some or all of that money might be sensibly spent on making sure the next county or city building is correctly designed so that it can be heated and cooled very easily-passively, to the extent practically possible.
Or should this money be spent on something else?A fleet of school buses would be a much better investment-a super insulated building would be a better investment.
Realistically, California needs to spend the money on education rather than solar panels for parking lots. California used to be the education standard-setter for the rest of the world, but that was a long time ago. Since then, much of the world has caught up and passed them. California and other US public school graduates are becoming less and less competitive in the global labor market.
I don't think most Americans realize what is going on in the world. There are a lot of countries with higher educational performance than the US nowadays, and California is slipping backwards even in the US context. California's per-student spending is now 9% lower than the US average due to its whacko public financing system.
The US as a whole still spends an awful lot for education, but does not get nearly the bang for its buck that most other countries do. US high schools spend their money on solar powered parking lots, and football stadiums; other countries spend it on books, blackboards, and chalk. Their kids don't need a football stadium because they don't have time to play football - they have to study too hard.
Taxpayers aren't putting up the money.
"By forming partnerships with banks and other backers, school districts get guarantees of reliably cheap electricity for their buildings for as long as 20 years. The institutions, which finance the systems and sell the electricity back to the schools, also receive tax incentives from the federal and state governments"
For example,
SAN RAMON, Calif., July 25, 2007 -- San José Unified School District today announced that it has entered into a unique partnership with Chevron Energy Solutions and Bank of America to establish what is believed to be the largest solar power and energy-efficient facilities program in K-12 education in the United States.
The program, which includes installation of five megawatts of solar power, is expected to provide the following benefits:
More than $25 million in energy cost savings to the district over the life of the solar power system;
District budget stability and predictability through known energy costs;
No district capital investment required;
25 percent reduction in the district's demand for utility power;
Reduction of 37,500 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to planting 400 acres of trees.
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2007-07-25a
Hi OFM,
You raise an interesting point. A good chunk of my workday is spent determining the most cost-effective way to accomplish a particular task and so I'm always searching for the one option that will provide the greatest return on each dollar spent. That's pretty much in keeping with my general nature and my professional responsibilities to the client, but I'm also very conscious of the fact that I'm spending ratepayer money, not my own. Not only do I have to account for every cent, I have a demonstrate that it was spent well.
I can't discuss cost in any detail because much of my work is governed by non-disclosure agreements, but in broad brush terms, the cost of four 28-watt high performance T8 lamps and a 4-lamp high efficiency electronic ballast is less than what I would expect to pay for a burger+fries+soft drink combo at a major fast-food restaurant. This hardware will allow me to upgrade two 2-lamp F34T12 fixtures (i.e., two 2-lamp fixtures butted end-to-end in a master/slave arrangement), dropping each fixture from 80 to 43-watts. A typical classroom might have eighteen of these fixtures (e.g., three rows of six) or possibly twenty-two (three rows of six, plus a row of four running parallel to the front blackboard). If we assume the number is twenty, the load reduction is 740-watts, per classroom, or the equivalent of four 185-watt panels operating at peak output.
The economics with respect school retrofits are extremely challenging because the hours of operation are so few -- two hundred days or less, at perhaps nine or ten hours per day, including janitorial work. A safe assumption is 1,600 to 1,800 hours a year (for an office or retail operation, you could easily double the number of hours which effectively cuts the cost per kWh saved in half.) If we reduce the load by 0.74 kW and multiple that number by 1,700 hours, our expected savings are 1,258 kWh/yr. When you take that and divide by 365 days in the year, it works out to be an average of 3.45 kWh per day. Our local climate isn't all that PV friendly, but allowing for some losses, we would require roughly four 185-watt panels to provide us with an equivalent amount of energy, i.e., 4 panels x 0.185 kW ea. x 5 hrs/day (average) x 365 days/yr = 1,350 kWh.
I don't have a good sense as to the bulk cost of a 185-watt panel, but I can tell you that the material and labour cost to retrofit a classroom lighting system would be much less than the retail cost of this one panel: http://www.gogreensolar.com/products/mitsubishi-pv-ud185mf5-185-watt-sol.... And, again, schools are likely to put PV on its most favourable footing because their hours of operation are so limited; in the case of a 24-hour a day distribution centre or convenience store, the spread in their respective cost increases five-fold. FIT rates and various other incentives will no doubt come into play, but they artificially skew the numbers (obviously).
In short, address demand first, then start to explore some of these other options. Why we have lights on in classrooms when we have 800 or 900 lux of available daylight is beyond me. I wish I could incorporate daylight harvesting controls in our school related work, but the cost is prohibitive (that will likely change over time).
Full disclosure: The lamps and ballasts we purchase are also subsidized, but I'm unsure to what extend. If we assume the subsidies are fairly generous and that the true cost of this hardware is double what we pay, our retrofit costs are still roughly half that of the aforementioned panel.
Cheers,
Paul
Interesting discussion. I agree that funds spent on efficiency gains is square one in the game of reducing costs of, and demand for, energy.
Some points:
Improved/more efficient lighting will always be a net consumer of energy.
PV will become a net producer of energy early in its lifetime.
PV production can be sold to the grid when there is a surplus, for decades. Not so with more efficient lighting's pure consumption.
Add the costs of bulb changes to the lifetime costs of improved lighting, and environmental costs as well.
Unfortunately, many utilities in the US penalize energy efficiency, or reward higher rates of use. Stupid, but true, and understandable if your business is to profit from the sale of electricity. They will pay a premium for "green" power, because they can sell it for more.
If one can get past the cost/benefit analysis, it becomes an apples/oranges argument. Focusing on purely economic costs/benefits is what got us into this energy mess and we need to rethink our valuation processes. Parking lots and roofs are simply available space to place PV. As usual, it seems folks are using an end-around route to attack PV itself. Suggesting that spending funds on PV is money that would have otherwise been spent on books is simplistic at best, dishonest in reality.
If one wants to question where our society's money is being wasted, I can provide a long list of things that provide zero benefit,though PV is not on that list.
Hi Ghung,
I'm looking at this in the narrow sense of the cost of providing a service, in this case lighting. To lower our operating costs we either use less energy through efficiency improvements -- in this example retrofitting fixtures with new lamps and ballasts, incorporating sensors and controls, etc. -- or secure a less costly source of energy. [The third zero-cost option, which is my preferred choice, is to simply leave the lights off whenever possible, but I don't control the switch.]
I apologize if there's an anti-PV bias in what I write. I'm not trying to slam these other alternatives; to the contrary, there's something quite magical about a device that will silently produce clean, reliable energy day-in, day-out, year after year. Again, I'm looking at this from the perspective of how can I satisfy a need in the most cost-effective manner possible. These metrics may be imperfect in many ways, but I lack any other means to judge their relative merits.
Cheers,
Paul
Thanks, Paul. My response was aimed at the thread, not at your contribution. As I said, efficiency is the best weapon against declining energy availability, and I can think of no one here that is more effective in that effort than you are.
BTW, when my Granddaughter asked what a PV panel does, I told her that it works sort of like a lightbulb, but in reverse. Instead of using electricity to make light, it uses light to make electricity. It's all still magic to her, but I think there's hope for the girl ;-)
I think you, Fred, Bob and others have offered us some pretty persuasive arguments as to why we should be investing in solar, in addition to efficiency, and I couldn't agree more; once you sort out the critical and non-critical needs and optimize efficiency, it's the next logical step. We may be running out of time as some suggest -- I honestly don't know -- but I hope we move more aggressively in this direction and that your granddaughter takes her granddad's advice to heart.
Cheers,
Paul
I used to be a bit hostile toward PV since I have spent half a life (make that 2/3) striving to make thermal solar work. But now I am convinced that PV makes very good sense, and I have a perfect place for it on a roof with unobstructed view to the south. So I and my beancounting spouse have put it on our list of things to do this year. I am looking forward to commuting using pure solar only, in a battery car made from a small IC hatchback with a heart replacement.
Think of the bragging rights! I will be insufferable.
Ghung, I think we gotta keep pressing on the point that schools should not be put in the position of choosing between PV and good light bulbs or whatever. At least you and I know that we as a civilization should be choosing between PV and Mercedes, or other such fool stuff. Dammit.
I don't think it's hard to make the case that the panels promote the goal of learning. Shouldn't kids learn about the energy they use and whence it comes? If that were part of the standard curriculum, we might not have the problems we do with citizens, both young and old, living as energy illiterates and failing to understand the origins of the resources we all use. Are these not the most pressing educational questions of our time?
I don;t know what they taught you in school, but I was learning about energy stuff, and we did a science class on pv panels, when I was in high school in Australia in the 80's. We did the experiment with a panel, measured the production and had to answer the question of how much are would be needed to power the school. We looked at both demand and total kWh. It turned out, all the roof area plus all the playing fields would do it. And the cost was in the order of millions, and there would be little money left for the school itself. The teacher explained that just because you can do it, does not mean it is always a good idea to do it, and that is why there were no solar powered schools in the 80's, (except for in the outback).
This was in year 10 science class - if American school aren't teaching this sort of stuff, the country deserves what is coming to it.
Fo teaching purposes, do you needs hundreds of panels, or will two or three do the job? How much difference does having more of them make. What do they learn, now that they can't afford computers, labs other equipment because their money has gone into all these solar panels?
And, why are the parking lots being covered in the first place? leave the cars in the open and spend the money on teaching - that is, after all, what schools are for.
Paul, your banging at a false dichotomy.
Every school pays for energy. Making long-term investments in efficiencies AND school-owned renewable sources offers the kind of resilience that can keep schools open when we do find ourselves with possibly irregular supply or pricing. Our schools up here really need to be installing far heavier insulation, and solar heating in something like a 4:1 ratio over PV.. but both are positives. It's not a way to 'Pay the Teachers less'.. it's a way to mitigate the unpredictable Oil and Electric Bills into the long-term. That is clearly better for the schools and the teachers.
Beyond all that, a community investing in a solid power system in their local school campuses has also created community centers that can serve these people in any number of other situations that very well may arise. (Including ADULT Education and modelling for Renewable Energy)
Teaching by example is hardly an empty cliche'.
Bob
HI BOb,
I have no problem with making long term investments in schools, they are a good place for that, and produce more than just financial returns. My problem is that PV is not the best investment. If the the school has a problem with high energy costs then they should be looking, very carefully, at their consumption, and reducing it, first. Then you look at how you supply it. I think that is a much better lesson to tech the kids instead of that you can power an inefficient building with enough renewable energy.
Chevron is doing this to push its own applecart, especially since they opposed the climate change legislation in California, they need some positives.
If *any* school still has an "oil bill" then then getting rid of the oil use should be a far higher priority than PV - Even Chevron can sponsor that.
I view that reducing consumption should always be the first priority, but, particularly in California, it is viewed by many that if you have can generate the energy (subsidised)PV, then it is OK. You then have a double misallocation of resources - an inefficient use and an expensive generation source.
But the donors get to donate what they want - so this sort of thing will continue. It leverages government tax credits for the donor, but that government money would be more effective if given to the schools directly.
"I view that reducing consumption should always be the first priority,"
We started that after the first oil shock in '73.
What is that graph plotting? Per person, per household, per day, per week?
NAOM
The SunEdison business model. Some entity puts up the space and signs a long-term contract for power, SunEdison builds and operates the solar installation. SunEdison built a multi-acre array next to the water treatment plant near where I live. According to the city, the solar panels will provide about two-thirds of the total power the plant needs.
As I understand it, the two critical parts of the deal are the long-term contract and tariffs guaranteeing that the local utility will "buy" any surplus power. That combination means that SunEdison can honestly tell their investors that they will be able to sell every watt-hour that they generate. I don't know what kinds of constraints California school districts labor under. They may not be able to make long-term commitments, and they may not be able to let a private firm make use of their roofs. I know the latter sounds silly, but it wouldn't be the strangest state law I've seen.
The function of schools is to educate children - every single spending decision they make should pass the test "is this actually helping t educate the children".
Perhaps part of that education is long term thinking VS short term thinking.
Like "if we spend this money now, we'll spend less later"
Or "Kids learn better when there is lights, energy for things like computers and comfort like air conditioning"
If "we" were really concerned about education "we" would spend money on making good software and have the kids educated in the home on computers wouldn't "we"?
Have the parents become involved with their education VS sending them to a place where the State is nothing more than a babysitter for 9 months a year.
I think they have better things to spend money on than building solar sheds over teachers parking lots.
Have you chosen to become educated on the payback of the PV?
The VA hospital in Albuquerque is installing solar panels over at least part of its employee parking lot. If I worked there I would appreciate my car being cooler in the shade, and the slowing down of the sun damage to the plastic dash and the paint etc.
Apply this idea to all the Wal-Marts, Targets, Kohls, government buildings, etc. and we would see a noticeable upswing in solar PV-produced electricity.
The amount of roof area in the U.S. should be able to support substantial PV installations...at least in the SW U.S.
It is a matter of priorities...our priorities in the U.S seem to revolve around buying cheap crappy consumer products and funding endless MIC boondoggles vice investing in energy use-saving sustainable technologies.
Rat,that is sure one hell of a big parking lot for a school.Does every child drive a car to school?
Good to see the panels,though.
Exactly.
If they want to help the environment they would do better to ban then driving to school and implement alternatives - like a bus.
Get them out of the idea of having to have a car while they're young would be more productive than a field of solar PV.
If they want to help the environment they would do better to ban then driving to school and implement alternatives - like a bus.
If they wanted to help the environment, they should get rid of the parking lots and make the kids walk to school.
I know, that doesn't really work in California today, but maybe they need to redesign their cities so it does. I can foresee a day where if kids can't go to school except by car, they won't to go to school. And if the adults can't go to work without a car, they won't go to work.
From the "when I was a kid..." department:
I walked to school every single day from kindergarten through the end of high school - 3 different schools, each a good walking distance for kids - about a mile. Any more than a mile, and I would have missed some days - there were some distractions along the way, like woods, and salt marshes, a train station (the conductor used to let me blow the whistle for the 8:17), and such.
I also brought my lunch in a brown bag. Usually a sandwich, an apple, and some cookies.
I am absolutely NOT claiming this as some sort of hardship duty - honestly, I felt really sorry for the poor saps that had to ride the school bus, and eat the crap "hot lunches"...
I am 55 years old - this is not ancient history. And it was not some quaint rural outpost - this was a small city on the Connecticut shore. Just a different time and demographic happenstance.
"I know, that doesn't really work in California today..."
Sometimes it doesn't work because of the distance. But what really puzzles me is that this is a high school, and, at least where I live, we get a lot of fuss over high schoolers having to cross a main street. Oh, the sheer horror. We had a big push to put in a pedestrian bridge at one of the high schools, ten or fifteen years ago, which only died when it became clear that the ADA would have forced it to be a monster project taking out at least half a dozen houses.
So why can't we teach high school students to cross the street any more - has our entire society become as dumb as a box of rocks? In parallel with the other comment: from my "when I was a kid" department, I had to cross a similarly busy multilane street every day to get to junior high.
In the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, elementary, middle, and high-school students routinely cross busy streets. They have crossing guards, just as my school did back in the nineteen forties. Then it was a great honor to be a crossing guard. Here and now they have a volunteer adult to supervise the crossing guards, but it wasn't that way sixty years ago.
Have the schools been dumbed down so much that they no longer teach street-crossing skills?
Perhaps the school-bus people have too strong a lobby.
When oil is $200 a barrel we will get smart P.D.Q.
I hope.
Mostly just the ones old enuf to have licenses. Been that way forever, or at least since the 50's.
You guys had a chance to end that budget shortfall with the stroke of a pen, but you voted it down. Can't blame the government after that.
I missed that. Maybe you refer to Prop. 19. There were no taxes in that bill. It said jurisdictions could tax, if they wanted. Didn't say that taxes still take a 2/3 vote. Legalizing marijuana would have raised no tax revenues.
No. It was 26. State constitution already requires the 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, 26 extends that to fees as well. As usual the voters vote for more services, and also don't want to pay for them. They figure if they can just starve out a few welfare queens, and cutback on prison guard pensions that all will be well. 19 would have been a minor help, maybe +1B per year.
Sorry I didn't check back in earlier, I was caught up in the "changes to TOD" thread.
I was referring to prop 19. I didn't realize that it forbade the state from taxing MJ.
However, just the cost savings alone, even absent any revenue, would go a long way towards balancing the CA budget.
Its true. The voters have been sold on the myth that most of the government spending is pure waste, and if we just starve it some more then all will work out fine. A major
disinformation industry supports these myths.
Also you've gotta get it past the NIMBYs and obstructionists, which happened in this case but often doesn't. The article mentioned opposition due to a (wholly hypothetical) risk of "visual blight". As if the sea of solar panels in the picture is any more "blighty" than the parking lot itself, but whatever.
It still seems to me that too many people demand that the world should be embalmed into stasis, to remain forever as it was when they reached about age 17, possibly in order that from then on they should never need to learn anything again. But they need to be shoved aside - stasis is simply impossible with population still rising and with many resources becoming ever more dilute.
...and the shading/cooling effect will reduce energy use/costs, an added benefit.
There's a business down the street from me that has solar panels on their roof and also over part of their parking. The place is for sale, so I don't know what the next lot will do with it.
Re: Can We Blame Extreme Weather on Climate Change?
There are studies which point to a particular change in winter weather that is related to a loss in Arctic sea-ice. Model results 1, 2 point to a pattern of negative values for the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). When the NAO index is negative, there is a high correlation with more snowfall over portions of the Eastern US. Such a pattern appeared last Winter and has been linked to the extreme snow fall seen then. As the minimum extent of Arctic sea-ice can be expected to decline further due to AGW, one might also expect to see more winters like that experienced last year. While it may be counter intuitive, a warmer Earth may result in more nasty winters in some areas...
E. Swanson
These extremes; hotter summers, colder winters, combined with a shorter spring and fall, will require folks to use more energy to heat/cool their homes and businesses. More "inconvenient" consequences of climate change?
That sure appears to be a potential problem. Take a look at today's UK weather for an example. And, winter hasn't "officially" begun yet!!!
E. Swanson
After the NG situation last winter in the UK and their ongoing fiscal crisis, I have deep concerns for my friends over there. Competition for energy resources this winter, especially in Europe, will be fierce if current weather trends continue. From what I've read here, they seem poorly prepared for extremes.
One "solution" to climate change is adaptation (I just read the story Facing the consequences linked above). If the climate in the UK becomes really unpleasant, they can simply "migrate", as in move. I'm sure the folks in Canada would love to have more people wander in. Oh, wait, the Canadians might need to move too...:-(
E. Swanson
In the UK we have about 1/3 million new faces every year. I can't see anyone closing the new entry soon.
Ha! This accurately describes the response I get, whether the subject is climate change or peak oil. Hear no evil, see no evil, smell no evil, NO!
Time to adapt, folks.
We have had nearly 2 decades of mild winters in Britain until last winter and now this early snow. Floods actually have been more of a problem, with flash floods in many locations. 300 sheep further upstream were lost to our river 18 months ago, but no bridges down thank goodness. Too many homes in many locations across the country have become difficult to insure these days.
Yes, our ~23M homes are mostly expensive to heat and a long way from Continental European standards, particularly those in Scandanavia. The Germans have a massive retro-fit program but our catch-up is too little and running awful slow. Most homes are heated by NG, but out in the rural areas there is still coal being burned in open fires, and electric 'hot-wire' night storage heaters.
Tonight, a local traditional music event we were going to walk to has been canceled, the roads are too treacherous for the musicians to get here. The sky though was was wonderful during our short afternoon (55 deg N), with the geese overhead, winter ducks on the river and a snowy landscape borrowed from the old Dutch master painters.
phil
EU leaders urge 'energy Schengen' with Russia, partners
Looks like the PlanetSolar team has arrived in Miami on its way around the planet in the solar powered boat TÛRANOR. If you haven't been following this journey, I recommend checking out their website. The boat is an amazing piece of technology.
http://www.planetsolar.org/index.en.php
Looks great, but extremely expensive and impractical. Add any weight like cargo to give it a practical application and it won't have enough power. Plus, how much does it cost to rent the berth? That will 5500 for the month please? Oops!
Perhaps adding a kite-sail would push it up into the more practical level.
(Or maybe they can harness a bunch of sea horses to pull them across the great blue vastness?? '-)
Really, such proto-types aren't ever about practicality, but they sometimes suggest more practical applications.
Sail + solar film + storage bateries (lead-acid are O.K., deep in the bilge, like old submarines) + small electric motors make a helluva lot of sense to me. For yachting up to 35' in length a 12 volt trolling motor is good. Now you can get 24 volt electric trolling motors that put out well over 100 pounds of thrust. A couple of those will propel a 50 footer at better than three knots. Put four of them together and you could propel Columbus's big ship, the SANTA MARIA at about three knots. Maybe faster.
We've got a good deal of lead and lots of acid; let's use them. Oh, and let us also go back to wooden masts, Manila hemp rigging, and canvas sails.
I am a traditionalist and can remember when Dacron first was used for sails. We don't need Dakron or other high-tech materials to sail efficiently.
Or just put sails on it. At a minimum, they need to catch up with windjammers like the Preussen, a five-masted barque with a cargo capacity of 8,100 short tons, top speed of 20 knots, that typically made 16 knots while crossing the Atlantic. You have to suspect that with modern materials for sails and rigging, plus satellite weather information, she could have done at least slightly better today.
Or just put sails on it.
Well, that would be my first choice. Sailboats have worked quite well for thousands of years (even better with modern technology), and can be as big or as small as you want. Solar powered boats achieve the same thing (zero fossil fuel use) at vastly increased cost, and vastly reduced practicality.
Some solar might be a nice assist on windless days, I suppose.
It does give a rather different feel to the exhortation: "Swab the deck."
Being becalmed in the Doldrums is no fun at all. Give me batteries to get me across the Horse Latitudes and other places and times when there is no wind.
IMNSHO, battery-powered small electric motors are the perfect complement to sails. Charge the batteries either with wind turbines or solar film or both.
8,000 tons is plenty big enough for a sailboat, and you probably should stop at five masts. I think the schooner rig is slightly more efficient than the 5-masted barque rig. Schooners do best close-hauled; with the wind aft the barque would have a slight advantage over the schooner. Typically, in a sailboat you spend most of your time close hauled, expecially when you have to tack against the wind.
With over 4,000 hours as a sailing instructor, I have some skills and experience which may greatly increase in value as the price of oil (and then coal) rise to prohibitive prices.
I've spent a bit of time on the water myself.
Pirates have been a big concern, but most of my offshore has been in the Western Pacific.
I lived on a Piver Tri for a while.
My brother is a master boat builder, and my friends in Micronesia deliver boats all over the world.
For the last trip of the 2010 CSA season, our main sailboat (34' Catalina) flew home at 11 kts speed (under sail).
Sails are good.
Looks great, but extremely expensive and impractical. Add any weight like cargo to give it a practical application and it won't have enough power.
Don;t be too quick to rule it out. There is one use that does not involve a lot of weight - it could be used as a passenger ferry.
There is a smaller version of this in Australia, that uses it's tiltable panels as wingsails
http://www.solarsailor.com/technology_faq.htm
Of course, both these examples have been designed to be very energy efficient in their hull shape. so efficient, that, for the Australian boat, a 30hp diesel could power it for a hell of along time on the cost of the panels and electrical system.
These boats are interesting demonstrations, but they demonstrate that the best way to go is to make the vehicle highly efficient, such that the energy used is minimal.
One problem with a solar pv boat is what to do in overcast weather? If you have to carry enough battery storage, then your weight and cost are increasing, and the efficiency of your lightweight boat is decreasing.
Efficiency first, then look at your energy sources. The greenest may not be the best.
Computer meltdown leaves Aussies without cash
This doesn't sound like any 'corrupted file' I've ever run across.
I have seen at least one case where a single master file containing security codes could, if it were corrupted, and the corrupted data propagated into the distributed copies, would have shut down service for hundreds of thousands of customers. TTBOMK it never happened, but it was feasible, and led to a very expensive high-priority upgrade project.
Earlier this year, a bad file with routing information was propagated and caused about 15% of global internet traffic to be routed improperly through China for a while. TPTB are still debating whether it was a "corrupted" file, or if it was an intentional attack. No one lost service, but some things slowed down horribly until the problem could be corrected.
Distributed networks of software that indirectly depend on a master file somewhere can be disturbingly vulnerable to corruption of that file. Designing robust distributed systems is really hard.
From the BBC Is squirrel the perfect austerity dish?
Bright-eyed and bushy tailed, squirrels are cute, furry and, apparently, very edible.
The notion of stewed squirrel may not tempt everybody's taste buds, but in an age of tightening belts and financial severity, the humble abundance of the squirrel is causing some to reconsider its epicurean virtue.
Just one geologist's view of squirrel stew...YUM! Personal anecdote re: squirrel survival resource. During my senior year worhing on my B.S. I lived well on sq. stew. Saving money for grad school was a priority. Though a French Quarter boy I did grow up on a good bit of game food. But not having a car I did't have access to the country. But I had easy bus access to our big (and sq. filled) public park. Easy hunting too. The sq. weren't shy about approaching the benches for handouts. Easy work with an air pistol. Then it was a quick ride home on the bus with my furry little friends in a bag.
I think if they really wanted to drum up a new survival food I think they would highlighted pigeons.
Hmong neighbors of mine set up a pigeon coot outside a second floor window from which they regularly harvest squab. Apparently these "rock doves: were originally brought over for their food value.
Went things really get bad, it won't take too long in most cities to deplete these food sources, though.
As a survivial enthusiast, I could not agree more. Unfortunateley I have not had the opurtunity to get into hunting, mostly I just eat roots and such, but it is on my to-do list. Squirrel and doves can be easily hunted with a crossbow using blunt arrows. (See http://www.nba.fi/sv/manadensfm_armborst ,the page is in swedish but the pictures are in english :c).
As pointed out there is however not enough food from this source, should we hit a fast sudden collapse. The swedish army estimated 50 000 people could live on what nature provides in Sweden. Archeologists also estimates that was the number of people living here before agriculture. Now we are 9 000 000, wich means 1 of 180 will survive. Since less than so many have survivialist skills, I hope to be among the surviviors. If life post everything would be worth the effort.
With practice, you can take a squirrel with a slingshot, using a .25" steel ball. Trapping squirrels is easy; they are clever but also dumb in certain key ways. Feed the squirrels in your yard some corn or something else they like: They will become fat, dumb, and happy until the snare wire tightens. Of course, a powerful air pellet rifle is fine for squirrel at short range. .22 rifles and .410 shotguns also work well on small game.
Poultry seasoning is good with squirrel or rabbit.
With practice, you can take a squirrel with a slingshot
With a little practice, I could take an elk munching on the trees in my back yard with a bow and arrow. This would serve two purposes, it would give me enough meat to last the winter, and it would stop the elk from eating my trees. Squirrels? I don't think they're worth the effort and they don't eat the trees, only the pine cones.
Bringing home a creel of squirrel is a lot like bringing home a creel of trout. Well worth it. You can easily gut and clean them on the spot (and once in a while you hit the jack pot and find a sleeping coon up a tree- great bbq).
Maybe it's a Wisconsin/ Minnesota kind of thing.
When I was growing up. My dad and I used to go out and snare gofers. It was strictly catch and release, and he stopped when he realized this was not what most fathers were doing with their sons in Milwaukee.
But he grew up in rural South Dakota in the Depression, so I'm guessing that this was a way of putting protein on the table, though he never mentioned it.
not what most fathers were doing with their sons in Milwaukee.
1) on the lot sizes in any big city? Sounds like a short lived thing to do.
2) Given what man does to 'pest animals' in cities - I'd hate to think of the toxic load in the city critters.
We'd go out to parks and open areas. And we didn't eat them there. But that's a good point about toxicity for those planning to eat city critters of any sort.
I love it! Your Dad was "old school" - the real deal. Reminds me of the Detroit Coon Man
Actually, the Abert's squirrels do in fact eat Ponderosa pine. But they don't eat the one in which they build their nest.
In event of coronal mass ejection (CME) and subsequint electro magnetic pulse (EMP) as happened during the 'Carrington Event of 1859', our dieoff ratio will probably be about the same due to total multi-year grid failure.
http://chasblogspot.blogspot.com/2009/08/carrington-event.html
We are just not nature people any more and the massive population will destroy any animal/bird population in just a few days. The House bill to diminish some of the EMP damage was changed in the Senate to something about Green Energy.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=190721
I've been aware about the carrington event for about a year now, although that blog post filled me up on a lot of details. Very intresting read.
Now a question that has been bothering me for a while:
Oil refineries are a facility where you heat up oil far above their flame point in high pressure containers. I read some place they can never operate on 100% capacity because they will explode if they do. Now; if such a flare event happened and all sensors and controll devises shut off in just one second, what would happen to the refinery? We would lose controll of it, but would it just spinn down and go to sleep, or would it explode?
Seem's like the Brits are getting used to seeing 'wild' food on the menu.
Recipes for wild duck and pigeon
One myth to explode is that “high” game is a bit whiffy. ...“Hanging game until it stinks is all wrong. If you buy it from a butcher, it’s ready to eat straight away,” he explains.
And if your expecting a crowd try this handy trick (video)
Mitchener's 'big gun' in 'Chesapeake'.
I had thought the first thing to go on the newer more focused TOD were the trapping and cooking squirrel stories.
I expect that you could search drumbeat for the frequency of the occurrence of the word and use that as a reliable proxy for how wacky the level of conversation.
It is still going to be hard to refer serious people to TOD as a meaningful player in the energy discussion when so much of it is taken over by survivalist stuff.
I don't know that there will be that big a difference in the Drumbeat comments. The changes are mostly for the key posts.
I find this subthread undesirable, not so much because it's survivalist nuttiness, but because it's not really on topic. The point that the Greater Depression may have impacts on wildlife is worth noting. The personal accounts of all the squirrels I've eaten before, not so much.
I'd really like people to cut back on the personal anecdotes. Unless it's really illustrating an important point, this isn't the place.
As for the survivalist stuff...I don't think the intention was to eradicate it, but to make room for other views. I'll think about it. In the meantime, feel free to flag any posts you feel are unhelpful.
Thanks. I'm happy leaving it in your good hands. I do think the Drumbeats could use a little pruning, but the emphasis on the key posts seems well placed.
Yair...At a personal level I enjoy the survivalist exchanges...it gives an insight as to how other folks live and think...there's a couple of kangaroos moving in onto my lawn...
Ha! Ha! Point well taken, Jack.
However... many of us came to the conclusion a long time ago, that there would never be a meaningful dialogue on energy (in the U.S. anyway) and that's why we continue to trade squirrel recipes.
Case in point: My in-laws pre-positioned themselves in a hotel in a large Midwestern city in anticipation of the Black Friday madness. This is what passes for "entertainment" in a crashing empire. Me: I spent the weekend insulating my house, splitting firewood and trying to educate myself on the physics behind solar electric. So, who is more wacky?
In the Land of the Blind,
the one-eyed man is ...
more whacky (by consensus)
[ i.mage.+]
I live 8,000 miles away from the American mid-West.
10,000 years ago that might have been sufficient. In the age of ICBMs and global climate change, not so much.
Link up top: Mexico, Peak Oil, and Immigration
Mexico is down from peak by almost 900,000 barrels per day or 26%. It is highly unlikely that they will return to pre-peak levels even with outside assistance. The insinuation here is that if Mexico would just change its laws and allow outside assistance they could just jack up production to the old levels and perhaps a lot higher.
That is simply wrong because Mexico already uses outside service companies. And as a result they have temporarily stopped the decline but have not been able to increase production at all.
Mexico's Salinas Urges `Permanent' Attack on Cartels Amid Rising Deaths
Ron P.
Mexico's problem is collapse of production at its supergiant Cantarell field, which at one time was the second-biggest oil field in the world by production. It is currently producing about a quarter of the oil it was during its heyday.
Mexico has only one Cantarell. It has other oil fields, but they aren't nearly as productive and will be much more expensive to develop. I think Mexico is well past its oil peak and will be hard-pressed to supply its own oil demand in future. They need to think more about demand management - i.e. higher fuel taxes, as well as privatizing their oil sector.
Ron - For those who don’t know Cantarell is not a part of a trend. Skipping the details it’s really a one-of-a-kind accumulation. Mexico did have a prolific conventional oil trend (the Golden Trend) but just like our old trends is way past its prime.
Probably the only major play left for Mexico is its portion of the DW GOM. US companies have already begun development just on our side of the line. A year or more ago I read PEMEX was awaiting delivery of three drillship for their DW play. But I’ve heard nothing of late. Given the development cost of DW fields I wonder if PEMEX will have the capability to explore/develop the trend without foreign investments.
I have seen the uniqueness issue brought up before and Whipple has described that Cantarell was geologically shaped by a meteor impact.
http://www.fcnp.com/550/peakoil.htm
Web - may just be another urban legend but I've read its discovery was something of a fluke also. Supposedly a local fisherman kept complaining to PEMEX that their wells in the area was leaking oil and hurting fishing. But PEMEX knew they weren't producing oil in that area and finally investigated. The natual seeps led them to drill in a trend they had written off long ago.
If this is true, then the situation is very very bad.
It's true, and the situation is very, very bad. Cantarell is going the way of the dinosaurs.
That's kind of an inside paleontological joke. The Cantarell oil field formed in the crater that was created by the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. It's unique in the world because the dinosaurs were only wiped out once.
Jedi - I'm far from an expert on Cantarell but that description doesn't fit at all what I've read of the reservoir dynamics. If I've got it right it's not the water level moving up but the cap expanding down as they inject N2 that's pushing the field quickly towards depletion. The N2 generation plant at the field is the largest ever built.
Actually, I looked it up and that study is old news. It was leaked to the press in 2006, and predicted that Cantarell production might fall from 2 million bpd to 520,000 bpd by the end of 2008.
In reality Cantarell production fell to 750,000 bpd by the end of 2008, and to 500,000 bpd by September 2009. At the end of 2010 it's down to 465,000 bpd. So whoever did the study gets full marks for predicting amount of the production decline, although they were a few months off on the timing.
At the time Pemex refused to release the study and said it would take steps to stop the decline. Of course, its efforts were totally ineffective in preventing it. Pemex gets an "F" on this test.
We need someone to leak a similar study on Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field so we can find out what's going on there. There are strong suspicions that it is something similar, and we know from the Pemex experience that you can't expect state oil companies to be honest and above board about what's going on in their oil fields.
I guess the only effective way to slow decline is to reduce production. It is rare at least in the western world but have been done. As someone noted the the north sea peaked and started to decline despite the best technologies being used but what else should be expected if all the best technologies are being used to deplete a resource as fast as possible.
It will be interesting to see which way Norway will choose expanding the rail network or airports and highways. So far it seems they have chosen airports and highways but some money have also been spent on the rail network but the interesting part is what will happen then the decline continue and the flow of money slow down. Norway is different there is no onshore or close shore just offshore so if they chose to not build a good rail network they could get a real shock.
Norway have one large advantage to UK it is sparsely populated and they also have plenty of other natural resources. The terrain in Norway is however not suitable for building good roads and rail networks but they have the ocean that is slow and very suitable for transportation of heavy goods.
For developing DW, couldn't Pemex borrow foreign money using existing oil production as collateral for drilling and other develpment expenses? That way they would not have to give any equity to foreigners.
Remember Humphrey Bogart in the Mexican oil field near the beginning of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE? Truly a great flick.
Regarding using existing production as collateral, foreign lenders would presumably insist on the right to foreclose on the properties, in the event of default, which would mean foreigners taking ownership of the producing properties, which I believe is banned by the Mexican constitution.
Don - As WT says private loans (if they could even get them) might not be an option. The IMF might be a source but then again it goes back to credit worthiness. I don't know the details of Mexico's cash flow but they may have run down their cash flow too far to handle finance/development costs and maintain their social programs. That had been PEMEX's complaint for decades: the govt wasn't allowing PEMEX to retain enough revenue to perpetuate its activites. Folks might think the public would allow the constitution be ammended but from what I've read those folks have been so ginned up against foreign involvment in their oil sector it might be difficult to do before it's too late to make a difference.
"Neither apocalypse nor paradise"
Dream on.
If we look at the reach of oil into every cell of every person in this world of oil, the only conclusion is apocalypse.
Don't prepare for paradise.
I was just wondering what preparation was required for paradise :-)
I think it is interesting to hear this part:
This is one of those articles that reminds me of Dmitry Orlov's anecdote that ends with him saying, "... and then you realize they are serious."
He finished by saying, "like trying to scare our neighbors straight." Which I think does fall into the catagory of "doing things that don't work."
But I also thought along the lines of: "Like trying to 'educate' the public," or "like trying to influence policy decisions" of the Global or National Industrial Complex.
Those seem to be things we are attached to doing that have not been working.
Anti ethanol GOP senator says cutting oil subsidies on the table:
If that is the case, the next question is whether the subsidy cuts will be proportional or not. It other worlds if the dominant renewable liquid fuel’s subsidies are eliminated, will oil’s many subsidies also be eliminated?
Or will there be proportionality; i.e .if ethanol takes a 50 percent subsidy cut will oil also take a 50% cut?
If the quoted article numbers are correct, proportional cuts would nominally hurt oil more than ethanol since oil subsidies are about 8 time those of ethanol and would save tax payers about 8 times as much .
For example a 10% cut to ethanol would mean a loss of $1.6 billion. While a 10% cut to oil would mean a loss of about $13.3 billion to oil interests.
The anti ethanol crowd would love to eliminate renewable ethanol subsides and tilt the “playing field” to near a perpendicular angle in favor of depleting oil. That playing field is already tilted at about a 45 degree angle in favor of oil by subsidies that are generally not even counted such as Wars for Oil Security, spending to fight terrorism related to those wars including FBI monitoring and TSA groping, and the blood of Americans being maimed and dying to protect our oil supply.
I’m betting ethanol subsidies will be eliminated and oil subsidies will remain mostly untouched.
The EROEI Kool Aid has been swallowed. Al Gore being the latest to take the fatal dose.
All that remains is the country's death agony as it falls down the back side of Hubbert’s curve.
Sarah Palin is opening an office in Iowa. I wouldn't worry about your subsidies being cut. She will tweet to death anyone who votes to end the subsidies. Coburn cut oil subsidies. Ha Ha Ha Hs. You won't find a better friend of the oil industry than he and his sidekick Inhofe, both from Oklahoma.
Would someone be kind enough to point me in the right direction?
In a nutshell: I'd like to pose an open question in the hope that someone on TOD will be knowledgeable enough to bring me up to speed. However, I don't want to post this in an inappropriate place (such as this).
Does anything like that exist around here?
My question is about solar photovoltaic panels and how sustainable they are to produce / maintain.
Any help appreciated.
Cheers,
Nick.
You can ask that here.
No guarantees on the quality of the replies, but you can ask. :-)
Great, thanks Leanan :-)
Ok, well I've pretty much alluded to it above but perhaps a little more blurb wouldn't go amiss:
With all the talk about renewable energies one in particular piques my interest. Photovoltaic solar panels. They seem to epitomise the renewable energy movement and are often banded about as a possible energy-panacea, e.g. country-sized panels in desert locations.
However, I rarely if ever see any mention about the resources required to manufacture and maintain these panels. So, to cut to the chase:
1. What non-renewable resources (oil, rare earths) are unavoidably involved in the manufacture of PV solar panels?
2. How much of these non-renewable resources would be required to manufacture enough PV solar panels to fill the current forecasted energy-gap scenarios?
3. What would the non-renewable upkeep be of, say, a civilization that kept our current level of energy consumption but had fully switched to PV panels?
In other words, how sustainable are these sustainable energy sources?
I'm only after ballpark figures. Are we talking thousands of years? Hundreds of years? Decades?
One of the most puzzling things to me is why so many people are so eager to spend their money on such an expensive technology.
Here in the middle of Maine, the typical solar PV project has a simple payback in the 20 to 25 year range. Even with government incentives and tax credits, the simple payback is still in the 12 to 15 year range.
In contrast, lighting upgrades are typically in the range of 3 to 5 years simple payback. And putting timers on beverage coolers and vending machines can have a two to four month simple payback. But most people still want to buy a solar PV system, if and when they can find enough money.
Makes me wonder where they went to school.
It depends on your worldview, Breadman, and how you define payback..
I think your 'payback' scenario of 20-25 years is only valid if BAU continues for the next 20-25 years.
What if your locale went without stable electrical supplies for a year or two - how would you calculate payback then?
What is the 'payback' for a generator? What if you can't get fuel for the generator - what would be the payback then?
Valid point arrdy. But then you have that nasty feed back loop: what if a lot of folks went PV and reduced demand for utility electricity. Then prices comes down. And pay off stretches out for decades. And if we get off of our glutonous taste for motor fuels in a big way: greater drop in energy costs.
So it sounds like Todsters should realy promote the alts but let everyone else the big bucks to do it while we wait for near free electricity and gasoline.
Hey...it is a nice fantasy. LOL.
There in the middle of Maine, one would think that solar power would be one of the less obvious ways to solve your energy problems. You can always burn wood for heat, and no doubt find some small-scale hydro potential on some stream to generate the electricity to keep your compact fluorescent light bulbs illuminated.
The big problem would be how to get into town to buy supplies if you can't buy gasoline. Probably a wagon and a couple of horses would work better than an electric car.
There in the middle of Maine, one would think that solar power would be one of the less obvious ways to solve your energy problems. You can always burn wood for heat
One can also use Solar for heat. Evacuated glass tubes and radiant floor heating can work as a retrofit.
Not necessarily ... I have evacuated tubes for hot water and solar PV ... but I live in the UK with short winter days that are also often cloudy ... so I only get close to 100% of max theoretical output in the summer months - I don't need heating then!
PV is especially poor on cloudy mid-winter days when we use the most energy, you might get almost zero power for days on end.
In the UK we use on average about 120 KWh of primary energy per person per day - the trouble with averages is they don't indicate the massive difference in energy requirements between mid-summer and mid-winter.
If we in the UK had to supply all of our current mid-winter primary energy as PV electricity we would need huge areas of land, to say nothing of huge storage systems to cover the 18 hours a day (at best) when the panels produce no electricity.
Xeroid-
The UK better think about nuclear power and fast. Large population, no land, no resources, crappy climate. When the heat turns off and the lights go out... Opinions will change in a hurry.
UK has a world of trouble coming, but for heating, nukes aren't likely the best way to go. Super insulation and maybe some geothermal would probably be more cost effective.
Here in Pennsylvania, with the state refund and the federal tax credit about 2/3rds of my system cost was covered. With the saving in electricity and that I'm a "renewable energy generator" and can sell renewable energy credits (RECs) for the power I produce in PA, my payback is only 5-6 years or so. The RECs are worth about 2x the money I save in electricity.
Besides the environmental benefits and hedging against increased electricity costs, it's a fantastic investment. My system covers 70%+ of my power needs and with some more belt tightening (a better AC unit would really help), I should get up to 100% coverage hopefully.
You can go too lots of websites and read all about PV and about all the mega watt projects that are being installed in the U.S.A. All the Billions that are being spent and it all sounds great and it is great until you get too the bottom line. America produces only 0.1% of its electricity from P.V. that is 1 watt in every 1,000. If America was to double its installation rate, which it is not every year, then it would take 4 years to produce 1% of the U.S.A.s electricity which would bring us up too the end of 2014 by which time world oil supplies would be in decline perhaps at the rate of 2% who knows, it is just going to be impossible too catch up with decline of oil even if we could really compare the two. I think one of the troubles is that we view P.V. when we are thinking of installing a system in terms of ROI and not in terms of what would the costs would be if I didn't have electricity, remember some power is better than no power. This concept is certainly understood by Hospitals that have back up generators. I should also start thinking in these terms as well as payback times.
There is no equivalent that I know of that would be TOD-like for PV EROEI discussions.
The best casual resource for PV news that I use is http://www.solarbuzz.com/index.asp
My thought is similar to yours: I wonder if global PV production can reach a production 'self-sufficiency', or ideally net positive production, such that future PV can be produced by power generated by existing renewables.
My thought is not one of BAU, but some new state of civilization where energy is still used, but not like today.
I keep loosing track of the link, but there was a PV factory that ran for a while on PV energy. Someone else will probably have the link somewhere?
That would be the one in Maine, bought by BP and sold off.
Thanks, eb.
I don't think that is the way to look at "self-sustaining" in terms of PV solar.
It's not whether there are PV plants running off their own rooftop panels but whether we've reached the point where all the panels on the grid are producing as much power as is used in manufacturing new panels. I would expect that we've already reached the point where more power is flowing to the grid from installed panels than is pulled from the grid for panel manufacturing.
We've either wisely invested or are wisely investing fossil fuel energy, a finite source, to create a new power source which will not be used up in only one hundred years or so as we have done with oil.
That's great, thanks for the link Mrflash818 - I'm certainly going to pay them a visit.
I'm thinking that I may do a casual study myself if I can't find an existing one.
"1. What non-renewable resources (oil, rare earths) are unavoidably involved in the manufacture of PV solar panels?"
For the silicon version, silica is the obvious input, as MG silicon (reduced to the impure element). Silicon tetrachloride, but that is made from silica and HCl. Natural gas (both for heat and H2 production), electric power in large amounts, but that is hydro around here, and I don't know if you count that as renewable or not. (Some don't like dams, so condemn the power as well.)
Also graphite is an input, as well as phosphorous and boron, but those last two are in ppm levels, so don't amount to much on a per acre of module basis. Tin oxide might be a limiting one, transparent conductors are sort of scarce. I'm not sure what they use to solder the cells together, that keeps changing depending on lead bans, discoveries about solder whiskers, and so on.
In the plant that refines the silicon, the limiting input is probably the nickel, needed for various alloys above and beyond simple stainless steels. But once you have your 200 tons, it doesn't actually go anywhere. And it's available for recycle as parts are replaced. Chromium is another obvious one, but based on prices it's more common than nickel. Also recyclable. The rest is iron.
For the cadmium cells, the limiting element is likely to be tellerium. For CIGS, indium is already in the same price ballpark as silver. Gallium is not too scarce, as it's a byproduct of aluminum production, but getting it to electronic grade is non-trivial.
Solar cells are not really dependent on rare inputs. It's putting the inputs together correctly that is the challenge. Impurity levels are measured in ppb routinely, and ppt for some of the problematic ones.
Brilliant. Cheers PVguy.
Your information has helped to make me a bit more optimistic about their widespread deployment. From initial appearances they don't seem to be as resource intensive as I had previously thought.
I think I may do a very crude feasibility study to try and get some ballpark figures.
Like you say though, it may be difficult to fully appreciate and evaluate the hidden impact of gathering those resources into sufficient quantities for commercial viability.
I wouldn't say that was a very good explanation by pvguy. Boron and phosphorus are dopants. But then how much phosphoric acid is used in the production process as well as all the other chemicals? I would rather see the subject done some justice. PVGuy shoots from the hip.
Well I guess his moniker might indicate his bias..
I, too, would very much like to see a comprehensive investigation of the issue. If only just a general feasibility study to give a ballpark figure for the quantities of resources needed to meet current energy demand (and perhaps their percentage of earth's known resources).
I'm less interested in economic viability, just theoretical limits - i.e. if done under slave labour etc. would it still be possible to sustain an energy demand of our current level?
N.
Thanks for the in depth answer, I've been wondering about this as well.
On this note, I was wondering if you could answer the same question in regards to rechargeable batteries?
I think it may be harder to answer since there are many different types of battery, but if you're trying to work out if solar panels can be scaled up to meet future energy needs, it seems like a good idea to do the same thing for the ability to store the energy. I've had a search of the site but haven't seen any relevant links.
This could also be expanded to see just how many cars could run using rechargeable batteries, if the materials can be recycled using renewable energy, and if they need rare earths etc as well.
One common sustainable metric, is the Energy Payback time.
That comes in at single digit years, and some plants claim less than a year.
As always, what number you get, depends on what you included.
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1119
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm
Note there are MANY variants of Solar PV technology, and the Energy Payback varies across them, as too does the materials exposure.
In most materials, it is less a question of 'finite', but rather one of 'finite affordable', and that is where the Energy payback works well. As materials supply chain costs increase (because they are harder to find or process), that goes up, and as they decrease, it comes down.
No one is ramping a technology where they can see a looming materials bottleneck.
One good thing about so many PV solution variants, is if some resource DOES prove to be scarce in a decades time, another variant can replace it.
Excellent info, thanks jg.
I agree that it does appear to be good news that we're not putting all our eggs in one basket.
I'm really surprised by the apparent quick energy payback. Maybe they're on to something with this PV lark after all...
Nick.
Any answers you can dig up will likely be theoretical.
First, define 'sustainable'
I assume you mean something like "can be manufactured without external energy inputs with a net positive energy."
The very first step would be: could a solar cell plant be powered entirely by its own solar cells. I am unaware of any that do so.
The next step would be: could the factory 'raw materials' be manufactured by energy produced by solar cells. Mined, refined, processed and delivered.
The next step would be: could the factory equipment be manufactured by energy produced by solar cells.
As you tease out each component of the life cycle, you will see that there is an incredibly complex infrastructure which supports it. Moving the entire infrastructure from coal, oil, nat gas, nukes and hydroelectric to solar would be incredibly difficult. But in the end - its just different forms of energy.
In short, I doubt that any one knows the answer.
Thanks Ron. Apologies, I was typing out my extended question above before seeing this.
I fully comprehend the complexity of the system and in a way you've summed up my concern - can solar panels be implemented from start to finish with, firstly, a positive EROEI and secondly a sustainable source of raw materials (at least from a reasonable human civilization lifespan perspective).
Nick.
Ron,
I continue to find that to be the wrong challenge to Test PV manufacturing with. "Can PV power its own manufacture?"
If the question is "how much does PV rely on an Oil Infrastructure?" Then I see no reason for a test which allows PV MFG to look at PV Electricity as some lonely, monolithic source to drive its own existence with.
It is a unique kind of electrical source, and is very handy for a range of applications, such as portable and handheld devices, and a relatively convenient rooftop supply, but it's not as if we're looking to a world that would be 'Purely PV Powered'.. Wind and Water would still flow, and there are gasses and oils that can still be burned, just not as many as today. With concentrators, Solar Heat can be focused up to very high temperatures, and could likely feed many industrial processes.
Suggesting that PV has to carry the whole load is kind of a decoy question, since that's not really a goal that PV alone would ever be expected to meet.
Bob
Yair...to digress a little. I have a problem when it comes to mathematics and to think that a little PV window on a ten dollar calculator can provide sufficient power to do complex calculations FROM THE LIGHT OF A SEVENTY FIVE WATT LIGHT BULB is realy quite amazing.
I'm not sure what you mean by sustainability of production. If you mean "can PV production be maintained after oil production declines", that has been the subject of much debate on TOD. I don't think that there has been a concensus. After a post oil collapse, I'm not sure that we'll be sustaining production of anything much in the high tech sector, though I believe that PV production will remain a priority in an energy constrained world. The availability of materials will likely present as big of a challenge as availability of oil/energy used in production.
If you are refering to sustainability in an environmental sense, it depends on the manufacturing process and the source. Many producers are committed to an environmentally responsible process; others less so.
Maintaining a well designed and constructed PV system is easy. Barring a disaster of some sort, one only needs to keep one's PV panels clean, something I rarely do because the rain washes them nicely. I give mine a good scrubbing/inspection about once a year (unless a vulture or something craps on them). My first group of monocrystaline panels are producing full rated output after 16 years. They just sit in the sun and make electricity. They have survived 1" hail, high winds, heavy snow, etc. Most quality panels include a 20-25 year warranty, something I consider a safe bet for manufacturers. I posted a story some time back about some old Arco panels still producing full rated output after 30+ years. This seems to be the norm rather than the exception for crystaline PV. I'm not sure about amorphous/thin film PV as they haven't been in use as long, though it is clear that failures are rare to this point.
More here:
http://homepower.com/article/?file=hp118_pg12_asktheexperts_1
Thanks for the response Ghung, I think you've understood my concerns.
I was more interested in your former example: can PV production be sustained for any reasonable amount of time without being constrained by physical resource scarcity, rather than due to environmental / other policy issues. Although perhaps this is an academic distinction.
It's encouraging to see that they are fairly robust. Is there a consensus as to how long they could last?
I just wonder what's the gameplan? I'm not just talking about PV panels, I just thought it would be a nice example to focus on as they're fairly high-tech and shiny. But I'm equally interested in all 'renewable' sources (as I'm sure the majority of people on here are too). The issue I have is that there never seems to be much mention of the generation after the current generation of renewables. It seems to be that people are expecting to replace all fossil-fuel based energy sources with renewables in one fell swoop, and then that will serve us ad infinitum.
Or perhaps I've missed the point, and the idea is to temporarily fill the energy gap to give us enough time to figure out how to get off the planet.
Nick.
Edit: just read your linked article. That's very interesting to read about the theoretical infinite lifespan of the silicon cells.
"I just wonder what's the gameplan?"
Gameplan? There's no gameplan. We're just making this up as we go along our merry human way ;-)
Maybe our kind will just grow up and realize that there are limits to be respected. On the other hand, maybe we won't. Either way, the wild ride humans have taken thanks to fossil fuels will grind to a halt shortly. When that happens, as JHK wrote: "reality....will probably take us out to some woodshed of the national soul and beat the crap out of us."
Think mitigation and adaptation.
We're just making this up as we go along our merry human way ;-)
Thought as much ;-)
N.
Thats true, a few people are working on plans, but they are scattered and recieve little support. Our own Alan Drake is one.
As far as the issue of can solar (or wind) produce enough energy to reproduce itself, the answer is yes. Will society stay together is tha face of decline is a more difficult question. Here is one group that is trying to make solar scalable into the terawatt range:
CoolEarthSolar
Who is seeking to use air filled mylar reflectors to reduce the amount of active
PV material by several hundred times.
Thanks for the link, will take a read through.
Out of interest, are there any studies I could read up on re: renewables being able reproduce themselves? I presume they've accounted for energy required to mine materials / provide food for miners etc. etc (i.e not just energy costs associated in the direct manufacture of the end product).
One of the things I'd most be interested in is whether there are enough raw materials to provide renewable power to the entire globe. I know it's just one example, but are there enough Cadmium Telluride substitutes to allow large-scale deployments? (See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride#Availability)
I'm truly just curious whether things are being thought through thoroughly or whether we're likely to settle with whoever has the best marketing scheme / gets their foot in the door first.
N.
No silver bullets, lots of BBs. There are efforts to utilize just about any form of renewable energy; wind, solar PV, solar thermal (of all types: concentrating; solar hot water; passive solar), hydro (macro and micro), tidal, biomass, etc. The list is long and remarkable work is being done.
If humans can implement a coordinated effort to develop all of these sources along with efficiency gains and reduced consumption of all things, develop a cultural bias against waste, reduce population, restore ecosystems,,,, our children's children will be much happier on the downslope from peak oil.
You can see the problem. It's us, shooting ourselves in the foot.
"If humans can implement a coordinated effort to develop all of these sources along with efficiency gains and reduced consumption of all things, develop a cultural bias against waste, reduce population, restore ecosystems"
Good list. May I add, "and stop having any more kids for a while"?
Soooo, how do we get there? Consumption has become how we define ourselves in so many ways. It is the basis of global culture.
And as I noted elsewhere, power is power.
The powerful will not give up their access to energy/power easily, no matter what consequences for future (or even current) generations.
The bigger companies are not backing any single horse.
Their main production is continually improving, and materials consumed per cell are being lowered.
They also have other backup materials, and there, cost will be one factor, but remember Efficiency is an important bragging right, and lowering Efficiency, would be considered a 'loss of face'.
(even if the $/Watt was better)
One example :
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/first-solar-solar-firms-horse-race...
and you'll see frequent research mentions of way to use less of a rare material, or ways to displace it entirely.
If the material is NOT actually in short supply, then 'better the devil you know' applies, and they continue with that.
High yield, cutting edge Production is as much an art, as science.
Blimey, that doesn't really sound like someone that's 110% confident they can provide enough PV panels for the entire earth.
Good job you mentioned the alternatives in the earlier post! :-)
There is one small got'cha if you plan to install a solar array on your roof and that's the roof itself. Most asphalt shingle roofs very commonly used in the USA are only guaranteed for less or not much more than the period of the solar array itself. There would be a large expense with the r/r of the array to replace the roof if necessary.
After some study and getting bids, I have concluded that one should place the solar array on a metal roof which is typically 3 times the cost of an asphalt roof. I await more development of the combined panels/shingles which I think will be the ultimate answer to the problem.
Of course, since the HighStrength Glass on a Solar Panel is often able to outlast many roofing materials, I still wonder if it doesn't make sense to simply roof with it, over an EPDM membrane, perhaps?
As that goes, I wonder what the realistic life expectancy of Asphalt shingles becomes when their life is lived under the pleasant shade of a PV array? Sounds like the most damaging extremes have been removed from their experience at that point..
(Personally, I'm considering the Metal Roof for our upcoming replacement, just on its own merits.. but it's hard to ignore the appeal of letting the PV and other Solar Equipment serve two, critical functions instead of just one, and improve their economics a bit more. Hell, even a dead PV panel makes better-lived roofing component than asphalt Shingle..)
If the shingles are old then get them replaced first.
NAOM
iagreewithnick,
You asked about solar photovoltaic.
When I worked a Boeing/Rocketdyne, a joint venture that built the photovoltaic power panels for the Space Station, the technology was improved by orders of magnitude.
The technology is not the problem, it is the pro-oil propaganda mixed with the anti-renewable resources propaganda that keeps us in la la land, moving ever closer to the precipice of the canyon named "don't go there".
In our society the media sell everything, or not. The bias they have created is powerful like a virus, and there seems to be no antidote except to go to "don't go there".
It is like a doctor saying to an oil addicted civilization, "don't worry, be happy, because the addiction will go away when you die".
Solar thermal would produce larger results sooner than photovoltaic can, but IMO a methanol economy is a better transitional ploy as we phase in several other means.
The problem is mental / emotional, not technological, because the will is a product of the mental / emotional.
Thanks Dredd.
I appreciate the (often unfortunate) influential power of the media and, in fact, I think it is one of the reasons that I wanted to find out the truth about renewables. The last thing I wanted to do is to jump on another trending bandwagon and fight until I'm blue in the face for their immediate widespread implementation only to find out in a decade's time that a lack of a vital resource would throw a spanner in the works.
Conversely, if there's no contravention of the physical laws (relative to the resources at our disposal) then I'm more than happy to be strongly pro-PV and renewables in general.
I'm less interested in the sociological / political factors as I don't truly understand the dynamics of the human race. Again, I fully appreciate that our downfall could be attributed to policies and I would very much lament that. But, at the risk of sounding fatalistic, it almost seems too chaotic for me to comprehend.
I guess I just want to see hard metric figures to put my mind at rest that, at least in theory, an escape is possible.
Cheers,
N.
I will argue that wind, solar thermal, and geothermal, (in that order) along with the ammonia economy will be a better transition. Methanol requires a carbon source, NH3 just needs air, water, and electricity.. of which we have plenty of in the iowa/illinois/minnesota corn belt. (also see Iowa State's NH3 economy research). I do think NH3 will be first, and that Methanol and other liquids will end up being capacity expansions for wind to NH3 plants.
*disclaimer* I have a significant personal ideological investment and potential financial investment in the success of freedom fertilizer *disclaimer*
And for a little bit more shameless self-promoting... because in all reality, this is one of the few forums where the readers might actually get it.. If you are interested in investing in a large-scale petroleum free integrated energy production system, I have an integrated wind farm/ethanol/ammonia/synfuels plant to sell you. (CO2 from corn mash fermentation with reverse water gas shift to liquid hydrocarbon). It's going to be at least 10 years before anyone in the investment community has any idea this will actually work, so as far as I can tell, this is one of the *few* real growth opportunities available.
If you think I'm wrong, would you be willing to formulate terms to bet real money on it in a prediction market?
I'm a little confused about whether or not it's ok to post regarding climate, but as long as articles are on the Drumbeat regarding the topic, I'll figure it's ok. Besides, I think a real good point is made here regarding ice melt in Antarctica.
Also known as, 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Aside from some sharp individuals, we are a simpleton specie that if something is not visually apparent in our neck of the woods, then we question whether it is really happening or not. We are told by Scientists that we are in a period of rapid flux that coincides with the onset and ever increasing output of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. However, we aren't seeing too much change in our own backyard, so who really cares, right? So the majority of a penguin colony disappears - oh well, so what, 'we' still have BAU. Forget the Polar Bear, forget what is happening in some other part of the globe. I suppose that is the concensus attitude. Why am I so sure then that will end up biting us in the arss?
What I'm surprised at is that the approaching total (or near total) melt of the ice cap at the other pole has raised little attention or comment. This will change the basic look and thermal structure of the planet--it will be a change noticeable with our best telescopes from millions of miles away, at least.
What could be more visible and huge?
But I see little to no coverage in the MSM.
Of course, it is not something most people will see with their own eyes, but that is all the more reason it should be constantly pictured, analyzed, discussed...in the pages of every paper and on every blog. Oh, well.
By the way, one of the best blogs for coverage of the Arctic melt season is:
http://neven1.typepad.com/
The Arctic melt - yes, I agree, and thanks for the link.
Foss and Rubin pretend to be giving "families" advice, but they are really writing only for wealthy individuals who have the privilege to play with their investments. I have a wife and two kids. We are renters and we live paycheck to paycheck. There's nothing I can do with either of these people's predictions. I just hope I keep my job. For that matter, there's nothing I can do to "prepare" for peak oil. (Don't tell me to plant a garden. I've been growing vegetables for seven years. It is more expensive to grow your own vegetables than to buy them, even organic. I do it because I love it, not because it is economical. And yes, I make my own compost.)
In short, we discuss and debate this stuff because we are intellectually interested, not because there's anything we can do about it.
Emanuel
Amen.
It's about time somebody said what is probably on the minds of most of the ordinary people here.
Many of us are treading water on a month-to-month basis.
Many of us are praying to hold onto that low-pay job for just one more month in hopes that things will somehow miraculously "turn around".
The idea of putting expensive PV panels on a roof that isn't ours to begin with is kind of ridiculous.
The idea of planting gardens in a backyard we may not own in the very near future is also kind of a ridiculous one.