Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon Part
II: Fossil Fuel Alternatives: | Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | What about alternatives like solar, wind, hydrogen etc? Unfortunately, the ability of these alternatives to replace fossil fuels is based more in myth than reality. Fossil fuels account for 65% of our current global energy supply. None of the traditional alternatives can supply anywhere near this much energy, let alone the amount we will need in the future as our population continues to grow and industrialize. Let's briefly examine the commonly proposed oil alternatives: (The following data has been extensively researched by Bruce Thompson, moderator of the Yahoo Group, Running on Empty) Natural Gas: Natural Gas currently supplies 20% of global energy supply.
Hydro-Electric: Hydro-Electric power currently supplies 2.3% of global energy supply. It is not a sufficient replacement for fossil fuels for the following reasons:
Solar:
Wind: Wind power accounts for .07% of global energy supply. As a replacement for fossil fuels, its problems are:
Hydrogen: Hydrogen accounts for 0.01% of global energy. It is not a true replacement for fossil fuels for the following reasons:
" Hydrogen Fuel Cells" should be called "Hydrogen Fool Cells." The "Hydrogen Economy" is a complete and utter hoax. Dr. Jorg Wing, a representative of the auto giant Daimler/Chrysler made this clear at the Paris Peak Oil Conference when he explained that his company did not view hydrogen as a viable alternative to petroleum-based engines. He stated that fuel cell vehicles would never amount to significant market share. Hydrogen was ruled out as a solution because of intensive costs of production, inherent energy inefficiencies, lack of infrastructure, and practical difficulties such as the extreme cost and difficulty of storage. Nuclear: Nuclear is currently being abandoned globally. Its ability to soften the oil crash is very problematic due to several factors:
Coal: Coal accounts for 24% of current global energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable due to the following reasons:
Non-Conventional Sources Such as Shale, Tar Sand, & Coalbed Methane: These non-conventional sources currently account for 6% of US gas supply. Each of these alternatives would require a huge investment in research and infrastructure to exploit them, plus large amounts of now-expiring oil, before they could be brought online. For example, in Canada about 200 thousand barrels a day are being produced in Alberta of non-conventional oil, but it takes about 2 barrels of oil in energy investment to produce 3 barrels of oil equivalent from those resources. Additionally, the environmental costs are horrendous and the process uses a tremendous amount of fresh water and also natural gas, both of which are in limited supply. The major problem with non-conventional oil is that they cannot be exploited before the oil shocks cripple attempts to bring them on line, and the rate of extraction is far too slow to meet the huge global energy demand. You're
forgetting about biomass and ethanol. Can't we just grow
our fuel?
In an article entitled The Post Petroleum Paradigm, retired Professor of Geology at the University of Oregon, Dr. Walter Youngquist addresses the severe limitations of biomass and ethanol. The following is an excerpt from that article: Oil derived from plants is sometimes promoted as a fuel source to replace petroleum. The facts and experience with ethanol are an example. Ethanol is a plant-derived alcohol (usually from corn) which is used today, chiefly in the form of gasohol, a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Because it is used to some extent,it is commonly thought that ethanol is a partially acceptable solution to the fuel problem for machines. However, ethanol is an energy negative – it takes more energy to produce it than is obtained from ethanol. Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources. About 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol production survives by the grace of a subsidy by the U.S. government from taxpayer dollars. Continuing the production of ethanol is purely a device for buying the Midwest U.S. farm vote, and may also be related to the fact that the company which makes 60% of U.S. ethanol is also one of the largest contributors of campaign money to the Congress – a distressing example of politics overriding logic. Some enterprising individuals have converted their vehicles to run on vegetable oil discarded by fast food restaurants. I encourage everybody to consider doing this. However, it is not a "magic bullet" to our problem as there is simply not enough vegetable oil in the world to power more than a relatively small number of vehicles. I just read an article about some scientists who developed a new reactor that can turn ethanol into hydrogen. What do you have to say about that? My response: 1. See the above question on why ethanol isn't a true substitute for oil. 2. See the above question on why hydrogen isn't a true substitute for oil. 3. Ask yourself: How long would it take for this prototype to being implemented on a wide scale? How much would that cost? Can it be used to fuel airplanes, tanks, cargo ships, large trucks, construction equipment, manufacturing plants? Can it be used to produce fertilizer or plastics? I think you know the answers. What about that new technology that can turn anything into oil? "Thermal depolymerization" which can transform many kinds of waste into oil, could help us raise our energy efficiency as we lose power due to oil depletion. While it could help us ameliorate the crash, it is not a true solution. Like all other forms of alternative energy, we have run out of time to implement it before the crash. Currently, only one thermal depolymerization plant is operational. Thousands of such plants would need to come online before this technology would make even a small difference in our situation. Furthermore, whatever comes out of the process must carry less useful energy than what went into the process, as required by the laws of thermodynamics. Finally, most of the waste input (such as plastics and tires) requires high grade oil to make in the first place. The biggest problem with thermal depolymerization is that it is being advertised as a means to maintain business as usual. Such advertising promotes further consumption, provides us with a dangerously false sense of security, and encourages us to continue thinking that we don't need to make this issue a priority. What about "New" energy. Didn't Nikola Tesla invent some machine that produced lots of energy? There are some very promising technologies currently under development, commonly referred to as "New Energy." The potential of New Energy is enormous. The political, academic, industrial, and enviormental activist resistance to it is equally enormous. While I am about the world's biggest advocate for "New Energy" technologies such as Cold Fusion, and Zero Point, my optimism about their ability to help us cope with oil depletion is guarded. While New Energy has some extremely exciting possibilities, the unfortunate realty is that as I write this, we get absolutely zero percent of our energy from these sources, and we have no functional prototypes. If we as the public started demanding this technology, it could go along way in solving our problems. My optimism regarding New Energy is guarded, not because of its' scientific limitations, but becauase I wonder if we will wake up in time to demand, develop, and implement it. Some of these technologies were pioneered by Nikola Tesla and Dr. Wilhelm Reich. Guess what happened to them? Tesla died penniless. The government burned his books. Reich was sent to prison, where he died. The government burned his books burned as well. In fact, he is the only person to have his books burned by the Russian, German, and American governments. If you would like to learn more, I encourage you to look through Infinite Energy Magazine or read Dr. Eugene Mallove's article, Universal Appeal for Support for New Energy Science. In case this type of thing is important to you: Dr. Mallove has Bachelor and Masters degrees in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from MIT and a P.H.D. in Environmental Health Sciences from Harvard University. So are these alternatives useless? No, not at all. Whatever civilization emerges after the crash will likely derive a good deal of their energy from these technologies. While traditional alternatives such as solar and wind are certainly worth investing in, they are in no way the magic bullets they are so often advertised as. The following
is an excerpt from Professor Richard Heinberg's book, The Party's
Over: Oil,
War, and the Fate of Industrial
Civilizations,
in which he explains why the notion that "All we have
to do is switch to solar, wind., etc . . ." is
delusional in its' simplicity: The hard math of energy resource analysis yields an uncomfortable but unavoidable prospect: even if efforts are intensified now to switch to alternative energy sources, after the oil peak industrial nations will have less energy available to do useful work - including the manufacturing and transporting of goods, the growing of food, and the heating of homes. To be sure, we should be investing in alternatives and converting our industrial infrastructure to use them. If there is any solution to industrial societies' approaching energy crises, renewables plus conservation will provide it. Yet in order to achieve a smooth transition from non-renewables to renewables, decades will be needed - and we do not have decades before the peaks in the extraction rates of oil and natural gas occur. Moreover, even in the best case, the transition will require the massive shifting of investment from other sectors of the economy (such as the military) toward energy research and conservation. And the available alternatives will likely be unable to support the kinds of transportation, food, and dwelling infrastructure we now have; thus the transition will entail an almost complete redesign of industrial societies. I just read an article that states that known oil reserves keep growing. That article is most likely citing the U.S. government agency such as the United States Geological Survey or the Energy Information Agency (EIA). While USGS and EIA reports on past production are largely reliable, their predictions for the future are largely propaganda. They admit this themselves. For instance, after recently revising oil supply projections upward, the EIA stated: These adjustments to the estimates are based on non-technical considerations that support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected demand levels. In
other words, they predict how much they think we're going
to use, and then
tell us, "Guess what, nothing to worry about
- that is how much we've got!" It may come as no surprise to you that our leaders are doing more to exacerbate the problem then they are to solve it. Rather then developing a reasonable plan for handling the coming Oil Crash, our leaders have decided to make a last ditch grab for what little cheap oil is available by stealing it from the nations that have it. With control over the world's dwindling supplies of cheap oil, they will have the ability to choose who lives and who dies. This includes deciding which Americans will live or die. Some of you reading this might be saying to yourself, "Gosh, that sounds like a bunch of left-wing conspiracy b.s. I'm so tired of malcontents like this guy going on and on about how evil the U.S. government is." If so, consider the following (less conspiratorial) outlook: the structure of the U.S. government largely mirrors the structure of a publicly traded corporation. In place of a CEO, we have the president. In place of a board of directors, we have Congress. In place of an oversight committee, we have the Supreme Court. Wealthy interests such as the defense, energy, transportation, and agriculture industries are the shareholders. Average Americans are the employees. Like every analogy, the analogy of the government as a corporation is not a perfect one. Nonetheless, the similarities are uncanny. This should come as no surprise. As President Woodrow Wilson claimed, "The business of America is business." In the corporate world, corporate officers are legally bound to make decisions that are in the best interests of the owners of the company: the shareholders. For instance, if a CEO deems it necessary to sacrifice half of his employees for the good of the company, he is legally obligated to do so. In this regard, if the president deems it necessary to sacrifice large numbers of American (or foreign) lives for the good of the nation, he cannot hesitate to do so. American veterans know this all too well. According to the Veterans Administration, 29% of our troops from the first Gulf War are now disabled with Gulf War Syndrome. That is the highest casualty rate of any war we have ever fought. Since the V.A.'s definition of "disabled" is a high one, the true percentage is more likely in the 35%-70% range. The Reserve and National Guard troops that are now in Iraq have not been issued bullet proof vests. If our leaders are so willing to sacrifice our troops, how willing do you think they are to sacrifice you? When our leaders decide to sacrifice your life or well being for the good of the nation, it's not that they have evil intentions per se. In their own way, they think they are doing what is best. Obviously, many of us may not agree with their reasoning. Finally, keep in mind that these are the same people who give us a color coded chart, a roll of duct tape, and a video of a bearded, homeless guy getting a free dental exam as solutions to terrorism. Folks, we're on our own. If
you would like to learn more, I encourage you to look through Infinite
Energy Magazine or read Dr. Eugene Mallove's article, Universal
Appeal for Support for New Energy Science.
So are these alternatives useless? No, not at all. Whatever civilization emerges after the crash will likely derive a good deal of their energy from these technologies. While traditional alternatives such as solar and wind are certainly worth investing in, they are in no way the magic bullets they are so often advertised as. The following is an excerpt from Professor Richard Heinberg's book, The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Civilizations, in which he explains why the notion that "All we have to do is switch to solar, wind., etc . . ." is delusional in its' simplicity: Clearly, we will need to find substitutes for oil. But an analysis of the current energy alternatives is not reassuring. The hard math of energy resource analysis yields an uncomfortable but unavoidable prospect: even if efforts are intensified now to switch to alternative energy sources, after the oil peak industrial nations will have less energy available to do useful work - including the manufacturing and transporting of goods, the growing of food, and the heating of homes. To be sure, we should be investing in alternatives and converting our industrial infrastructure to use them. If there is any solution to industrial societies' approaching energy crises, renewables plus conservation will provide it. Yet in order to achieve a smooth transition from non-renewables to renewables, decades will be needed - and we do not have decades before the peaks in the extraction rates of oil and natural gas occur. Moreover, even in the best case, the transition will require the massive shifting of investment from other sectors of the economy (such as the military) toward energy research and conservation. And the available alternatives will likely be unable to support the kinds of transportation, food, and dwelling infrastructure we now have; thus the transition will entail an almost complete redesign of industrial societies. |