It’s Not Just Alternative Energy Versus Fossil Fuels or Nuclear – Energy Has to Become DECENTRALIZED

[Demeter]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/guest-post-2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

Proponents for oil, gas, nuclear and coal claim that we must expand these risky and oftentimes deadly types of energy production, or we will shiver in the dark like cavemen...Proponents of alternative forms of energy say we should switch over to cleaner fuels to avoid a parade of horribles … and point to the Gulf oil spill, the Japanese nuclear crisis and the destruction of aquifers with natural gas fracking as examples. Defenders of fossil fuels and nuclear rebut this by saying that alternative energy isn’t ready for prime time yet.


As Thomas Homer-Dixon, director of the Trudeau Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto, notes:

A better measure of the cost of oil, or any energy source, is the amount of energy required to produce it. Just as we evaluate a financial investment by comparing the size of the return with the size of the original expenditure, we can evaluate any project that generates energy by dividing the amount of energy the project produces by the amount it consumes.

Economists and physicists call this quantity the “energy return on investment” or E.R.O.I. For a modern coal mine, for instance, we divide the useful energy in the coal that the mine produces by the total of all the energy needed to dig the coal from the ground and prepare it for burning – including the energy in the diesel fuel that powers the jackhammers, shovels and off-road dump trucks, the energy in the electricity that runs the machines that crush and sort the coal, as well as all the energy needed to build and maintain these machines.

As the average E.R.O.I. of an economy’s energy sources drops toward 1 to 1, an ever-larger fraction of the economy’s wealth must go to finding and producing energy. This means less wealth is left over for everything else that needs to be done, from building houses to moving around information to educating children. The energy return on investment for conventional oil, which provides about 40 percent of the world’s commercial energy and more than 95 percent of America’s transportation energy, has been falling for decades. The trend is most advanced in United States production, where petroleum resources have been exploited the longest and drillers have been forced to look for ever-smaller and ever-deeper pools of oil.

Cutler Cleveland, an energy scientist at Boston University who helped developed the concept of E.R.O.I. two decades ago, calculates that from the early 1970s to today the return on investment of oil and natural gas extraction in the United States fell from about 25 to 1 to about 15 to 1.

This basic trend can be seen around the globe with many energy sources. We’ve most likely already found and tapped the biggest, most accessible and highest-E.R.O.I. oil and gas fields, just as we’ve already exploited the best rivers for hydropower. Now, as we’re extracting new oil and gas in more extreme environments – in deep water far offshore, for example – and as we’re turning to energy alternatives like nuclear power and converting tar sands to gasoline, we’re spending steadily more energy to get energy.

For example, the tar sands of Alberta, likely to be a prime energy source for the United States in the future, have an E.R.O.I. of around 4 to 1, because a huge amount of energy (mainly from natural gas) is needed to convert the sands’ raw bitumen into useable oil.

GRAPHS AND DATA DISCUSSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FOLLOWS; SEE LINK


...we can see that virtually all forms of alternative energy – wind, geothermal, photovoltaic, and hydro – have greater or equal EROI than fossil fuels and nuclear. Passive solar might be lower, unless it is incorporated into original building construction. However, Professor Hall’s figures were generated in 2006. All forms of alternative energy have become more efficient since 2006. But – as we’ll see below – it’s not just a question of fossil fuels and nuclear versus alternative energy. It’s also a question of centralization versus decentralization. The U.S. Wastes More Energy Than it Uses – Partly Because of the Centralization of Power

EXAMPLES, POLITICS, ECONOMICS DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOW; SEE ORIGINAL LINK

[bemildred]

1. Yes, exactly.

Centralized monolithic distribution systems are brittle, have bottlenecks, have single points of failure, and they are inefficient, except at extracting money from the "served". Scale matters, and as you scale things up, architecture comes to rule everything else, good or bad.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. It's about time someone said it. Fuel cell stations quite neatly and conveniently

disperse generating capacity without producing greenhouse gasses FOR THE MOST PART.

[xchrom]

3. strong recommend!!! -- nt.

[4dsc]

4. Alternative will never replace oil

no amount of so called alternative energy sources will ever replace the energy we get from oil. We are an oil based society and we are reliant upon oil to run our society.

Its a pipe dream to believe otherwise.

[bemildred]

5. I guess we will just have to use less then. nt

[Demeter]

6. Society will be re-made to be Oil-Free

Either by choice, or by the fact that all available oil disappears. It's better if that changeover happens in a non-panic, non-crisis fashion.

[plumbob]

8. What an absurd statement. Texas had 25% of all electricity use in the

state come from wind generators last winter when dozens of natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants had to be shut in because their incoming water lines were frozen and could make no steam.

That was before the three huge new high voltage transmission lines now under construction were finished, which will permit thousands of already in place generators to go online.

Five minutes from my house is a wind farm that took a year to build that generates enough electricity for 44,000 homes or 100,000 people, the size of my home town. I enjoy paying 6 cents per KWH rather than the 20 I was paying when TXU was my provider with their coal and natural gas plants.

Not only is oil going to be replaced as an energy source, it's going to happen inside of 20 years. Ask yourself why no new refineries have been built, are being proposed, or even want to be built by the oil industry? Why are they operating at less than 85% capacity now? Because there will be no need for them soon. Exxon and all their buds know this and are planning accordingly, while they squeeze the last petrodollars out.

Ask someone in the planning part of the industry. I live in the middle of the largest domestic oilfield, have worked in the industry as a younger person and know several CEOs of large independents. They know, and they're planning ahead as well.

[4dsc]

14. Boy are you kidding yourself

So to say but wind is not a replacement for oil and never will be. Oil is a different energy source than wind. And lets remember that every wind tower being built today was built with oil. And every wind tower built today will never to be replaced every 20-30 years using oil.

Your future is with less oil and there will be serious ramifications.

[plumbob]

18. I'm not kidding myself about anything. I pay 6 cents per KWH - what about you?

Yes, oil is a different energy source - it's filthy, the production, transmission and refining of it is filthy, and the resulting gases are killing the planet.

How do you figure the wind towers are built of oil?

And the 20-30 replacement life beats the hell out of workovers every other year on oil wells, doesn't it? Never mind the BILLIONS of acre-feet of fresh water turned to brine by oilfield productions, the hexavalent chromium dumped into the water by the same industry.
What's your experience with the industry? My grandfather came her in the late 20s to build standing derricks. Start there.

[bemildred]

19. +1. nt

[4dsc]

20. Dependent upon oil to build

Let me try and explain this again. Not one so called alternative can be made with the help of oil either in the production or transportation of said product.

And you don't realize that we are facing a future with less oil, a lot less oil to boot. So when it comes to replacing these wind towers, where is the oil going to come from? Less oil less building, less production in our society.

Wind is not sustainable. Just like every other so called alternative.

[plumbob]

21. Quit being so mysterious. Spit it out. HOW is oil essential to the

production or transport of wind turbines? If you mean the production of energy to build them, that will take care of itself - the electricity is increasingly coming from turbines and more to come. If you mean the energy to transport them, electric vehicles are here and large transports already in use in Europe, so that's no factor.

Perhaps you don't realize that oil production in Texas peaked in 1972 and has been on the decline EVERY YEAR since. The Permian Basin, where I live, is the largest oil and gas field on the continent. That's where West Texas Intermediate crude got its name, the gold standard for oil in the world. Production here equaled 1935 last year, even though there were 150,000+ wells, compared to fewer than 60,000 then.

So I and the other residents here realize and have realized for 40 years that oil is in decline. So oil is not sustainable. Period. Humans have only been using oil since the mid-1860s, and its time is about over.

If you truly believe wind is not sustainable, come to west Texas. There's a reason why the trees here grow at a south to north angle, and it's not because gravity is crooked here. Wind is forever. The local colleges here no longer offer training in drilling and production. Instead, they are training for maintenance and production of wind turbines. If the people closest to something and who have depended on it for their living for a century are abandoning it, perhaps that should be a bit of a warning to those a little farther away.

It's okay. It will happen and is happening with or without your belief. Continue to overpay for energy from obsolete plants, continue to buy vehicles that are already a dead concept. Continue with all the obsolete and outdated crap they will sell you here at the end. You'll just have to replace it all later. That's all right. Then you'll see. Good day.

[4dsc]

22. You fail to realize

that every wind turbine will need to be replaced every 20-30 year if not more. And oil, for more than electricity will help build those turbines.

And there is no replacing everything forever as you implied. That's laughable.

[plumbob]

23. Since you refuse to give any details, but just these assertions, I will

bid you good-bye. There is nothing to be gained by further posting here with you.

Anyone who thinks oil is going to be around longer than the wind really needs to take another look.

[4dsc]

25. Its called peak oil

Oil will be here forever, just not as much as there was yesterday. In 30 years, worldwide oil production will be a fraction of what it is today.

And what happens when you need to replace those 1000's of wind turbines that are depended upon oil to make?? I leave it up to your imagination.

[swilton]

15. Also I bet if you look at GE's portfolio

they are trying to get control of the wind turbine technology -

[bigmonkey]

9. Tired canard.

You are not a paid operative. A paid operative would, however, insist the same, in the same tone. You might consider that your position attempts to preclude the solution of a crucial problem.

[swilton]

16. Not if Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, et. al.

have anything to say about it.

[msongs]

7. rooftop solar for all buildings, like we have :-) nt

[RC]

10. How tall does a building have to be to run out of room for solar in its roof?

The taller the building the more room needed for the solar panels to service the building.

This is a simple logical question.

[Demeter]

11. Does that matter?

Tall buildings are just mechanical substitutes for other erections. They are inefficient in energy and materials use. They are unpleasant to occupy, maintain, or disassemble. They also make dandy terrorist targets.

[RC]

12. So you think the big cities should spread out taking over good farm land, instead

of going up.

[Demeter]

17. I think Big Cities should be undone

Not only power generation but food generation and population should be decentralized. The reason for big cities--centralized government and corporate sweat shops, is over, never to return, if people are smart.

There's plenty of non-arable land to build upon. No need but easy profits to destroy the farmland.

[txlibdem]

30. +1

Totally agree. The loss of quality craftsmanship that has come about due to the factory mentality is idiotic and also hurts our economy. Factories are routinely being closed down, dismantled piece by piece and shipped over to China or elsewhere. I don't want to buy cheap crap that I'll have to throw away within months. I want to buy excellent quality products MADE IN AMERICA. Products that will LAST.

Cities had their purpose last century but with our level of technology they now serve no purpose at all but to maintain the current power structure.

[swilton]

13. Absolutely!

Nuclear energy = ultimate centralization. Not to mention socialization of risks vs. privatization of profits.

Solar power = decentralization to the max = backyard/roof energy supplies.

This is the reason why economic elites/decision makers discourage investments in and thwart transition to renewable fuels....

[awoke_in_2003]

24. "Energy Has to Become DECENTRALIZED"

Energy has always been power, and they will never allow it to be decentralized. You should read "Internal Combustion"- this shit has been going on since wood was our primary energy source, and the king owned the forest.

[txlibdem]

26. Both centralized and decentralized are absolutely needed

Think of the storms that went through this past spring. For three days we had dangerously high winds, torrential rains, hail storms, and the largest number of tornadoes I can ever remember. Think what would happen if all power generation was decentralized. People would have been in the dark for three days because the winds were too high for the wind farms to safely operate, solar panel output would be practically nil because the clouds made noon feel like dusk. Given extra capacity and energy storage we might have had power for part of that 3 day period but it wouldn't be economically practical to have enough storage to supply 3 days worth of electric power.

There are very good reasons why the grid is national: local power production can too easily be disrupted by weather or other circumstances.

[bemildred]

27. Local damage will interfere with local supply regardless.

The point is that if you have centralized supply, and the central supply is shut down, then EVERYBODY is cut off at once, like when half a continent goes on the blink. With localized and decentralized utilities, damage stays local too.

[txlibdem]

28. Your post shows a complete lack of understanding of where your electricity comes from

There is no centralized supply, never has been. There are over 100 nuclear power plants in America. There are close to 600 coal power plants. There are hundreds of natural gas power plants. And, mostly thanks to Texas, there are thousands of wind turbines. There are also a few solar power plants as well as thousands of homes and commercial rooftops with solar panels.

The energy grid is complex and in 2003 there was a major outage that affected several states in the northeast but the federal inspectors and grid operators have learned from the mistakes that caused that outage. Such an outage is much less likely today because of the monitoring, inspection and maintenance changes that resulted from what they learned.

Where I live all the power lines are buried so we are much less prone to local outages. Your point about local damage is correct, especially if your power lines are strung from power poles and subject to weather damage and damage by trees and idiots colliding with the pole.

PS, even if you have solar panels on your roof, if it is a grid-tied system then your power will still go out when the power goes out: that is a safety issue for the power line workers. Only if you have a 100% off-grid solar or wind powered home will you still have power during an outage.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

31. Try to be consistent.

First you say "Both centralized and decentralized are absolutely needed".

Then you say: "There is no centralized supply, never has been."

So which is it?