"Alternative" Energy

[uppi]

And yeah, El_Machinae, there's a bit of work out there on establishing "solar breeders" where solar power is the input into the factories making more solar. It's not the only input of course, the various elements like silicon have to come from somewhere, but I suppose you could work back through the supply chain eventually.

Such a breeder should just be built where the silicon is. Deserts usually have plenty of silicon and plenty of sun, so the silicon supply wouldn't be a problem.

I would be much more concerned about the resources for the TCO (transparent conducting oxide) layer as those cannot be found anywhere. The scarcity of Indium is a problem for any scheme that involves mass deployment of current technology photovoltaic cells, anyway.

 

[Patroklos]

I always liked the idea of geo thermal taps. Heat is near unlimited, we just need better ways to get at it.

 

[Arwon]

Uppi: Is indium actually super-rare, or just not being produced much?

 

[EnglishEdward]

As for the credibility of Peak Oil, the main problem is that the amount of oil keeps increasing.

The fact that low grade oil previously uneconomic to extract may,
due to higher prices, become economical to extract; does not
represent an increase in the amount of oil.

Oil is being consumed at about one million times the rate it is being created
by photosynthesis, biological reworking and geologic processes; and so the
amount of oil is therefore decreasing; at least on the particular planet I live on.

 

[classical_hero]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned thorium reactors in this since the process of getting energy from will be far greater than all the other alternatives we have right now. the only reason Thorium was not done earlier is that it is the lack of usefulness in making weapons, so it was sidelined by Uranium and Plutonium. The beauty of Thorium over the other is that it has far more supply and the waste is less dangerous than Uranium.

 

[uppi]

Uppi: Is indium actually super-rare, or just not being produced much?

Both to an extent.

It is a very rare element (11th from the bottom in Wikipedia's list), but it also wasn't very useful until the rise of optoelectronic devices, so maybe the production is not as high as it could be.

The "economically viable" known deposits are estimated to run out in 20 years, if you believe the numbers of the Chinese. Of course that number increases when the price goes up, but at the same demand is likely to increase in the future. So Indium might "run out" before fossil oil "runs out".

Then again, gold is even rarer, but its annual production is higher. So if people start actively searching for indium, they might find more of it. But if the price of indium rises to that of gold, it might be too expensive to put into consumer goods.

 

[Antilogic]

All of them. In combination. Solar power plants in orbit sounds especially cool though.

We as a species need to disenthrall ourselves from the idea of a single uber energy source, because after coal and oil there won't be any unless we can get solar to work at very high efficiencies. More potential energy sources the better, I say.

Damn, my opinion got scooped on the second post in the thread. There aren't magic bullets, we need a portfolio of technologies adapted for the specific localities.

It took less than 50 years from the discovery of the nucleus (Rutherford in 1909) to the construction of the first commercial nuclear power plant (Obninsk in 1954). Along the way we had to develop quantum mechanics, a minor tool.

The point is, humans can develop some amazing things in a very short time span, if we set ourselves on doing it. Right now, the international funding for fusion research is very small. The funding for the ITER, which aims to build a commercially viable fusion plant by 2019, is a total of about $7billion. Here is a study which found that the US renewable energy subsidies were approximately $30 billion for the period 2002-2008:

http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358&topic=Energy_and_Innovation

Some studies put the figure even higher, at $10 billion per year for solar alone in the US. These subsidies are not an investment into R&D that will pay off in the future, but rather we are subsidizing the dead-end purchase of inefficient and overpriced solar cells.

Is there anyone who could handle paying 10 times as much for energy (electric, automobile, heating) as they do now? Because that's closer to how much solar actually costs, without the government subsidies. In other words, the world could not be converted to solar on a massive scale without total economic collapse.

Global warming alarmists say we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, we cannot wait to develop fusion. Maybe they don't understand that fusion power will be cheaper than current energy sources by a factor of 100 or 1000, and we could use it to clean the environment in ways that are unimaginable today, like running giant filters in the atmosphere and the ocean.

I was going to write out a longer post before I saw Arwon's response. I largely agree with his critique. However, I'd figure I'd still leave this note: I'm not convinced of the soundness of the logic here. You are essentially ignoring realistic and practical solutions in favor of a hail-mary at fusion power and planet-wide terraforming.

I'm happy they put solar-thermal and concentrated PV on the list. Too often, those technologies get overlooked or ignored in favor of ordinary panels, which don't scale up well.

Both to an extent.

It is a very rare element (11th from the bottom in Wikipedia's list), but it also wasn't very useful until the rise of optoelectronic devices, so maybe the production is not as high as it could be.

The "economically viable" known deposits are estimated to run out in 20 years, if you believe the numbers of the Chinese. Of course that number increases when the price goes up, but at the same demand is likely to increase in the future. So Indium might "run out" before fossil oil "runs out".

Then again, gold is even rarer, but its annual production is higher. So if people start actively searching for indium, they might find more of it. But if the price of indium rises to that of gold, it might be too expensive to put into consumer goods.

Yeah, rare earths comprise a pretty vast array of elements and several orders of magnitude on the appearance rate. The lack of active searching before for rare earths puts us at a massive disadvantage now--most are byproducts of the mining of more traditional metals like iron, copper, silver, and gold (we've been obtaining those for millennia at this point, so we have developed a large body of relevant and practical knowledge). Also, most mining companies only identify deposits for mining over a short time period for economic forecasts, and those forecasts should not be taken to reflect the world's supply of that resource.

Once we start directly mining for rare earths, we'll find more. So long as we recycle them efficiently, we won't run out.

 

[Cutlass]

The fact that low grade oil previously uneconomic to extract may,
due to higher prices, become economical to extract; does not
represent an increase in the amount of oil.

Oil is being consumed at about one million times the rate it is being created
by photosynthesis, biological reworking and geologic processes; and so the
amount of oil is therefore decreasing; at least on the particular planet I live on.

But, the amount of oil that it is believed can be recovered economically keeps going up.

 

[Arwon]

Both to an extent.

It is a very rare element (11th from the bottom in Wikipedia's list), but it also wasn't very useful until the rise of optoelectronic devices, so maybe the production is not as high as it could be.

The "economically viable" known deposits are estimated to run out in 20 years, if you believe the numbers of the Chinese. Of course that number increases when the price goes up, but at the same demand is likely to increase in the future. So Indium might "run out" before fossil oil "runs out".

Then again, gold is even rarer, but its annual production is higher. So if people start actively searching for indium, they might find more of it. But if the price of indium rises to that of gold, it might be too expensive to put into consumer goods.

Probably best to hope the alternative materials come to fruition even if we assume there's a fair bit more recoverable indium, then.

 

[uppi]

Yeah, rare earths comprise a pretty vast array of elements and several orders of magnitude on the appearance rate. The lack of active searching before for rare earths puts us at a massive disadvantage now--most are byproducts of the mining of more traditional metals like iron, copper, silver, and gold (we've been obtaining those for millennia at this point, so we have developed a large body of relevant and practical knowledge). Also, most mining companies only identify deposits for mining over a short time period for economic forecasts, and those forecasts should not be taken to reflect the world's supply of that resource.

Once we start directly mining for rare earths, we'll find more. So long as we recycle them efficiently, we won't run out.

Indium isn't a rare earth, though. It is a few orders of magnitude more rare than the so called rare earths. So although I agree that we'll find rare earths when once we start getting serious about extracting them, this won't be so easy with indium.

 

[Antilogic]

Indium isn't a rare earth, though. It is a few orders of magnitude more rare than the so called rare earths. So although I agree that we'll find rare earths when once we start getting serious about extracting them, this won't be so easy with indium.

I should have looked at the chart before posting. I was unsure about indium and just assumed it was in the rare earth group.

In any case, I think the same principles would apply. Attempting to properly estimate the world's indium supply would be a challenge akin to accurately predicting the global oil supply in the 19th century. We simply don't have the experience or practical knowledge yet.

Arguably, that's why the subsidies are important now--we are going to need to go through this development phase sooner or later. If we pick later, it will be more expensive and traditional fuel sources will be exhausted even further.

 

[tokala]

But, the amount of oil that it is believed can be recovered economically keeps going up.

For the "believing" part, I think there were several illuminationg posts in this thread and in the talk about oil thread.

But even assuming this is indeed correct, don't you think it might make a tiny bit of a difference if oil extraction is moving from easily accessible, low production cost, high flow rate, high quality tradional oil fields to hard to access, high production cost, low flow rate, bitumeous/heavy "oil"?

And just because some economic activity might ultimately yield some positive return on investment, it does not mean automatically that it will be actually been undertaken by some private company.

Unconventional and difficult to access oil and gas need some serious up front investment, with long times to break even, and the non-vanishing probability for economic failure.
Those kinds of investments are not exactly the stuff corporations and banks are just waiting for to pour money into. At the moment oil corporations can afford to finance such activities by the obscene revenue generated by their old conventional fields under the current ~$100 per barrel price regime. For that mechanism to work into the future, you would be depending on a continually rising oil price.

In the not-so-far future the point might be reached where the financing for hard to get at oil might dry up, and the money might flow into more attractive investments.

Like some alternative energy scheme, which tend to have a similar finance structure of high up front investments and long break even times, but with more manageable risks involved.

 

[Cutlass]

Certainly I believe that at some point it will not be economically viable to extract oil on the scale of our current transportation infrastructure. And I do expect prices to be high and variable.

However there is a difference between saying that many conditions of the oil industry are changing and saying that there is Peak Oil in our imminent future.

The reason behind the consolidation of the oil industry a decade ago was, in part, to bring the capital to bear on the problem of more expensive development of more challenging oil sources. And political instability has as much to do today with peaking oil prices as supply and demand on their own do.

And I think you underestimate just how much improved technology makes things viable which were not viable previously.

Now I do think we should move away from oil because of the high and volatile prices, as well as the environmental issues and the long term supply issues. But I do not think that oil is a wall that the world economy is going to crash up against in the near future.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's currently some pushing for a nuclear plant in northern Alberta, in order to power the tremendous energy needs of the tar sands. Given that the EROEI of nuclear is higher than tar sands, it's actually a good idea.

The real tipping point will be when we're using solar or biomass to power oil-extraction endeavours.

 

[tokala]

But I do not think that oil is a wall that the world economy is going to crash up against in the near future.

I sincerely hope you are correct, but I generally tend to a more pessimistic, or even cynical worldview.

 

[Cutlass]

I sincerely hope you are correct, but I generally tend to a more pessimistic, or even cynical worldview.

As I've said in other circumstances, I am bullish on science and economics. But I am bearish on people and politics. Just because we can do something, it does not mean that we will. And just because we do not do something, it does not mean that we can't.

Whether we overcome many of these problems will not be because of the science or the economics, but because of the politics. And I am pessimistic on the politics along with you. But I try not to confuse my pessimism on the politics with an evaluation of what is possible with the science and economics.

 

[Boundless]

It does make sense that as oil prices increase, we will be increasingly forced to look for alternatives, it is not like one day, suddenly there is no oil.

 

[Antilogic]

It does make sense that as oil prices increase, we will be increasingly forced to look for alternatives, it is not like one day, suddenly there is no oil.

Definitely, and I don't think the disagreement we are seeing is over that point.

I see the problem in the details. Unlike most consumer products, which have short turn-around times going to the market, there is a significant lag between the innovation and the implementation of power technologies and other large infrastructure. Additionally, all those oil refineries, coal plants, etc. being built now have expected plant lifetimes of 50 years or more.

Given these significant time lags, we might see the problem as being economical to solve 2 decades from now, then suffer for the 3rd and 4th decade while we work out the kinks in these new technologies and the market finally responds to this crisis, and then finally get our infrastructure turned around in the 5th decade.

It's the classic feedback/time-lag problem. And if the free market is anything, it is a simple feedback controller.