Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by hawgbawb on 15 Jun 2014
  • Interesting read.

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-take/why-the-potential-for-a-trillion-dollar-carbon-bubble-grows-bigger-every-day/?tag=nl.e662&s_cid=e662&ttag=e662&ftag=TRE383a915

    "The concept of stranded assets was born in July 2011 when the UK-based non-profit Carbon Tracker published its initial report, "Unburnable Carbon - Are the world's financial markets carrying a carbon bubble?" It offered some straightforward math for us to consider: To limit planetary warming to 2C, the world cannot exceed 886 Gt (gigatons) of CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2050. Subtracting the emissions from 2000 through 2010 left a budget of 565 Gt. But the reserves of the world's private and public companies and governments amount to 2795 Gt of potential emissions. Therefore, only 20 percent of the remaining reserves can be burned through 2050 to achieve the desired result."
  • #2 by Old Tusk on 15 Jun 2014
  • Corporate America and traders don't care about anything  beyond next quarter.
  • #3 by HawgWild on 16 Jun 2014
  • They're going to put it off and address it the same time they fix Social Security and the budget deficit. I think a lot of folks are hoping that they'll be saved beforehand by the Rapture.
  • #4 by wilbur on 19 Jun 2014

  • #5 by hawgbawb on 25 Sep 2014
  • The big boys are starting to head for the exits in the oil and coal theater.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change
  • #6 by BENTON PIGGEE on 26 Sep 2014
  • The big boys are starting to head for the exits in the oil and coal theater.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change

    Hey, buddy, I'm a liberal compared to most Arkansans. And I believe we ARE causing climate change. But there ain't no way these rich dudes are going to let this issue affect their profits. The "big boys" you are referring to seem to be guilt-ridden heirs who are rich enough to wash some of the blood off their hands and still have more $ than they'll ever need. An environmental crisis bad enough to affect their bottom lines will be what it takes for real changes to happen. And then it'll probably too late or take years to reverse said crisis. Sorry, good try.
  • #7 by hawgbawb on 27 Sep 2014
  • Hey, buddy, I'm a liberal compared to most Arkansans. And I believe we ARE causing climate change. But there ain't no way these rich dudes are going to let this issue affect their profits. The "big boys" you are referring to seem to be guilt-ridden heirs who are rich enough to wash some of the blood off their hands and still have more $ than they'll ever need. An environmental crisis bad enough to affect their bottom lines will be what it takes for real changes to happen. And then it'll probably too late or take years to reverse said crisis. Sorry, good try.
    Check out the amount of debt oil drillers and frackers have accumulated. Production costs are out of line, and the transport sector has begun an inexorable switchover to electric propulsion.

    It's not a stampede to the exits, but the winds of change are starting to blow.
  • #8 by john c on 30 Sep 2014
  • #9 by hawgbawb on 30 Sep 2014
  • If a significant switchover to electric mobility fails to materialize, our economy is screwed. It will happen out of economic necessity. In order for the Saud Family to remain enthroned, and for the fracking and oil shale industries to survive, they need at least $4 per gallon gas.

    As long as we don't need them, who cares?
  • #10 by john c on 30 Sep 2014
  • If switchover fails, screwed, will happen, remain enthroned, industries survive, need $4, don't need, cares.  My feeble brain got lost in that picture puzzle.  So many questions, so little time.  How about this one?  Being truly interested, could you detail what you mean by significant and what that would look like fleet wise, lifestyle wise, energy supply wise, financial model wise?
  • #11 by Dumb ole famrboy on 05 Oct 2014
  • Just to give you an idea.

    Currently the US consumes about 3.8 trillion Kilowatts of electricity and 150 billion gallons of gasoline annually. 68% our our electricity is currently produced by coal and gas. 33 kilowatts equals 1 gallon of gas. Therefore it will take around 4.8 trillion kilowatts of electricity to repalce our current demand for gasoline. US population now stands at 310 million but projected @ 440 million by the year 2050 (41% increase). Assuming per capita demand for energy remains constant puts US electrical demand @ 5.36 trillion kilowatts of electricty and 6.9 trillion watts to replace the demand for gasoline (12 tillion kilowatts) by 2050.

    12 trillion kilowatts demand by 2050 less 1.2 trillion kilowatts currently produced through GHG free energy ( 3.8 trillion * 32%) produces 10.8 trillion kilowatts of electrical production capacity shortage.

    Coal and gas have the ability to produce electricity at 100% capacity 92% of the time. Solar produces electricity at 100% capacity 25% of the time. Therefore we'll have to build about 40 trillion kilowatts of electrical generation capacity in solar or about 10 times the amount of electrical generation capacity we currently have now.


    Solar panels have a usefull life of about 25 years. So by the year 2050 not only will we have to build new capacity equal to 10 times the amount of our current capacity - 40% of that will also have to be replaced.
  • #12 by hawgbawb on 05 Oct 2014
  • Just to give you an idea.

    Currently the US consumes about 3.8 trillion Kilowatts of electricity and 150 billion gallons of gasoline annually. 68% our our electricity is currently produced by coal and gas. 33 kilowatts equals 1 gallon of gas. Therefore it will take around 4.8 trillion kilowatts of electricity to repalce our current demand for gasoline. US population now stands at 310 million but projected @ 440 million by the year 2050 (41% increase). Assuming per capita demand for energy remains constant puts US electrical demand @ 5.36 trillion kilowatts of electricty and 6.9 trillion watts to replace the demand for gasoline (12 tillion kilowatts) by 2050.

    12 trillion kilowatts demand by 2050 less 1.2 trillion kilowatts currently produced through GHG free energy ( 3.8 trillion * 32%) produces 10.8 trillion kilowatts of electrical production capacity shortage.

    Coal and gas have the ability to produce electricity at 100% capacity 92% of the time. Solar produces electricity at 100% capacity 25% of the time. Therefore we'll have to build about 40 trillion kilowatts of electrical generation capacity in solar or about 10 times the amount of electrical generation capacity we currently have now.


    Solar panels have a usefull life of about 25 years. So by the year 2050 not only will we have to build new capacity equal to 10 times the amount of our current capacity - 40% of that will also have to be replaced.
    Well done, Farmboy.  Here are my peer review comments:

    1. You are using KW when it should be KWh, but otherwise the math appears to be in order.
    2. I have seen a number of USA pop. projections, including approx. 400 mil in 2050 (Pew).  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/
    3. Per capita demand for electricity most likely will be reduced significantly as we increase efficiencies across the board.  We will by necessity as getting off cheap/dirty coal will force us to do that.
    4.  Our per capita consumption of gasoline will definitely reduce sharply, unless some major unforeseen technological breakthrough occurs to make extraction/refinement of tight oil cheap and eco-friendly (don't bet the ranch on it).
    5. An electrified fleet of vehicles will help, rather than hurt (or at least be neutral), with power demand.  That is because the vehicles will recharge off peak (at night) with inexpensive baseload power (nukes, hydro, wind) and store energy for daytime release-peak shaving (allowing more efficient use of resources). Also, midday solar production allows charging/storage.   
    6. Conversion to smart grids and distributed energy will result in huge energy efficiencies.  Our electrical grid is very wasteful.
    7. Continuing breakthroughs in solar efficiencies and costs, along with electricity storage, will accelerate adoption. We are pretty much at a tipping point now, and there is no stopping this trend. 
  • #13 by Dumb ole famrboy on 05 Oct 2014
  • An electrified fleet of vehicles transfers peak demand from daytime to night. That is when the majority of the fleet will be recharging. Just so happens night is also when solar and wind produce are least efficient. Hydro - how many dams are we going to build and how many fisheries and eco-system are we prepared to destroy? As for Nukes - how many new liceceases has the NRC approved in the last 30 years?
  • #14 by hawgbawb on 06 Oct 2014
  • An electrified fleet of vehicles transfers peak demand from daytime to night. That is when the majority of the fleet will be recharging. Just so happens night is also when solar and wind produce are least efficient. Hydro - how many dams are we going to build and how many fisheries and eco-system are we prepared to destroy? As for Nukes - how many new liceceases has the NRC approved in the last 30 years?
    Households, farms, factories, stores and offices are mostly idle at night.  That more than makes up for the vehicles.
  • #15 by Dumb ole famrboy on 06 Oct 2014
  • Households, farms, factories, stores and offices are mostly idle at night.  That more than makes up for the vehicles.
    No it does not.

    33 to 1. As I posted above - it will require 4.8 trillion kilowatt hours to replace the US current demand for gasoline. Current US annual consumption of electricity is 3.8 trillion kilowatt hours. 4.8 > 3.8. With most of the electric fleet vehicles re-charging overnight - peak electrical demand will transfer to night.
  • #16 by hawgbawb on 06 Oct 2014
  • 1. You need to account for the fact that electric propulsion is far more efficient than gasoline propulsion. Gas combustion loses most of it's energy to waste heat. from Wikipedia:

    Electric motors are mechanically very simple.

    Electric motors often achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency[52] over the full range of speeds and power output and can be precisely controlled. They can also be combined with regenerative braking systems that have the ability to convert movement energy back into stored electricity. This can be used to reduce the wear on brake systems (and consequent brake pad dust) and reduce the total energy requirement of a trip. Regenerative braking is especially effective for start-and-stop city use.

    They can be finely controlled and provide high torque from rest, unlike internal combustion engines, and do not need multiple gears to match power curves. This removes the need for gearboxes and torque converters.

    EVs provide quiet and smooth operation and consequently have less noise and vibration than internal combustion engines.[51] While this is a desirable attribute, it has also evoked concern that the absence of the usual sounds of an approaching vehicle poses a danger to blind, elderly and very young pedestrians. To mitigate this situation, automakers and individual companies are developing systems that produce warning sounds when EVs are moving slowly, up to a speed when normal motion and rotation (road, suspension, electric motor, etc.) noises become audible.[53]

    Energy resilience[edit]

    Electricity is a form of energy that remains within the country or region where it was produced and can be multi-sourced. As a result it gives the greatest degree of energy resilience.[54]

    Energy efficiency[edit]

    EV 'tank-to-wheels' efficiency is about a factor of 3 higher than internal combustion engine vehicles.[51] Energy is not consumed while the vehicle is stationary, unlike internal combustion engines which consume fuel while idling. However, looking at the well-to-wheel efficiency of EVs, their total emissions, while still lower, are closer to an efficient gasoline or diesel in most countries where electricity generation relies on fossil fuels.[55]

    Well-to-wheel efficiency of an EV has less to do with the vehicle itself and more to do with the method of electricity production. A particular EV would instantly become twice as efficient if electricity production were switched from fossil fuel to a wind or tidal primary source of energy. Thus, when "well-to-wheels" is cited, one should keep in mind that the discussion is no longer about the vehicle, but rather about the entire energy supply infrastructure - in the case of fossil fuels this should also include energy spent on exploration, mining, refining, and distribution.


    2. I will qualify my position by saying that fleet electrification most likely won't be 100% by 2050. Large trucks will probably use natural gas. And hydrogen is also a possibility.
  • #17 by Dumb ole famrboy on 08 Oct 2014
  • That is fair EV is about 3 times more efficient tank to wheel (MPG vs MKWh). Currently electrical demand is about 2 times greater during daylight hours compared to night time hours (1.25 trillion KWh annually vs 2.5 Trillion KWh annually). Even if you were to adjust the conversion factor from 33/1 to 11/1, EV fleet still transfers peak demand from day to night.

    As for exploration, mining, refining and distribution; clean energy incur these also.
  • #18 by hawgbawb on 08 Oct 2014
  • I have not done the math myself (it obviously gets pretty complicated), but I place a lot of stock in the work of the Rocky Mountain Institute.  http://www.rmi.org/

    You are right that a full life cycle assessment comparison (including mining, refinement, transport, production, use, recycling and disposal) should be conducted for all energy sources.  I also maintain that we should include the externalized costs of pollution and resource warfare.  With renewables, resource warfare is greatly diminished.
  • #19 by Hogfaniam on 08 Oct 2014
  • An electrified fleet of vehicles transfers peak demand from daytime to night. That is when the majority of the fleet will be recharging. Just so happens night is also when solar and wind produce are least efficient. Hydro - how many dams are we going to build and how many fisheries and eco-system are we prepared to destroy? As for Nukes - how many new liceceases has the NRC approved in the last 30 years?

    It's a shame wwII and environmentalism got n the way of Corp plans to build the 33 dams in the central US, stopping at, what, 5?  There was going to be 3 on the Little Red alone.  The same gallon of water could've generated electricity 3 times before ending up in the White River.  Useful life span of a hydro dam is any where from 100 to 1000 years depending on maintenance.  The mechanical, anywhere from 20 to 60 years, varying by component. 

    As far as the ecosystem, one is replaced by the other.  The biggest problem is relocation of people.  Wildlife will move as pressured.

  • #20 by Dumb ole famrboy on 08 Oct 2014
  • It's a shame wwII and environmentalism got n the way of Corp plans to build the 33 dams in the central US, stopping at, what, 5?  There was going to be 3 on the Little Red alone.  The same gallon of water could've generated electricity 3 times before ending up in the White River.  Useful life span of a hydro dam is any where from 100 to 1000 years depending on maintenance.  The mechanical, anywhere from 20 to 60 years, varying by component. 

    As far as the ecosystem, one is replaced by the other.  The biggest problem is relocation of people.  Wildlife will move as pressured.
    Personally, I have no problem transforming one ecosystem into another. But those who do frown upon such also represent a significant block of clean energy supporters.
  • #21 by hawgbawb on 18 Dec 2014
  • Anybody short oil stocks back when this discussion started?  Sure wish I had.
Pages:
Actions