Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[Physics_Kid]

sorry, could not get back here in quite some time. i mentioned kerogen still under progress and was challenged. the only solid evidence i have is that kerogen is still down there being sought after by the fracking folks. that's at least some evidence to tell me the process is still going on, the Earth is still crushing organics and kerogen is still there also being crushed/processed by nature.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/chemistry-of-petroleum-formation

 

[Blank_Stare]

sorry, could not get back here in quite some time. i mentioned kerogen still under progress and was challenged. the only solid evidence i have is that kerogen is still down there being sought after by the fracking folks. that's at least some evidence to tell me the process is still going on, the Earth is still crushing organics and kerogen is still there also being crushed/processed by nature.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/chemistry-of-petroleum-formation

Interesting information, and plainly stated in layman terms.

What I took away:

• it takes thousands or millions of years to make petroleum
• petroleum only forms when the organic material is deposited in an oxygen-deprived environment (mostly zooplankton)
• that means most deposits are at the bottom of what are now or once were great bodies of water

This tells me that to find newly forming deposits, we need to look for them at the bottom of (perhaps formerly) bodies of very deep water (remember the process also requires extreme pressure, whether that be water on top of the deposit, which is covered by silt, or filled in areas that were once water). I honestly don't know enough geology to now what that means, not only in terms of time, but in geographical locations.

My biggest question, however, is when was the last time we had a massive die-off of zooplankton, or other species, that was subsequently, and immediately covered in something that could prevent oxygen from reaching the biomass, while the process takes place? Or. to approach the question from another angle, has anyone carbon-dated the oil that we are pulling from the earth? Do we actually know how old the resource we are burning really is?

Don't get me wrong, please. I am not saying this is all hogwash. Rather, I am trying to it put into a time-scale of reference, so that we can consider the scale of production, verses usage, so that we can think about how long it might take (if all of this is indeed realistic,) for the Earth to "stockpile" enough new petroleum, to make it worth considering as a practical resource.

My gut tells me that the period of time before that happens is so far in the distant future, as to make discussion moot, because other forms of energy, that have far less impact on our environment, and are much easier to renew become practical, and financially advantageous, by comparison.

Of course, Solar and wind and wave stand out as the fore runners, but as we have already discussed, they each have their short-comings, at least in so much as technology offers them to us, today. Nuclear has it's pros and cons, and I suspect will be hotly debated until the last nuclear plant is closed. Coal, Natural Gas, and all other fossil fuels have a (nearly) finite reserve, at least until we can get a grapple on the numbers discussed above, and are very distructive to our ecosystem. (But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...)

And so we come full circle (I think). What is the future of Solar? How can we overcome the shortcomings of a power source that only produces for a limited number of hours each day, and is highly dependent on weather, and distance of placement from the equator? Can we interconnect solar arrays around the world, and therefore create an always-on source of power? (Seems kinda wasteful, IMO.) Do we "settle" for a hi-brid system, and augment power using some combination of the other choices, until we dream up a better solution? Sadly, I don't see a better choice.

 

[CWatters]

Blank_Stare.. there are some calculations down this page which estimates how much oil the Earth might be producing on average per year. They suggest it's less than 100,000 barrels.

https://Earth'science.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year

 

[Blank_Stare]

Blank_Stare.. there are some calculations down this page which estimates how much oil the Earth might be producing on average per year. They suggest it's less than 100,000 barrels.

https://Earth'science.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year

This website
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
Says we are using (after doing some math), approximately 227.2 barrels per second, in the US, alone. Taking that math a bit further, means that the Earth is producing enough oil per YEAR, to feed our nasty habit for less than 7-1/2 minutes, in JUST the United States. I did not look to see what the annual global consumption is, but I'm sure it's much higher... probably 3 or 4 times higher...maybe even more.

I'm inclined to believe the consumption figures are accurate enough for conversation. Let's assume, for the sake of conversation, that the production numbers are off by a factor of ten, and that production each year is a million gallons. That still means that there is only 75 minutes worth of oil being produced each year, and again, that is just using figures for the US.

There are approximately 31570560 seconds in a year, adding in a quarter of a leap day.
75 minutes is 4500 seconds
that means that every 31570560 / 4500 seconds we produce enough oil to go one whole year on these newly produced reserves.

That means that it will take a little over 7000 years to produce enough "new" oil to supply the United States for one year.

And the truth is, if the actual numbers we started with are accurate, it's more like 70,000 years to produce enough oil to satisfy JUST the US's appetite for one year...and that's at our current population.

Sorry @Physics_Kid, based on those grim numbers, the future of petroleum is indeed dead...or at least in a deep coma. When our current supply is diminished to the point where it is no longer financially feasible to use as a primary energy source, that industry will die, with very little chance of ever becoming viable again, in the future history of mankind. By the time there is enough in the ground to be worth using widespread again, we will have harnessed other technologies that make using petroleum look like wood-burning steam engines. Sure, it works, but why bother? I've heard it said that mankind, in our most primitive state, has been here less than 100,000 years. Imagine what we'll accomplish in the next 70,000, if we are still here, and surviving the mess we're making?

In my mind, this issue has been put to rest, unless someone has something profoundly enlightening to add to the prospects for petroleum's future.

 

[Physics_Kid]

so your # is 70k:1

wasnt the existing estimate 100million for what's there now, 100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs worth of oil
1428.5 yrs worth of US, but that's US only, let's says that supply is 3x world use, thus leaving ~476yrs for US at world consumption rates.

we are just ~158yrs into oil harvesting, but noted the harvest rates were much smaller then, that still leaves us 318yrs left. a far cry from those who say 20-30yrs left of oil, no? 318yrs to figure out how the world will function w/o oil. not just for fuel, but for everything that comes from oil, plastics will be a challenge.

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

 

[mfb]

wasnt the existing estimate 100million for what's there now, 100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs worth of oil

You are misusing the source time frame (which does not take the production into account) and you make the incorrect assumption that the rate never changed.
You also underestimate the oil consumption of the rest of the world, the global consumption is nearly 5 times the US consumption.

You should also take into account that a large fraction of the existing oil cannot be accessed at reasonable prices. For some of the oil it wouldn't be feasible at any price because extraction needs more energy than you gain.

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

If you make wildly incorrect assumptions, you get fantasy numbers leading to wrong conclusions.

 

[Blank_Stare]

so yes, from your #'s oil will run dry, but not in the near future.

(Note: In my previous post, I referred to "gallons". Of course, I meant barrels, sorry for any confusion.)

From your numbers, we run out even sooner. (Not that I even suggested a date when we would run out, mind you.)

I don't know where you get 100million from - 100miliion what?...barrels still in the ground?
I think you need to have another look at the math - I think you have mixed some things up, leaving you with numbers that look pretty, but are meaningless.

You are saying that there is enough oil to last 10 to 15 times as long as what the experts are saying. Believe you me, if the numbers were that far off, there would be a HUGE number of people raising almighty hell, because the economics of oil would be in a tailspin... Prices would drop like a stone if even ONE credible source claimed what you are. Believe me also, when I tell you that if it were the case, SOMEONE would be singing that song for everyone to hear.

But they aren't, because your numbers are gibberish. Look at them again, make sure you are looking at apples and apples, not apples and oranges...

I hope we have more than 100 million barrels of oil still in the ground - by my calculations, the US uses that much in about 5 years, 32+ days...

100,000,000 barrels reserve / 19,630,000 barrels used annually in the US = 5.09 years reserves, and that's if only the US is using those 100 million barrels. If the whole world is sharing that 100 million barrels, we are going to have a damned cold winter in 2018-2019.

Again, check your numbers - if we only have 100 million reserve, it's 5 years, not 300+. Somewhere, your numbers are just not right... by a huge error.

Fix your math, and get back with us.

 

[Physics_Kid]

for clarity on last couple of replies.

100million was said to be how long (years) it took to make the current oil in the ground.

the 70k yrs : 1 yr ratio was not deduced by me
70k years to crush kerogen into 1yr oil use by US

the current use and near future use of wind/solar/gas/other non-oil sources should slow oil use rate, perhaps to a zero slope, then even maybe a neg slope.

so, i only took the #'s provided and calculated how many more yrs left of oil. was my math off using the #'s provided by others??

i do see other #'s on net, which show about ~43yrs left of oil. i will not be here in 43yrs, so it will be interesting to see what happens over this short time. better start engineering.

 

[Blank_Stare]

for clarity on last couple of replies.
100million was said to be how long it took to make the current oil in the ground.
the 70k yrs : 1 yr ratio was not deduced by me
the current use and near future use of wind/solar/gas/other non-oil sources should slow oil use rate, perhaps to a zero slope, then even maybe a neg slope.
so, i only took the #'s provided and calculated how many more yrs left of oil. was my math off using the #'s provided by others??

Hmmm, I don't know. How about showing the math?

I don't see where you are pulling the rest of the numbers from. And how long it took to make all the oil in the ground is irrelevant. All things equal, it takes just as long to make an ounce, as it does a billion barrels. How long it took to create the current stockpile may be an interesting number for some other discussion, but it has nothing to do with how much longer the oil will last.

If you want to factor in the measly amount that is still being produced each year, that's a number that fits the discussion, although it's affect on the date we'll finally run out is almost inconsequential. It fits the equation, but we have to decide how many points to the right of the decimal are worth including.

Further, figuring out how other resources will replace oil in the near future is a GREAT IDEA, and could make for an intelligent discussion - if you show the math, and some research (not necessarily your own,) that backs it up - otherwise, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, not a scientific discussion.

Look, I wish you were right. I wish there were 15 more generations of oil available for our use...kinda. On the other hand, the sooner we run out, the sooner we will be forced to use other means of energy production - hopefully cleaner energy production. Heaven knows that until we have no choice, we'll just keep doing business as usual. That's something our environment can not afford.

 

[Physics_Kid]

post #504 is where the #'s are at
it shows 70k yrs to crush kerogen into 1yr worth of US daily consumption
504 seems to suggest an available kerogen and thus his math says 70k years to convert that available kerogen into 1yr US oil.

 

[Blank_Stare]

post #504 is where the #'s are at
it shows 70k yrs to crush kerogen into 1yr worth of US daily consumption
504 seems to suggest an available kerogen and thus his math says 70k years to convert that available kerogen into 1yr US oil.

I don't see how that supports your case. I also don't see how your math makes any sense, based on that math. (If we're talking about carpet fibers, multiplying oranges times baseball bats doesn't give you anything useful, unless you just want to now how many objects are in the room.)

>>> snip vitriol <<<

Like I said, petroleum is a dead end. (Probably in my lifetime, but almost certainly in my kid's lifetime, even if there is still some residual oil in the ground.) You have offered nothing that makes any sense, much less refutes this common knowledge. The reserve supply we have access to is measured in decades, not centuries, as you propose.

Unless you present a coherent argument, complete with sources, and coherent math, all in one post, I'm done. Anything less is a waste of band-width, IMO.

All you have to do, to have the final word, is say more stuff that is unsupportable by science and / or math.

But if you want ME to participate further, you're going to have to up your game, my friend.

 

[Physics_Kid]

i am not sure why its so hard to follow.

post 504 said it takes 70k years to make 1yr of oil, in the ground.
so over the 100million years (that many are saying is how long to convert kerogen to make what we harvest now)
100mil/70k = 1428.5 yrs of oil (US consumption rate) in the ground now.

i see no evidence that tells us how much kerogen there was or is still there, apparently there was/is a lot. this is like Y2K, all worried and when the clock clicked past everyone went silent w/o issue.

at the 70k:1 rate that obviously says the ongoing conversion is too slow vs current harvest rates, so we run out at some point. but at what point? solid evidence is there that tells us kerogen is still there under the ground, so my only assumption has to be that kerogen is still being converted to oil at a 70k:1 yr rate (if that is correct from post 504).

interesting though, other credible sources online puts it (dry time) at ~7.1yrs, while others have #'s that show ~42yrs. that still a wild swing given the notion that we should know exactly what's left and thus be able to accurately determine when oil will dry. to me, that just says we really don't know.

 

[mfb]

so over the 100million years (that many are saying is how long to convert kerogen to make what we harvest now)

You still didn't provide a reference for that 100 million years number. And you also didn't provide any argument or reference for the implicit claim that the production rate would have been constant all the time.

this is like Y2K, all worried and when the clock clicked past everyone went silent w/o issue.

Alternative hypothesis: It all worked smoothly because everyone put effort into fixing their software.

interesting though, other credible sources online puts it (dry time) at ~7.1yrs, while others have #'s that show ~42yrs. that still a wild swing given the notion that we should know exactly what's left and thus be able to accurately determine when oil will dry. to me, that just says we really don't know.

The number depends on what exactly you want to calculate. Oil with the current facilities? Oil at the current market price? Oil at a higher market price? Oil with current technology? Oil we expect to get accessible in the future? Oil in total?
Only including oil that has been mapped out well, or including oil expected elsewhere?

You cannot just compare two numbers made with different assumptions and then complain that they differ, and therefore all estimates should be discarded (apparently apart from yours, which is based on several misconceptions). That is not how science works.How is all this related to solar power, by the way?

 

[OmCheeto]

...
How is all this related to solar power, by the way?

Good question.

Btw, this upcoming solar eclipse has been making me think crazy hard, as to how I'm going to survive for 4 days, with only a (small) pickup trucks worth of solar powered stuff.

If I can figure out how to survive for 4 days, strictly on solar, then solar might be doable. At least, in the summer months.
The main problem I've found, is that there is little on the "off the shelf" market, that does what I want.
So, it's kind of a DIY, duck tape hell.

 

[gleem]

The main problem I've found, is that there is little on the "off the shelf" market, that does what I want.

And what do you want/need? Oh, and on ABC's Good Morning America this morning they made a point of noting that electrical power lost by the eclipse would be handled by nuclear and gas powered plants.

 

[OmCheeto]

And what do you want/need? Oh, and on ABC's Good Morning America this morning they made a point of noting that electrical power lost by the eclipse would be handled by nuclear and gas powered plants.

I'll be "dry" tent camping with no access to grid electricity. I also plan on "zero" supplies to be locally available.
This is a "Is solar power feasible as a sole source of energy?" experiment.
So I'm looking for a small (1.5-2.5 ft^3) freezer that cools down to ≈ -40°C, that doesn't cost $2000.
I basically want to build the following from scratch: Sun Frost F4 - Freezer
For a fraction of the price, obviously, as this is a one time experiment.
I don't need a $2000 failed pile of experimental junk.
I have everything necessary to power it: 150 watts of solar panels, 1.2 kwh deep cycle battery, and 400 watt inverter.

ps. And yes, I have been googling...

 

[Blank_Stare]

I'll be "dry" tent camping...

What exactly is "dry" tent camping? I mean, I hope you can stay dry in a tent, otherwise, most of it's usefulness is gone?
I googled dry tent camping, and got a bunch of apparently unrelated listings...so... what's that mean?

 

[OmCheeto]

What exactly is "dry" tent camping? I mean, I hope you can stay dry in a tent, otherwise, most of it's usefulness is gone?
I googled dry tent camping, and got a bunch of apparently unrelated listings...so... what's that mean?

It's actually a "recreational vehicle" term, which means you do not have direct hookup to water, electricity, nor sewer, to your RV.
Where I have camped over the last 25 years, we have always had access to electricity, port-a-potty, and a mountain lake fed stream. (see my avatar)
And there was a store nearby, where we could buy ice for our coolers.

The campground I plan on staying at has not responded to my question; "Can I borrow about 20 gallons per day from your pond?"
So I plan on leaving my solar thermal heating unit at home, and will just be taking "spit baths" for a few days.

Solar power has no future, if it means we have to live like cavemen.
Hence, my experiment.

 

[Blank_Stare]

It's actually a "recreational vehicle" term, which means you do not have direct hookup to water, electricity, nor sewer, to your RV.
Where I have camped over the last 25 years, we have always had access to electricity, port-a-potty, and a mountain lake fed stream. (see my avatar)
And there was a store nearby, where we could buy ice for our coolers.

The campground I plan on staying at has not responded to my question; "Can I borrow about 20 gallons per day from your pond?"
So I plan on leaving my solar thermal heating unit at home, and will just be taking "spit baths" for a few days.

Solar power has no future, if it means we have to live like cavemen.
Hence, my experiment.

So "Dry Camping" is just what we called "Wilderness Camping", way back when I was a Boy Scout.
Are you also practicing "Leave No Trace"? If so, are you taking EVERYTHING back out with you? (Think about it, it's disgusting, but die-hards do it.)

I agree that a certain level of creature comforts will have to be addressed, before the general public will embrace Solar, or any other alternative energy source, due to the lesser quantities of electricity that will be available. But it's actually surprising how many of them can be adequately duplicated using low-tech. (Think Steam-punk to turn your thoughts in the right direction...)

Still, aside from ditching our electrical toys, internet powered entertainment/communication, and fast transportation, it would only be an inconvenience for most people to live like our forebears did, 100 years ago. Yeah, there would be a lot of disappointed people (at first, and mostly only those who had the highest lifestyles), but "life as we know it" would only be modified (slowed), not ended. Some third world countries might hardly notice the change.

Maybe I'm lucky that I'm old enough that I probably won't live that long... I rather like my creature comforts.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Are you also practicing "Leave No Trace"?
...

We have actually left our campsite CLEANER than we found it, every year.

...
to live like our forebears did, 100 years ago.
...

This was actually the inspiration for my Zoob-Sister solar powered refrigerator. Everyone is saying you HAVE TO HAVE a battery backup to go solar. This isn't true. You only need to "store energy", in some form or another, just like they did before electricity. Hence, why I need a particular kind of freezer.

[directed towards zoobyshoe] ps. While trying to figure out how to eliminate those god awfully expensive batteries, I ended up inventing a new type of refrigerator. I'll cut you and Woolie in on the profits, once I get things patented and to the market. If your electric bill hadn't been so low, I'd have never researched it. So, it's kind of your fault. Thanks!

It's really a simple idea.

... I rather like my creature comforts.

I also refuse to live like a caveman.
Nor do my slightly older fellow campers.
Though, being apparently "made of money", they opted not to wait for me to "put into production", my solar powered camping shower system:

My system: $10 (I see value in just about everything, and keep things around, just in case.)
My friends' propane powered system: $600

Cries of "Oh my god!", could be heard from everyone, taking their first warm shower, after bathing in a mountain creek, for many years.

But, we've only used their system twice, so it's difficult to say whether or not the return on their system was "worth the cost".
Admittedly, I would say yes. Hot showers, are priceless, IMHO.

 

[gleem]

I use to live on a boat. I had 260 watts of solar power 660 AH @ 12 V. about half of what you have. My frig/freezer used about 1400 watt-hours daily my main electrical drain.with extra drain from LED and incandescent lighting, 100 watt radio rec/xtmr, laptop, water pump, assorted electronics I had t recharge the batteries from my engine or my Honda 1000W gas generator(with a 40 A charger) about every four days or when the capacity dropped to about 50%.

You can get portable cooler style 12/24 V refridge/freezer as large as 3.7 cu.ft. from Defender Marine for under $1000. With your 150 W panel and you battery you should get the same performance as mine. If you double your panel you should double your use time assuming you have the Sunlight.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
You can get portable cooler style 12/24 V refridge/freezer as large as 3.7 cu.ft. from Defender Marine for under $1000. With your 150 W panel and you battery you should get the same performance as mine. If you double your panel you should double your use time assuming you have the Sunlight.

Temperatures are too high. I need -40°F.

As I mentioned, this is a one time experiment. I'm not willing to spend $1000 on something I will never use again.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the various refrigerants, to determine if I can "hack" a $100 mini-fridge into going down to -40°F.
I can only get my "dissociated" broken window air conditioner down to -10°F, and it draws 350 watts. That would require about $1000 worth of new panels, and new inverter, which again, I will only use once. And again, it's not getting cold enough. So, double ixnay.

 

[gleem]

Why -40F when the usual freezer temp is about 0 deg F? Lower temps require thicker insulation and or a higher duty cycle.

 

[OmCheeto]

Why -40F when the usual freezer temp is about 0 deg F? Lower temps require thicker insulation and or a higher duty cycle.

The plan is, to NOT use the deep cycle battery to power the fridge. It's mainly a surge suppressor, and voltage regulator.
My panels put out 20 volts at no load, so my inverter won't even turn on due to "over voltage" protection without the battery being hooked up.
I'm not just trying to keep my water cool. I'm inventing something new here.
The plan is to chill water bottles down to -40°F during sunlight hours, and put them in a secondary cooler, where all my perishables are.
Given that it's predicted to be 85°F where I'll be on the 21st, I'm going to have to figure out how thick the insulation will have to be for this to work.

Of course, the battery can run my laptop (11 watts), lighting (4 watts), and other things during the night.
1200 watt hours/15 watts = 80 hours.

Seems doable.

 

[gleem]

First I misread your battery specs you have a 100 AH battery (50 AH usually available). So your battery wouldn't give you much for a freezer.

The plan is, to NOT use the deep cycle battery to power the fridge. It's mainly a surge suppressor, and voltage regulator.

You need a charge regulator for your battery otherwise you will fry it. Depending on the type flooded cell, gel cell or AGM the charging voltage will vary
Regulators go about $25 for about 8 amps. The max charging voltage will be about 14.5 volts.for a flooded cell. Whether you can get a system down to -40 degF with normally available refrigerants I cannot say. As for insulation 4 in. Styrofoam should be adequate. First you have to know if you can get to that temperature
.and what type of conversion efficiency your cooling system can achieve. If you cannot reach -40 then you need to cool more water. I suppose you want to keep your perishables less that 38 deg F.

 

[mfb]

The plan is to chill water bottles down to -40°F during sunlight hours, and put them in a secondary cooler, where all my perishables are.

The second freezer starts cold as well I guess?
If you plan to shut it off at some point, adding insulation will help. Adding more ice will help as well.

The -40°F number looks oddly specific, especially as most of the heat will go into melting the ice before the temperature goes above the freezing point.

 

[OmCheeto]

The second freezer starts cold as well I guess?
If you plan to shut it off at some point, adding insulation will help. Adding more ice will help as well.

The -40°F number looks oddly specific, especially as most of the heat will go into melting the ice before the temperature goes above the freezing point.

This is just a "progressing" idea for a prototype. The -40°F number comes from the fact that in the production model, you wouldn't use water, but something that stays liquid, as cold as possible. I simply used what I knew about cars: ethylene glycol(60%) and water. I left a margin of 10°F. Since water expands when it freezes, I didn't like the idea of daily work hardening mechanical stresses on the plumbing.

Of course, the sun doesn't always shine, so the production model would have dual, isolated power sources. The solar panels would power the -40°C compartment, which would have a charge time of between 4 and 6 hours. This would be distributed to the regular freezer and refrigerator for the rest of the day, via a modest battery supply. If the sun doesn't shine, the regular freezer and refrigerator would have a grid supplied source.

 

[Blank_Stare]

This is just a "progressing" idea for a prototype. The -40°F number comes from the fact that in the production model, you wouldn't use water, but something that stays liquid, as cold as possible. I simply used what I knew about cars: ethylene glycol(60%) and water. I left a margin of 10°F. Since water expands when it freezes, I didn't like the idea of daily work hardening mechanical stresses on the plumbing.

Of course, the sun doesn't always shine, so the production model would have dual, isolated power sources. The solar panels would power the -40°C compartment, which would have a charge time of between 4 and 6 hours. This would be distributed to the regular freezer and refrigerator for the rest of the day, via a modest battery supply. If the sun doesn't shine, the regular freezer and refrigerator would have a grid supplied source.

Wouldn't cutting ice on the local lake in January, and storing it in sawdust-lined holes in the ground be simpler, and a whole lot less expensive? Unless, of course, you live in the southern climes...

 

[mfb]

Well, freezing water will give you a huge boost in term of thermal capacitance. How much exactly depends on the temperature, but it will be something like a factor 3.

This might fit better in a separate thread.

 

[jbriggs444]

Cries of "Oh my god!", could be heard from everyone, taking their first warm shower, after bathing in a mountain creek, for many years.

Sun shower? 5 gallon black colored bag with hose and nozzle? Works great. It's not a "stand under the shower for ten minutes" technique, but you can do a lot of people with "spritz, suds, rinse".

 

[Physics_Kid]

You still didn't provide a reference for that 100 million years number. And you also didn't provide any argument or reference for the implicit claim that the production rate would have been constant all the time.Alternative hypothesis: It all worked smoothly because everyone put effort into fixing their software.The number depends on what exactly you want to calculate. Oil with the current facilities? Oil at the current market price? Oil at a higher market price? Oil with current technology? Oil we expect to get accessible in the future? Oil in total?
Only including oil that has been mapped out well, or including oil expected elsewhere?

You cannot just compare two numbers made with different assumptions and then complain that they differ, and therefore all estimates should be discarded (apparently apart from yours, which is based on several misconceptions). That is not how science works.How is all this related to solar power, by the way?

its related because if the diff is 10yrs or 300yrs before oil runs dry, solar may not be the right technology to look at now, etc. i myself belief hydrogen fuel is a better choice, it would be available in abundance 24x7, solar is not. solar is of course free energy from a far away place..

we cannot really predict future technologies, use, or pricing, so just take a snapshot of today. how long does oil supply last?

one of the other issues i see not being solved, oil is fairly constant, it feeds the needs, what does that look like on solar? when we switch will there be a major cutback in available energy (still energy there, but not at oil rates)? what about these nightime issues, oil doesn't care, solar does.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sun shower? 5 gallon black colored bag with hose and nozzle? Works great. It's not a "stand under the shower for ten minutes" technique, but you can do a lot of people with "spritz, suds, rinse".

We're talking Oregon here. We have to chase the sunny spots, with all these stinking trees.


This is a pretty good example of what I go through, even on a 100% sunny day, to do solar panel experiments in my front yard.
(I estimate it would cost me $20,000 to pay for tree removal, from my three next door neighbors yards, with 100+ foot tall monster trees.)

Well, freezing water will give you a huge boost in term of thermal capacitance. How much exactly depends on the temperature, but it will be something like a factor 3.

This might fit better in a separate thread.

Agreed. Though, it does seem more on topic than "current natural oil production".
Though, that did inspire me to calculate how many cows I would need to run a methane powered "Combined Heat and Power(CHP)" system during the winter: 3
Unfortunately, feeding 3 cows costs more than even baseboard heating ($700). And then there were the capital costs! ($10,000?) And I think I would tire quickly of scooping cow poop every day, so I quickly discarded that idea. (Sorry to bring it up.)

I REALLY fell in love with the concept of CHP when I first heard about it. I was wondering, if like the Drakes Landing thermal system, solar pv could be used in the summer to split water, and convert that into methane (Sabatier reaction) , which could be stored until winter.

Haven't even started the maths on that yet. It probably also needs its own thread, if it doesn't already exist. Probably kind of expensive.

 

[gleem]

If the sun doesn't shine, the regular freezer and refrigerator would have a grid supplied source.

I thought the whole idea as to not use the grid.?

 

[OmCheeto]

I thought the whole idea as to not use the grid.?

"not use the grid"?

That's quite a few years off, as in NEVER, IMHO.
It actually doesn't even make sense to me.
Energy sources are VERY diverse when you look at different localities.
In the region where I live, we get gobs of rain, and therefore have gobs of hydroelectric power.
In my sister and Zoobs region, they are the exact opposite.
A grid makes total sense.

The game is, to see how little of the grid you can get by without, investing in odd solar things, without bankrupting yourself.

hmmmm...

Perhaps it's time to go back a year to the OP question; "do you believe solar power will over take oil?"

I don't see a mention of a grid there.
To me, the obvious answer to the question is "Yes".
The next question is "When?"

IMHO, it's all a matter of spare time, motivation, and money.

 

[gleem]

You started off with this:

I'll be "dry" tent camping with no access to grid electricity. I also plan on "zero" supplies to be locally available.

 

[PeterDonis]

i myself belief hydrogen fuel is a better choice

Hydrogen isn't a fuel in the sense you're using the term (a source of net energy) unless you are planning on mining it from Jupiter or someplace like that. The only way to make it from materials available on Earth is by endothermic chemical reactions (such as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which cost more energy than you will get back when the hydrogen is burned.

 

[OmCheeto]

You started off with this:

I'm trying to get back "ON TOPIC!".

"Camping" is not "real world".

"The future of solar power" is dead, if you can only use it when you're camping.
Which is pretty much the only time I use my solar panels.
As I've mentioned, I live in a forest, and have no delusions of "PV" being a solution for everyone.
Hence: "Grid!"

ps. Just bought an old micro-refrigerator at a garage sale for $10 a few minutes ago,
on my way back from the store buying $100 worth of NON-PERISHABLE food items for the eclipse,
and it works.


Tc = -8°F
Tamb = 85°F
Volt amps = 165
Compressor temp = 137°F

pps. My 400 watt inverter will NOT start it. Stupid surge currents!
Argh! Now I need a solar battery charge controller, and a bigger inverter.
And maybe I'll have to invest in 8" of insulation.
(I did all my calculations with only 4" yesterday. Things seemed to come out correctly, for -40°C&F)
Double argh...

 

[Physics_Kid]

Hydrogen isn't a fuel in the sense you're using the term (a source of net energy) unless you are planning on mining it from Jupiter or someplace like that. The only way to make it from materials available on Earth is by endothermic chemical reactions (such as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which cost more energy than you will get back when the hydrogen is burned.

nuke power for 100yrs, split the water, distribute H, use energy. what am i missing.

this notion of having to jump into all solar because oil will run dry at some time in the future just doesn't make sense to me. from what i can see, we use some energy to mine uranium, and once in a reactor we get a big giant boat load of energy out, way way more than we put into get the uranium.

how does this equation work out in terms of energy units?

A vs B
build 20MW LWR nuke plant (with uranium harvesting) vs all the H you can get from running this LWR @100% duty cycle for ~20yrs.

i suspect A just a smidge > B because the uranium took no energy to create (its just there, like oil) and took very little energy to harvest, thus the system is nothing more than energy conversion, fission energy consumed to harvest H from water.

surely nuke can power the grid to some extent, so why attempt to get H? because a lot of energy that is distributed by the grid now needs another way for many things. take for example gasoline vehicles, they change to H fuel cells, which means H fuel stations everywhere instead of saying all vehicles will be electric, etc. you cannot distribute H via the electric grid, etc.

if Vegas has a bet going on H vs Solar in next 20-30yrs, whatever that bet is, my $$ is on H.now let's classify this nuke and H energy. its all surface energy. why not tap into deep Earth shell to get all the heat there, enough Earth energy for ~millions of years. why will all Earth energy run out, because consuming Earth energy only increases entropy of the universe.

 

[mfb]

nuke power for 100yrs, split the water, distribute H, use energy. what am i missing.

That you need nuclear power to make it work. The power source is nuclear power, not hydrogen, that just stores it (with a bad efficiency).
Nuclear power is a possible power source, of course. And one I support. But many countries don't like it.

build 20MW LWR nuke plant (with uranium harvesting) vs all the H you can get from running this LWR @100% duty cycle for ~20yrs.

You lose ~30% if you convert electricity to hydrogen and back. You have to mine uranium in both cases but that is negligible in the energy budget.

why not tap into deep Earth shell to get all the heat there, enough Earth energy for ~millions of years.

Geothermal power is only interesting in a few regions.

 

[Physics_Kid]

everything (EVERYTHING) on Earth is just a "battery" of energy, right? be it uranium, oil, hydro power, agree ??

i didnt say run a nuke (electric) to get H then back to electric as the general rule. you take H for heating (no more all electric homes), H for fuel cells in vehicles, and H for possibly other things, perhaps products that were once made using oil.

30% efficiency ? who cares, just means you either need to cut back on energy use, or harvest much more to meet the demand.

its about impossible to say "replace oil with this" and expect no changes in supply or demand on energy. my hypothesis is energy use will take a sharp decline when oil stops regardless of what new energy system we get next. so relatively speaking, demand will remain higher than supply (initially) and as such the worlds activities that use energy will slow way down. that means less building, less manufacturing, less watching TV, less cell phone use, slower expansion of communication networks, way less transportation, flying basically ceases to exist (no more Boeing, no more Airbus, better plan to move your $$ out of aircraft stock), etc etc etc.

why is going to solar bound to some energy consumption we have today where a bulk of that energy is supplied by oil. to survive we don't need to be energy hoarders, thus the replacement only needs to provide enough energy to survive, etc. everyone says we use too much energy, must cut back, use more non-fossil fuels. why? let fossil fuels run dry, it will automagically force people to cut back on energy use. your home electric bill will remain the same, but the amount delivered will be half ;)

 

[mfb]

everything (EVERYTHING) on Earth is just a "battery" of energy, right? be it uranium, oil, hydro power, agree ??

Uranium is easily available. You can use it to produce net electricity. Hydrogen is not, and the most efficient way to produce it (unless you want to use natural gas) is to use electricity.

you take H for heating (no more all electric homes)

That wastes about 30% of the energy. Even more if you compare it to thermal pumps. For cars that can be acceptable, but there you have the problem that storing hydrogen in small amounts is problematic.

30% efficiency ? who cares, just means you either need to cut back on energy use, or harvest much more to meet the demand.

70% (very optimistic). It means everything gets more expensive because you need more power than without the hydrogen detour.

why? let fossil fuels run dry, it will automagically force people to cut back on energy use.

(a) it is bad for the climate, (b) it is bad for the air quality, (c) the harder the exit the more it will hurt.

your home electric bill will remain the same, but the amount delivered will be half ;)

You will not be able to simply cut your demand by 50% without any problems. Otherwise you would do that today already and save half the electricity bill. It gets even worse for transportation and industrial processes. They are highly optimized already. You can't magically make them twice as efficient.

 

[Physics_Kid]

cant cut use by 50%? sure we can, just need to do without. and as i mentioned, no oil and no real replacement will force this onto everyone, etc.
what problems would there be? less UPS trucks to my house, less road trips for me, less keeping my house at 74F in summer, less food ? humans will adapt on the downfall just as we did on the rise of oil ;)

 

[NTL2009]

cant cut use by 50%? sure we can, just need to do without... humans will adapt on the downfall just as we did on the rise of oil ;)

But only if we have to. I try to conserve, but I will maintain a certain standard if I can.

 

[Physics_Kid]

But only if we have to. I try to conserve, but I will maintain a certain standard if I can.

in reality you have very little control to maintain any use of energy. if its not there then you just can't have it. you get to use/hoard it because its available. when its not available its not available.

 

[Bandersnatch]

nuke power for 100yrs, split the water, distribute H, use energy

Can you explain in detail why would you want to do this, and not do the following instead?
'nuke power for 100yrs, use energy'

 

[mfb]

cant cut use by 50%? sure we can, just need to do without. and as i mentioned, no oil and no real replacement will force this onto everyone, etc.
what problems would there be? less UPS trucks to my house, less road trips for me, less keeping my house at 74F in summer, less food ? humans will adapt on the downfall just as we did on the rise of oil ;)

The idea is to keep this "downfall" as small as possible. Or maybe eliminate it completely by switching to other energy sources soon enough. That is better for the climate as well.
There are many possible future outcomes, and not everyone is indifferent between them.

 

[NTL2009]

in reality you have very little control to maintain any use of energy. if its not there then you just can't have it. you get to use/hoard it because its available. when its not available its not available.

To say that I can't use energy if I can't get it is tautological - what does this add to the discussion?

I thought you were saying we should conserve now, in order to stretch our supplies of oil, and (you didn't say this but it fits the thread), maybe use that oil to supplement solar while we develop some storage methods for solar/wind.

Conservation is maybe better discussed in the other thread on solving the energy crisis, I think the topic of this thread is solar, more efficient panels, better storage methods, etc. OK, the first post did discuss solar versus oil, so I guess conservation of oil fits.

But if your saying a 'solution' to the limited and intermittent energy that solar might provide is to use less energy, and don't use it when it's not available, that's a twisted viewpoint, I think. That's a bit like saying that range on an electric car isn't an issue, just never drive longer than its range. It doesn't 'solve' anything, it just redefines the problem, which could be redefined for any energy source.

So what are you saying?

 

[nitsuj]

Hydrogen isn't a fuel in the sense you're using the term (a source of net energy) unless you are planning on mining it from Jupiter or someplace like that. The only way to make it from materials available on Earth is by endothermic chemical reactions (such as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which cost more energy than you will get back when the hydrogen is burned.

It's the matter of storage, a concept being pursued is "mining" using sunshine energy, to produce a "clean fuel" such as oxygen or hydrogen. Losses are also opportunities for better efficiency.

The word fuel doesn't at all refer to or imply any kinda of system efficiency.

 

[Physics_Kid]

NTL2009, you said you are trying to keep a standard. a standard use of energy i presumed. if that's your thought then you'll be in for a shock when oil dies, your standard will be forcibly changed for you, etc. that was my point.

the notion of advocating to conserve is nothing new and obviously does not work. oil will be consumed at crazy rates until it dies no matter how much you advocate conservation. a govt could perhaps control your energy use by mandates.

from what i can see, no matter how you transition, there will be a decline in energy use, no way around that.

my bet is on harvesting hydrogen and it will be the staple source of energy to be consumed by humans when oil begins to dwindle.
anything tied to lithium batts is also a losing bet. batt cars will waiver in favor of H cars, its already happening. the rush to push lithium batt vehicles and massive lithium batt manufacturing is a hype tactic to obtain some $$, its all a short lived adventure, but heck, if you can make $20T in a very short time then so be it, but the solution to the problem is still not solved.

 

[NTL2009]

NTL2009, you said you are trying to keep a standard. a standard use of energy i presumed. ...

No, I'd like to maintain/enhance my standard of living. I hope to conserve energy as I do that, wherever feasible. IOW, if I could live well on net zero energy, fantastic!

if that's your thought then you'll be in for a shock when oil dies, your standard will be forcibly changed for you, etc. that was my point. ...

When is oil going to 'die'? Seems like many thought > $100/bbl and > $4.00/gallon gasoline was permanent, it wasn't.

my bet is on harvesting hydrogen and it will be the staple source of energy to be consumed by humans when oil begins to dwindle. ...

I though this was explained to you. Or maybe start a new thread so as not to further dilute this one. There is essential no hydrogen available to us to 'harvest' to be used as a "source of energy". We can only use it to store/transport energy we create at this time. And there are significant losses associated with that.

If you are thinking in terms of hydrogen as a fuel for cars, I think we may have better luck with refining oil produced by algae. Solar energy and absorbed CO2 becomes a hydrocarbon. Even airplanes could use that.