muso wrote on Sep 5
th, 2010 at 11:30am:
perceptions_now wrote on Sep 4
th, 2010 at 11:01am:
Where is/are the available technology/s that can deliver similar EROEI to the existing conventional Oil fields, produce it in such an abundant volume to offset a continuing Population growth for at least another 20-30 years and in a manner suitable for Power generation, Transport & the myriad of other uses, to offest the decline in Oil.
Nuclear fission, Solar thermal and Combined cycle. You must have missed my post. The EROI is high enough.
I tend to agree with FD though. The EROI is not everything. Take nuclear fusion for example. The energy input is huge, however even a net energy gain of 1% could be cost effective given a large enough scale of operation.
Taking coal, the EROI figures don't include the fact that in order for it to be sustainable, we need to factor in removing CO2 emissions, otherwise there will be much higher costs downstream.
There are problems inherent in the analysis you presented. The main problem is the fact that no matter how much we try to delay it, tomorrow eventually comes.
40 years from now, we'll be fully immersed in 'tomorrow' up to our necks, and trying to deal with the consequences of that.
I do recall seeing your post and from memory I thought I had responded. If not, my apology!
muso wrote on Sep 5
th, 2010 at 11:46am:
freediver wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2010 at 10:26pm:
That we don't need some silly government directed 'manahatten project' to find the answers. We already have the technology. We could go a long way without even chaning energy production methods. The only remaining barriers are political and economics.
Not that government funded research is a bad thing, just that it is silly to make it a precursor to action.
- not to find the answers perhaps, but we may have to throw huge amounts of capital behind it the way governments are dithering over any transition to alternative energy. If we put enough capital behind it we could at least come up with the infrastructure.
If we're going to use solar power worldwide, we could ultimately build a global High Voltage DC (HVDC) grid, running at 1MV. We have the
technology to do that now. At higher voltages, the conductors don't need to be as large, and with DC, there are less harmful EM radiation effects.
The initial costs would be horrendously high, but the final result would be better for everybody. With a global solar network, there would be no need for storage.
Whilst I agree there are a number of replacements for "carbon based" power generation, there are also major obstacles, including -
1) Lack of time, given that we are already 5 years into a Post Peak Oil world. (See Hirsch report)
2) Lack of funds, given the existing amount of Sovereign & Personal Debt, thruout most of the world.
3) Other major negative Economic factors, including Demographics, which will exacerbate the above factors.
That said, we have little alternative, but to proceed with all haste, as time is also getting short on the other great drama, that being Climate Change.
In respect of Nuclear power, whilst I think it may be needed, at least in the medium term, it may find great difficulty getting past public opinion!
Notwithstanding the above, the other great difficulty and perhaps greatest, is the transition of Transport (See Hirsch report), which will be very time consuming and by its very nature (at present), it may require a largely liquid fix?
Finally, I would get too concerned about 40 years from now, the next 20 will be concerning enough!
Forum
Pages: 
