Doomstead Diner Newz Channels => Surveys => Topic started by: RE on May 19, 2016, 11:24:28 PM

Title: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 19, 2016, 11:24:28 PM
Ugo published results of an informal survey on Renewables he handed out to "experts" in the field who are members of a discussion forum he participates on. His Results Blog (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-100-renewable-world-is-it-possible.html) is up now on Cassandra's Legacy.

There is only one question on his survey which I will reproduce for the Diner Renewable Energy Survey also.

Quote
The question is about  the possibility of a society not too different from ours (**) but 100% based on renewable energy sources, and on the possibility of obtaining it before it is too late to avoid the climate disaster. This said, what statement best describes your position?


1.  It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of renewable resources, we'll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)

2. It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.

3. It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.

4. It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.

5. It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.

However, I would like to have a more detailed survey with more questions on this topic to be asked of the readership of the Diner, OFW, EU, r/collapse, r/futurology, r/renewables, r/samplesize etc etc etc.

If you have ideas for Questions to ask and Answer Choices for those questions, please drop them in this thread over the weekend.  I would like to publish the survey early next week when I cross-post Ugo's Results Blog.

You are not limited to strict single answer Multiple Choice, Choose Any and Ranking Order questions are possible as well as Open Text answer questions.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 22, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Renewable Energy Survey Link
http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd

(http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/survey-says.jpg)
The Renewable Energy Survey has already garnered a few responses, most with detailed text answers as well as multiple choice.  So far, the only place the link is up is in the commentary of Cassandra's Legacy. (and now the Diner Forum also)

Tomorrow, I will cross post Ugo's blog on the Diner and include the link to the Survey.  I will also get the link up on my Reddit Sub r/globalcollapse, and next Sunday I will put up an article on Renewables with the Survey link in it.

In order to get the maximum number of respondents, if you run a blog or have an email list of people who might like to fill out the survey, advertize the Survey link wherever you think it is appropriate.

Based on prior survey numbers, I should have enough responses in 2 weeks for a statistically valid survey, and I will publish preliminary results on the Diner at that time.  Full results will be made available if you include an email address with the survey.  No emails will be published or distributed.

RE
Title: Is a 100% Renewable Energy World Possible?
Post by: Guest on May 23, 2016, 02:26:43 AM


youtube-Logo-2gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of Ugo Bardi



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on Cassandra's Legacy on May 19, 2016



cassandra_retouched



Discuss this article at the Energy Table inside the Diner



A poll among experts…and YOU TOO!



Take the Renewable Energy Survey HERE




 








Image source



I am reporting here the results of a small survey that I carried out last week among the members of a discussion forum; mainly experts in renewable energy (*). It was a very informal poll; not meant to have statistical value. But some 70 people responded out of a total of 167 members; so I think these results have a certain value in telling us how the experts feel in this field. And I was surprised by the remarkable optimism that resulted from the poll.



This is what I asked the members of the list



The question is about  the possibility of a society not too different from ours (**) but 100% based on renewable energy sources, and on the possibility of obtaining it before it is too late to avoid the climate disaster. This said, what statement best describes your position?



1.  It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of natural resources, we'll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)



2. It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.



3. It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.



4. It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.



5. It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.



As I said, it was a very informal poll and these questions could have been phrased differently, and probably in a better way. And, indeed, many people thought that their position was best described by something intermediate, some saying, for instance, "I am between 4 and 5". Because of this, it was rather difficult to make a precise counting of the results. But the trend was clear anyway.



Out of some 70 answers, the overwhelming majority was for option 4, that is, the transition is not only technologically possible, but within reach at a reasonable cost and fast enough to avoid major damage from climate change. The second best choice was option 3 (the transition is possible but very expensive). Only a few respondents say that the transition is technologically impossible without truly radical changes of society. Some opted for option 5, even suggesting an "option 6", something like "it will be faster than anyone expects".



I must confess that I was a little surprised by this diffuse optimism, being myself set on option 3. In part, it is because I tend to frequent "doomer" groups, but also on the basis of the quantitative calculations that I performed with some colleagues. But I think that these results are indicative of a trend that's developing among energy experts. It is an attitude that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, but the experts are clearly perceiving the rapid strides forward of renewable technologies and reacting accordingly. They feel that there is a concrete chance to be able to create a cleaner world fast enough to avoid the worst.



I understand that this is the opinion of just a tiny group of experts, I understand that experts may well be wrong, I understand that there exist such things as the "bandwagon effect" and the "confirmation bias." I know all this. Yet, I believe that, in the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, we can't go anywhere if we keep telling people that we are doomed, no matter what we do. What we need in order to keep going and fight the climate crisis is a healthy dose of hope and of optimism. And these results show that there is hope, that there is reason for optimism. Whether the transition will turn out to be very difficult, or not so difficult, it seems to be within reach if we really want it.



(*) Note: the forum mentioned in this post is a private discussion group meant to be a tool for professionals in renewable energy. It is not a place to discuss whether renewable energy is a good thing or not, nor to discuss such thing as the incoming near term extinction of humankind and the like. Rather, the idea of the forum is to discuss how to make the renewable energy transition happen as fast as possible; hopefully fast enough to avoid a climate disaster. If you are interested in joining this forum, please write me privately at ugo.bardi(zingything)unifi.it telling me in a few lines who you are and why you would like to join. It is not necessary that you are a researcher or a professional. People of good will who think they have something to contribute to the discussion are welcome.



(**) The concept of a society "not too different from ours" is left purposefully vague, because it is, obviously subjected to many different interpretations.Personally, I would tend to define it in terms of what such a society would NOT be. A non-exhaustive list could be, in no particular order,

 




  • Not a Mayan style theocracy, complete with human sacrifices


  • Not a military dictatorship, Roman style, complete with a semi-divine imperial ruler


  • Not a proletarian paradise, complete with a secret police sending dissenters to very cold places


  • Not a hunting and gathering society, complete with hunting rituals and initiation rites


  • Not a society where you are hanged upside down if you tell a joke about the dear leader


  • Not a society where, if you can't afford health care, you are left to die in the street


  • Not a society where you are worried every day about whether you and your children will have something to eat


  • Not a society where slavery is legal and the obvious way things ought to be


  • Not a society where women are supposed to be the property of men


  • Not a society where most people spend most of their life tilling the fields


  • Not a society where you are burned at the stake if you belong to a different sect than the dominant one



 


Many other things are, I think, negotiable, such as having vacations in Hawai'i, owning an SUV, watering the lawn in summer, and more.


 



 



 



 




Title: Re: Is a 100% Renewable Energy World Possible?
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 23, 2016, 05:33:51 AM
Transition to renewables is one thing but transition to sustainable food production in the new normal and the next new normal is just as important. The climate change is already well advanced. Australia has weather called drought here or there in this or that state every few years, but the hottest years globally on record all since 1998 coincide   with below average rainfall almost every year across the whole country which is a continent, since 1999. This year the west finally gets a reprieve due to el nino while the east gets localised flash floods but generally low rainfall. In the same period the African savannah of wildlife parks looks a lot more like a desert than it did in 1999. On the south american continent whats left of the amazon catches fire instead of being too moist. All these southerm hemisphere continents still have a lot of groundwater but that is not sustainable long term to replace the rivers.

 In the northern hemisphere the groundwater is close to depleted especially usa and china. India relies on snow melt from himalayas to rivers, becoming less. That all accounts for probably half the people in the world, not taking those who use their exports. The question needs to be whether we can transition to a far more water efficient food production and can it replace the total calories of the crops and livestock used now.  This is a more pressing problem than running out of coal, gas and oil.
Title: Renewable Energy Survey REMINDER
Post by: RE on May 23, 2016, 02:30:51 PM
(http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/survey-says.jpg)
We currently have a RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd) up on the Diner Survey site.

Survey currently has 57 respondents, a very well educated group with mostly Masters level education and above.  Half from the FSoA, a third from Europe, 10% from Oz & NZ.  90% Male, Age demographic evenly spread out.

The Diners however are NOT well represented in the survey.  :(  Most of the respondents so far are from links I put up on Cassandra's Legacy & Reddit.  Get off your duffs and fill out the survey!

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 23, 2016, 04:48:09 PM
(http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/survey-says.jpg)
We currently have a RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd) up on the Diner Survey site.

Survey currently has 57 respondents, a very well educated group with mostly Masters level education and above.  Half from the FSoA, a third from Europe, 10% from Oz & NZ.  90% Male, Age demographic evenly spread out.

The Diners however are NOT well represented in the survey.  :(  Most of the respondents so far are from links I put up on Cassandra's Legacy & Reddit.  Get off your duffs and fill out the survey!

RE

I dropped the survey link over at EchoWatch.  ;D
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 23, 2016, 05:09:16 PM
(http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/survey-says.jpg)
We currently have a RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd) up on the Diner Survey site.

Survey currently has 57 respondents, a very well educated group with mostly Masters level education and above.  Half from the FSoA, a third from Europe, 10% from Oz & NZ.  90% Male, Age demographic evenly spread out.

The Diners however are NOT well represented in the survey.  :(  Most of the respondents so far are from links I put up on Cassandra's Legacy & Reddit.  Get off your duffs and fill out the survey!

RE

I dropped the survey link over at EchoWatch.  ;D

Thanks AG!  :icon_sunny: :emthup: :emthup:

RE
Title: Re: Is a 100% Renewable Energy World Possible?
Post by: Palloy on May 23, 2016, 06:04:54 PM
Quote
UB: ... with below average rainfall almost every year across the whole country which is a continent, since 1999.

I don't think that is correct. It is patchy, and the extremes are ±50 mm/decade.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ)[map]=rain&tQ[area]=aus&tQ[season]=0112&tQ[period]=1970
(https://www.palloy.earth/images/AU.rainfall.trend.gif)

The temperature trend is more clear cut, but still patchy.

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/AU.temperature.trend.gif)

It doesn't seem to have any broad scale geographical reason.
Maybe by using more refinements (seasons?) on the web page you could get things to look clearer.
Maybe if they used median rather than mean it might look different.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 23, 2016, 06:26:08 PM
(http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/survey-says.jpg)
We currently have a RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd) up on the Diner Survey site.

Survey currently has 57 respondents, a very well educated group with mostly Masters level education and above.  Half from the FSoA, a third from Europe, 10% from Oz & NZ.  90% Male, Age demographic evenly spread out.

The Diners however are NOT well represented in the survey.  :(  Most of the respondents so far are from links I put up on Cassandra's Legacy & Reddit.  Get off your duffs and fill out the survey!

RE

I dropped the survey link over at EchoWatch.  ;D

Thanks AG!  :icon_sunny: :emthup: :emthup:

RE

Glad to oblige.  :icon_mrgreen:

I just finished the survey and placed some nice rants in the remarks. I hope I give some fossil fuelers heartburn.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 23, 2016, 06:28:42 PM
RE,
I'm getting the three dancing dots after I clicked on "finish" (for about three minutes now). What do you think I did wrong? ???

Do you think I put too much text in the remarks?  :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 23, 2016, 07:07:19 PM
RE,
I'm getting the three dancing dots after I clicked on "finish" (for about three minutes now). What do you think I did wrong? ???

Do you think I put too much text in the remarks?  :icon_scratch:

No idea there AG.

Try resubmitting with shorter comments.  I can filter out duplicates by email addy.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 23, 2016, 07:12:14 PM
RE,
I'm getting the three dancing dots after I clicked on "finish" (for about three minutes now). What do you think I did wrong? ???

Do you think I put too much text in the remarks?  :icon_scratch:

No idea there AG.

Try resubmitting with shorter comments.  I can filter out duplicates by email addy.

RE

I took about 20 minutes to do it.  I'll try again tomorrow with shorter comments.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 23, 2016, 07:19:56 PM
Survey Respondents now @ 66.  :evil4:

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 23, 2016, 07:23:45 PM
RE,
I'm getting the three dancing dots after I clicked on "finish" (for about three minutes now). What do you think I did wrong? ???

Do you think I put too much text in the remarks?  :icon_scratch:

No idea there AG.

Try resubmitting with shorter comments.  I can filter out duplicates by email addy.

RE

I took about 20 minutes to do it.  I'll try again tomorrow with shorter comments.

What were your comments? I can check to see if they took at least partially.

I did check the email field, and I do not see your email addy in there, so it likely did not take.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 23, 2016, 07:27:29 PM
RE,
I'm getting the three dancing dots after I clicked on "finish" (for about three minutes now). What do you think I did wrong? ???

Do you think I put too much text in the remarks?  :icon_scratch:

No idea there AG.

Try resubmitting with shorter comments.  I can filter out duplicates by email addy.

RE

I took about 20 minutes to do it.  I'll try again tomorrow with shorter comments.

What were your comments? I can check to see if they took at least partially.

I did check the email field, and I do not see your email addy in there, so it likely did not take.

RE

Also, if you save your text responses a .txt files, I can add them to the full database later.  So compose them in notepad and send to me as a PM.  You can write as much as you like this way.  Just no emoticons or BIG FONTS. lol.

RE
Title: Re: Is a 100% Renewable Energy World Possible?
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 24, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
Transition to renewables is one thing but transition to sustainable food production in the new normal and the next new normal is just as important.
.
.
.
The question needs to be whether we can transition to a far more water efficient food production and can it replace the total calories of the crops and livestock used now.  This is a more pressing problem than running out of coal, gas and oil.
I believe we can, but NOT with the same small percentage of the population involved in agriculture.  I think we might be able to squeak by without "most people spend most of their life tilling the fields", but I suspect we will have to have everything come to a halt for a few weeks at planting time and harvest time while everyone who can pitches in.
Title: Re: Is a 100% Renewable Energy World Possible?
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 24, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Palloy, yes patchy , not every area every year but overall the past 16 yrs since 99 have been mostly below average if u factor every state. I doubt the north is drier, the west getting a lot more this yr than the new normal due to super el nino but at the same time the east is below average compared to the 20th century. In 2010-11 I kept count of it not raining for 7 months in Perth western australia, a very long dry spell.  A creek there that had waterwheels on it from long ago and people used to fish in now only flows when it rains. I forget where I read the years of the 21st century have been below average compared to the 20th, but this from the BOM u linked ;

"Long-term deficiencies also exist in southeastern and southwestern Australia over the 16 years since 2000, which has also been the warmest such period on record."

I guess if you averaged it out with the north there isnt a problem, but thats not where everyone lives.
Title: Re: Is a 100% Renewable Energy World Possible?
Post by: agelbert on May 24, 2016, 06:12:46 PM
The remarks I made on the survey are as follows. If you took the survey, you will understand where they were placed. I will not waste my time with the biosphere math challenged  and thermodynamics challenged hand wringing crowd that claims "we are all gonna die without fossil fuels".

The fossil fuel industry corruption of our government is the main obstacle, not thermodynamics.

The fossil fuel industry corruption of our government is the main obstacle, not thermodynamics.

Items 11 (draft animals) and 12 (human slavery) are non-solutions. Item 13 is exactly backwards. ONLY Renewable energy can enable us to survive.

I believe that if we don't use a 10 to 15 year phase out period for eliminating dirty energy use, about 3 billion will die unnecessarily.

2040 is my estimate of when the brown outs, etc. begin.

The cause of the lack of power available will be severe climate catastrophe infrastructure disruptions, not lack of energy if the centralized power based refinery product fossil fuel business as usual insanity continues. The recent one billion barrel crude oil basin discovery in the Falklands is proof.

Electric Vehicles (land and sea) powered by batteries charged with Renewable energy and buildings heated with Renewable energy are the key to destroying the fossil fuel industry polluting business model because 42% of refinery output is for gasoline and 23% is for heating oil (including kerosene).
Title: Renewable Energy Survey: A Diner Statistical Game
Post by: RE on May 25, 2016, 12:23:01 AM
I already have a statistically significant sample of responses on the RE Survey, even in pre-release.   :icon_sunny:

My suggestion to Diners for speculation is to how they think this survey is panning out? ???  :icon_scratch:

Obviously, I cannot participate in this since I can see all results as they drop in.   But I wonder how YOU think this will pan out?

A few hints.  It is a VERY well formally educated set of respondents, heavily weighted to Masters level and above in formal education.

Also, probably half of currrent respondents are from Ugo's Cassandra Legacy site, and there are about a third from Reddit subs where I plugged the survey.  Those vary from Collapse sites to Renewable sites with different readership demographics.

I will say  from what I already observe, you can identify very clear mindsets looking at these topics.  I won't detail past that though because it would screw the pooch for getting more unifluenced responses.

re
Title: Renewable Energy Survey: BACK TO THE FUTURE! 88 Doomers/Hour!
Post by: RE on May 25, 2016, 03:22:26 PM
We now have 88 Respondents to the Renewable Energy Survey in the pre-Release Week! :icon_sunny:

http://www.youtube.com/v/k0kswK2aI08[/embed]

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on May 25, 2016, 05:27:03 PM
Given the credentials of the respondents, I expect they'll all agree with me. Except for part about renewable energy production from pig shit,which is still pretty cutting edge tech and not widely disseminated.. :)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 25, 2016, 06:00:23 PM
Given the credentials of the respondents, I expect they'll all agree with me. Except for part about renewable energy production from pig shit,which is still pretty cutting edge tech and not widely disseminated.. :)

You would be surprised.

There are different camps here, and you can distinguish them when you sift the data.

I didn't include pig shit, or nuclear energy, which quite a few respondents are annoyed with.  I attempted to justify leaving out Nukes in the Launch Article for Sunday.  I did not address pig shit in that post.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on May 25, 2016, 06:04:36 PM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future. It should be in the discussion.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 25, 2016, 06:28:05 PM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future. It should be in the discussion.

My intention is to use this as a Launch Point for further analysis and discussion.

Following up here, I will present the results of the survey to date, then request new questions for a more detailed survey which will allow respondents to give new answers.  ;D

I am going to milk this one for all I can get out of it.  :icon_sunny:  It is already doing really good!

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 25, 2016, 10:01:15 PM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future. It should be in the discussion.
In percentage terms, I agree wholeheartedly.  I think biomass will end up becoming a more significant fraction of our energy mix.

In absolute terms, I gravely doubt it.  Humans are very unlikely to ever harvest significantly more (e.g., twice as much) kilocalories or BTUs of energy from biomass than we are now.  Why?  Because if you take all the energy being captured by all the plants on the planet, and subtract out the energy they need to survive and reproduce, out of that difference ("net primary productivity") humans are already utilizing, directly or indirectly, 40%.  There isn't much room to increase that percentage.  At 100% that would mean there is not one speck of wilderness left on the entire planet.  The only other way to increase it is raising the total by greening the deserts, reforestation, increasing the productivity of the oceans, etc., which while possible is precisely the opposite of the trends we are seeing currently.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: K-Dog on May 25, 2016, 11:51:27 PM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future. It should be in the discussion.

I totally agree, biomass is solar energy.  Low tech solar energy but cheap solar energy it is.  Only a third as productive as silicon.  Hmmmm, now I have to fact check myself.

An overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation for biomass.  Checked.  Efficiency for amorphous silicon cells manufactured in high-volume range from 6% to 9%.  Checked.  12 and a 1/2 % under laboratory conditions.  Difference is less than two to one.

Seems I was too conservative and did not give plants the credit they deserve.  Good I did not feign cleverness and foolishly dismiss them out of hand.  Biomass will be a huge part of our energy future. 

Conclusion:

Biomass survives collapse and silicon does not.  Biomass will be easier to deal with under medieval conditions.

(http://cookit.e2bn.org/library/1244962505/reeve_and_serfs.original.jpg)

Perhaps the choo-choo will come back and the nostalgic dreamers can stand proud with the plants.

Trains for the 1%.

(http://www.umgenisteamrailway.co.za/Pics_3BR_2012/IMG_9894em.jpg)

Serfdom for everyone else.

(http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/37/3793/CGZIF00Z/posters/peasant-farmers-eating-lunch-in-wheat-fields.jpg)

Unless Americans discover solidarity and share the trains.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 12:16:11 AM

Perhaps the choo-choo will come back and the nostalgic dreamers can stand proud with the plants.

I doubt you could maintain the steam engines, forge new parts, rails etc utilizing just biomass.  They needed to burn a LOT of coal to build and run those things.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 05:32:54 AM
RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY UPDATE

The RE Survey is now in TRIPLE DIGITS in respondents in pre-release!  :icon_sunny:

Formal Education remains very high, now @ 16% Doctorates.

General Release will be Sunday, including more of the early demographics.

Add your opinion now!  Especially if you are FEMALE!  Females not well represented on the survey @ only 10%.  Encourage your Moms, Wives and Girlfriends to drop on their opinions!

http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd)

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 26, 2016, 06:53:21 AM
Perhaps the choo-choo will come back and the nostalgic dreamers can stand proud with the plants.
I doubt you could maintain the steam engines, forge new parts, rails etc utilizing just biomass.  They needed to burn a LOT of coal to build and run those things.
As the Archdruid said about maintaining the Internet in catabolic collapse, maintaining a rail system using biomass energy certainly COULD be done.  That is not the real issue.  The real question is, would it be worth it?

As an interesting example, a knight's armor represented about the same percentage of the economic output of the average medieval kingdom as a jet fighter's percentage of a modern industrial state's GDP.

So, no, railroads will NOT just be toys for the rich in a powerdown scenario.  Either there will be enough freight traffic to justify the expense of maintaining them, or they will not exist.  And as James Dakin likes to point out, trade is a function of peace and stability, two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction occurs.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Surly1 on May 26, 2016, 07:09:51 AM
And as James Dakin likes to point out, trade is a function of peace and stability, two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction occurs.

One of the things that is easy to forget as the contraction winds in slow motion. We've already seen who the militarized police are working for. And if Louisiana is any guide, those with a monopoly on armed force will now have the added protection of hate-crime legislation.

Hence my concern about gold as a store of wealth. Clearly it has worked as such as long as people have pulled the precious yellow from the ground. And also as history has taught, wealth is as good as your ability to hold onto it and defend it.

Better for a peasant to be long potatoes.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: K-Dog on May 26, 2016, 07:17:19 AM
Perhaps the choo-choo will come back and the nostalgic dreamers can stand proud with the plants.
I doubt you could maintain the steam engines, forge new parts, rails etc utilizing just biomass.  They needed to burn a LOT of coal to build and run those things.
As the Archdruid said about maintaining the Internet in catabolic collapse, maintaining a rail system using biomass energy certainly COULD be done.  That is not the real issue.  The real question is, would it be worth it?

As an interesting example, a knight's armor represented about the same percentage of the economic output of the average medieval kingdom as a jet fighter's percentage of a modern industrial state's GDP.

So, no, railroads will NOT just be toys for the rich in a powerdown scenario.  Either there will be enough freight traffic to justify the expense of maintaining them, or they will not exist.  And as James Dakin likes to point out, trade is a function of peace and stability, two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction occurs.

Quote
And as James Dakin likes to point out, trade is a function of peace and stability, two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction occurs.

Two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction happens unless Americans discover SOLIDARITY.  It all comes back to this word that Americans do not understand.  Changed social arrangements will be a big part of our future along with biomass.  Existing social arrangement will not take Americans to a promised land, or even any future worth having.  Change is needed.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: K-Dog on May 26, 2016, 07:29:41 AM

Perhaps the choo-choo will come back and the nostalgic dreamers can stand proud with the plants.

I doubt you could maintain the steam engines, forge new parts, rails etc utilizing just biomass.  They needed to burn a LOT of coal to build and run those things.

RE

You can or you can't, it all depends on the scale of the operation.  Steam choo-choos were notoriously inefficient.  I recall 3% efficient; far worse than a gas driven car.  Well dried wood can operate a choo-choo but it would take a lot of wood so choo-choos would have to be used sparingly if they resembled anything like  past examples.  A biomass electric plant driving an electric train would be more efficient but it would require that word I seem to be obsessed with today to make such a socially complex operation work.  Can't have one warlord operating the electric plant and another running the train.  It would take solidarity to make it happen.

A picture of 'Rail Car One'

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/11/article-0-1DBBF06C00000578-926_964x721.jpg)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: K-Dog on May 26, 2016, 07:35:23 AM
And as James Dakin likes to point out, trade is a function of peace and stability, two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction occurs.

One of the things that is easy to forget as the contraction winds in slow motion. We've already seen who the militarized police are working for. And if Louisiana is any guide, those with a monopoly on armed force will now have the added protection of hate-crime legislation.

Hence my concern about gold as a store of wealth. Clearly it has worked as such as long as people have pulled the precious yellow from the ground. And also as history has taught, wealth is as good as your ability to hold onto it and defend it.

Better for a peasant to be long potatoes.

Yes go long on 'Yukon Gold' potatoes!

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ffa%2FYukon-gold-potatoes.jpg&f=1)

It is how you may pay your taxes someday soon.  Soon being a relative term.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 26, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
And as James Dakin likes to point out, trade is a function of peace and stability, two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction occurs.

One of the things that is easy to forget as the contraction winds in slow motion. We've already seen who the militarized police are working for. And if Louisiana is any guide, those with a monopoly on armed force will now have the added protection of hate-crime legislation.

Hence my concern about gold as a store of wealth. Clearly it has worked as such as long as people have pulled the precious yellow from the ground. And also as history has taught, wealth is as good as your ability to hold onto it and defend it.

Better for a peasant to be long potatoes.

(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

And have a very well hidden root cellar.  ;)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 26, 2016, 11:57:18 AM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future.

(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

Pig Poop Powers North Carolina Farm

Scaling up waste-to-energy technology could transform the hog farming industry.

By Wendee Nicole|Friday, February 21, 2014

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/17-pig-poop-powers-north-carolina-farm (http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/17-pig-poop-powers-north-carolina-farm)


Pig Poo - Landline - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)

www.abc.net.au/.../s4415031.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/.../s4415031.htm)

Mar 11, 2016 - Seven farms are now earning carbon credits by capturing methane gas for the Government's Emissions Reduction Fund, but many more are ...

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: Farmers in Australia's intensive livestock industries are increasingly seeing manure as a source of income rather than a cost and pork producers have been leading the way in converting poo into profit. Seven farms are now earning carbon credits by capturing methane gas for the Government's Emissions Reduction Fund, but many more are converting biogas into energy. Some of the newest research is even looking at how manure could replace synthetic fertilisers, and surprisingly, be converted into stockfeed. Sean Murphy with this report.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4415031.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4415031.htm)



Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on May 26, 2016, 12:50:43 PM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future.

(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

Pig Poop Powers North Carolina Farm

Scaling up waste-to-energy technology could transform the hog farming industry.

By Wendee Nicole|Friday, February 21, 2014


http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/17-pig-poop-powers-north-carolina-farm (http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/17-pig-poop-powers-north-carolina-farm)


Pig Poo - Landline - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)

www.abc.net.au/.../s4415031.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/.../s4415031.htm)

Mar 11, 2016 - Seven farms are now earning carbon credits by capturing methane gas for the Government's Emissions Reduction Fund, but many more are ...

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: Farmers in Australia's intensive livestock industries are increasingly seeing manure as a source of income rather than a cost and pork producers have been leading the way in converting poo into profit. Seven farms are now earning carbon credits by capturing methane gas for the Government's Emissions Reduction Fund, but many more are converting biogas into energy. Some of the newest research is even looking at how manure could replace synthetic fertilisers, and surprisingly, be converted into stockfeed. Sean Murphy with this report.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4415031.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4415031.htm)

This is what I was talking about. Good find, AG. I wasn't referencing buring wood, but rather turning existing waste streams into methane, instead of pollution.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 26, 2016, 01:17:13 PM
I do think biomass will be a big part of our energy future, if there is an energy future.

(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

Pig Poop Powers North Carolina Farm

Scaling up waste-to-energy technology could transform the hog farming industry.

By Wendee Nicole|Friday, February 21, 2014


http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/17-pig-poop-powers-north-carolina-farm (http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/17-pig-poop-powers-north-carolina-farm)


Pig Poo - Landline - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)

www.abc.net.au/.../s4415031.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/.../s4415031.htm)

Mar 11, 2016 - Seven farms are now earning carbon credits by capturing methane gas for the Government's Emissions Reduction Fund, but many more are ...

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: Farmers in Australia's intensive livestock industries are increasingly seeing manure as a source of income rather than a cost and pork producers have been leading the way in converting poo into profit. Seven farms are now earning carbon credits by capturing methane gas for the Government's Emissions Reduction Fund, but many more are converting biogas into energy. Some of the newest research is even looking at how manure could replace synthetic fertilisers, and surprisingly, be converted into stockfeed. Sean Murphy with this report.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4415031.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4415031.htm)

This is what I was talking about. Good find, AG. I wasn't referencing buring wood, but rather turning existing waste streams into methane, instead of pollution.


Thank you. And all the other existing waste streams, as you state, will also be a big part of methane production instead of pollution.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: K-Dog on May 26, 2016, 01:31:46 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.  It is interesting to note that these successes never make the news and one must sleuth or blindly trip over them to find these success stories.  It is almost like anything that would upset the dominance of the fossil fuel extraction industries is suppressed by mainstream media.

Of course we have a free press committed to the the health of the nation and the welfare of its people so that can't happen.  For that to happen TPTB would have to actually embrace evil as a guiding creed and have total distain for their reader and viewerships.  Fortunately that is too far fetched and unpatriotic to actually be the case so there must be another explanation. 

Anyone care to tell me what that is?
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Surly1 on May 26, 2016, 02:57:01 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.  It is interesting to note that these successes never make the news and one must sleuth or blindly trip over them to find these success stories.  It is almost like anything that would upset the dominance of the fossil fuel extraction industries is suppressed by mainstream media.

Of course we have a free press committed to the the health of the nation and the welfare of its people so that can't happen.  For that to happen TPTB would have to actually embrace evil as a guiding creed and have total distain for their reader and viewerships.  Fortunately that is too far fetched and unpatriotic to actually be the case so there must be another explanation. 

Anyone care to tell me what that is?

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and while I share it, a simpler lowest common denominator may be available: simple greed.
The disdained audience is also cultivated, with a virtual assortment of sugar pills and bovine growth hormones, the better to be bundled into thousands and sold on an ad schedule.  the practitioners get to say, "we're running a business here, " which they indeed are. And as long as you don't examine the premises, you can keep sleepwalking forward until the next two "bad books" (ratings reports), and are replaced by the next set of drones who attempt a new way to cut themselves to success. Wash, rinse, repeat. Look at most city newspapers these days. Or watch any local newscast (you do it; I can no longer bear it.)

Business is driven by MBAs and the logic of the spreadsheet. Human spirit, invention and creativity can't be quantified, and are thus useless to the swells and grandees who run such institutions.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 03:02:40 PM
As the Archdruid said about maintaining the Internet in catabolic collapse, maintaining a rail system using biomass energy certainly COULD be done. 

Mr. Wizard is incorrect.  The only way railroads work at all is at scale, with either lots of people or lots of freight.  Even railroad tycoons didn't have an engine pulling their Private Car all by its lonesome, it got tacked onto a train with J6P stuffed in the other cars. Even a mega rich pigman cannot support the infrastructure of a railroad, anymore than today's pigmen could support the road system for their Mazeratis or the airports for their Private Jets.  So it is a lot of nonsense when people say the Elite will still be driving and flying around while J6P is turned into a pedestrian serf.  When it goes, it goes for everyone.

If railroads were to be run at scale on biomass, they would burn the fuel faster than you could grow it, not to mention all the water needed to grow the food and run the steam engines.  This idea is just a fantasy.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 03:11:48 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.

If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Surly1 on May 26, 2016, 03:22:40 PM

Two things which are likely to be in very short supply as economic contraction happens unless Americans discover SOLIDARITY.  It all comes back to this word that Americans do not understand.  Changed social arrangements will be a big part of our future along with biomass.  Existing social arrangement will not take Americans to a promised land, or even any future worth having.  Change is needed.

Watched an interesting interview last night with Sebastian Junger, author of Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging Hardcover. He talked about the difficulties faced by veterans returning to civilian life sometimes after many deployments, after having lived and fought in close quarters in groups of about 40-- essentially a tribe. the transition from tribal living to modern materialistic alienation is the source of much of the PTSD, maladjustment and vets suicides, according to Junger.

From the blurb:
Quote
Combining history, psychology, and anthropology, TRIBE explores what we can learn from tribal societies about loyalty, belonging, and the eternal human quest for meaning. It explains the irony that for many veterans as well as civilians-war feels better than peace, adversity can turn out to be a blessing, and disasters are sometimes remembered more fondly than weddings or tropical vacations. TRIBE explains why we are stronger when we come together, and how that can be achieved even in today's divided world.

http://www.amazon.com/Tribe-Homecoming-Belonging-Sebastian-Junger/dp/1455566381/ref=zg_bs_16311441_1 (http://www.amazon.com/Tribe-Homecoming-Belonging-Sebastian-Junger/dp/1455566381/ref=zg_bs_16311441_1)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 26, 2016, 03:56:35 PM
As the Archdruid said about maintaining the Internet in catabolic collapse, maintaining a rail system using biomass energy certainly COULD be done. 

Mr. Wizard is incorrect.  The only way railroads work at all is at scale, with either lots of people or lots of freight.  Even railroad tycoons didn't have an engine pulling their Private Car all by its lonesome, it got tacked onto a train with J6P stuffed in the other cars. Even a mega rich pigman cannot support the infrastructure of a railroad, anymore than today's pigmen could support the road system for their Mazeratis or the airports for their Private Jets.  So it is a lot of nonsense when people say the Elite will still be driving and flying around while J6P is turned into a pedestrian serf.  When it goes, it goes for everyone.

If railroads were to be run at scale on biomass, they would burn the fuel faster than you could grow it, not to mention all the water needed to grow the food and run the steam engines.  This idea is just a fantasy.

RE

You mean JDW is incorrect, your reading is slipping, seriously. After almost 6 yrs of following the doom tabloid press, JMG has turned out to be correct.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 04:19:19 PM
As the Archdruid said about maintaining the Internet in catabolic collapse, maintaining a rail system using biomass energy certainly COULD be done. 

Mr. Wizard is incorrect.  The only way railroads work at all is at scale, with either lots of people or lots of freight.  Even railroad tycoons didn't have an engine pulling their Private Car all by its lonesome, it got tacked onto a train with J6P stuffed in the other cars. Even a mega rich pigman cannot support the infrastructure of a railroad, anymore than today's pigmen could support the road system for their Mazeratis or the airports for their Private Jets.  So it is a lot of nonsense when people say the Elite will still be driving and flying around while J6P is turned into a pedestrian serf.  When it goes, it goes for everyone.

If railroads were to be run at scale on biomass, they would burn the fuel faster than you could grow it, not to mention all the water needed to grow the food and run the steam engines.  This idea is just a fantasy.

RE

You mean JDW is incorrect, your reading is slipping, seriously. After almost 6 yrs of following the doom tabloid press, JMG has turned out to be correct.

I stand corrected.  The first sentence should read "JDWs analogy to Mr. Wizard's idea that you could run the internet on biomass is incorrect."

However, Mr. Wizard is incorrect on the original internet statement as well, for much the same reason.  The internet only works at very large scale and consumes a HUGE amount of energy.  This also would burn the biomass faster than you could grow it.

You might be able to run small scale peer-to-peer networks and keep your cell phones charged up with biomass, but the massive world wide web couldn't run that way.  You also have the problem of the manufacture of the computers and the mining of all the elements that go in the semiconductors and the batteries and OLED screens, which I doubt could be done at scale with biomass.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 26, 2016, 04:20:54 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.

If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Ash is good fertilizer too, having been burnt, but nobody said anything about the town depending on growing its own food.

Feedlot manure is what would be used as its easy to collect, no wandering fields. This is unfit for fertilizer according to many people as its full of hormones, so is not missed in food production any more than all the sewage pumped into the sea.

Its a step in the right direction  IMO.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 26, 2016, 05:06:43 PM
As the Archdruid said about maintaining the Internet in catabolic collapse, maintaining a rail system using biomass energy certainly COULD be done. 
Mr. Wizard is incorrect.  The only way railroads work at all is at scale, with either lots of people or lots of freight.  Even railroad tycoons didn't have an engine pulling their Private Car all by its lonesome, it got tacked onto a train with J6P stuffed in the other cars. Even a mega rich pigman cannot support the infrastructure of a railroad, anymore than today's pigmen could support the road system for their Mazeratis or the airports for their Private Jets.  So it is a lot of nonsense when people say the Elite will still be driving and flying around while J6P is turned into a pedestrian serf.  When it goes, it goes for everyone.

If railroads were to be run at scale on biomass, they would burn the fuel faster than you could grow it, not to mention all the water needed to grow the food and run the steam engines.  This idea is just a fantasy.
LOL... you misunderstand... apparently you have a different meaning for the world "could" than I do.... you are IN AGREEMENT with John Michael Greer.  You are arguing that it is economically unfeasible, and unless we make some radical changes, I believe that's where we're headed, too.  I'm just saying from a technical standpoint, we could keep railroads around, even on a purely biomass system.  I mean, railroads were developed in the 18th century, for goodness sakes!  It's just a question of too much cost for too little benefit.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 26, 2016, 05:19:27 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.
If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:
Macronutrients for plants: N, P, K
Micronutrients for plants: B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Mo, Cl
Composition of methane: C, H

I see no overlap....

And don't forget, methane digestion is itself a thermogenic process, you can capture the heat to reduce space heating requirements.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 05:33:45 PM
I'm just saying from a technical standpoint, we could keep railroads around, even on a purely biomass system.  I mean, railroads were developed in the 18th century, for goodness sakes!  It's just a question of too much cost for too little benefit.

Railroads grew directly from Coal mining.

The steam engine was first applied at coal mining sites to pump water out of the mines.  The coal was right there to power the engines.

The next step was to be able to move the coal out of the mines in bulk and over to where they wanted to burn it, in cities with factories.  They had short rail sections in the mines which had cars pulled by Donkeys.  They extended those rail lines and then applied the Steam Engine to running Locomotives.  Railroads never ran primarily on wood, even in the FSoA.  The Coal Mining industry developed very early on in WV, and coal was stored in hoppers at train stations and rail yards where they filled the coal car behind the locomotive.  The train engineers got the job of stoking the furnace with the coal to make the train run.

At the same time, steam engines were applied to ships, which made transporting large quantities of coal over great distances possible.  Between the railroads and the steamships, coal energy could be dispersed across continents and between continents.

In a pinch in heavily wooded areas, trains could get their fuel from wood and charcoal, but this was not how those trains were generally powered.  If they had been, all the forests in the FSoA would have been burned in the 19th century.

This doesn't even include all the coal needed to make coke for steel production to build the trains and the rails.  It's not just that it is not economic to run this system on biomass, it simply is too energy consumptive and you couldn't grow the biomass fast enough to keep it running.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 05:55:32 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.
If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:
Macronutrients for plants: N, P, K
Micronutrients for plants: B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Mo, Cl
Composition of methane: C, H

I see no overlap....

And don't forget, methane digestion is itself a thermogenic process, you can capture the heat to reduce space heating requirements.

"Nutrients" & "Fertilizer" are not one in the same thing.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus in fertilizer come in the form of Nitrates and Phosphates, high energy compounds.  The most common compound used is Ammonium Nitrate, also used for making bombs.  In fact the bomb factories of WWII were converted to fertilizer factories which spawned the "Green Revolution".

The process of getting Methane out of manure is a kind of reverse Haber Process, where ammonia is produced from methane.  It removes the energy content from the nitrogen compounds and transfers it to the carbon in a highly reduced form of Methane, which then can be oxidized to release the energy.  There is no free lunch here.

Ash does provide nutrients to the soil, but the energy has been sucked out of the compounds in the fire that produced the ash.  Plants and associated microorganisms can eventually recreate the high energy compounds through photosynthesis which brings energy back into the system, but it is a much slower process than using fertilizer with high energy compounds right there for the plant to suck up through it's roots and use directly.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on May 26, 2016, 06:04:57 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.
If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:
Macronutrients for plants: N, P, K
Micronutrients for plants: B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Mo, Cl
Composition of methane: C, H

I see no overlap....

And don't forget, methane digestion is itself a thermogenic process, you can capture the heat to reduce space heating requirements.


And it can work as a very small scale locally based system that doesn't require monopolies and governments. I'm not talking about running trains. Just cooking dinner and maybe occasionally using a generator to top off the batteries of one's personal power  plant.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 26, 2016, 06:24:00 PM
I'm just saying from a technical standpoint, we could keep railroads around, even on a purely biomass system.  I mean, railroads were developed in the 18th century, for goodness sakes!  It's just a question of too much cost for too little benefit.

Railroads grew directly from Coal mining.

The steam engine was first applied at coal mining sites to pump water out of the mines.  The coal was right there to power the engines.

The next step was to be able to move the coal out of the mines in bulk and over to where they wanted to burn it, in cities with factories.  They had short rail sections in the mines which had cars pulled by Donkeys.  They extended those rail lines and then applied the Steam Engine to running Locomotives.  Railroads never ran primarily on wood, even in the FSoA.  The Coal Mining industry developed very early on in WV, and coal was stored in hoppers at train stations and rail yards where they filled the coal car behind the locomotive.  The train engineers got the job of stoking the furnace with the coal to make the train run.

At the same time, steam engines were applied to ships, which made transporting large quantities of coal over great distances possible.  Between the railroads and the steamships, coal energy could be dispersed across continents and between continents.

In a pinch in heavily wooded areas, trains could get their fuel from wood and charcoal, but this was not how those trains were generally powered.  If they had been, all the forests in the FSoA would have been burned in the 19th century.

This doesn't even include all the coal needed to make coke for steel production to build the trains and the rails.  It's not just that it is not economic to run this system on biomass, it simply is too energy consumptive and you couldn't grow the biomass fast enough to keep it running.
First, we're not talking about building a system from scratch, are we?  This is all in the context of catabolic collapse, where we have the detroitus of industrial civilization to work with as a starting point.

Second, I'm not talking about keeping the entire system going.  I don't think there would be any problem growing enough biomass to keep a train running from New York to Washington D.C. once a week, for an extreme example.  There is some level of activity which is technically sustainable, even if the cost per rider would be outrageous.

And quite frankly, the major advantage of a railroad is the low friction between the metal wheels and the metal rails.  Beyond that, I'm not convinced that a biomass-era railroad would have much resemblance to our current system.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on May 26, 2016, 06:42:11 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.
If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:
Macronutrients for plants: N, P, K
Micronutrients for plants: B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Mo, Cl
Composition of methane: C, H

I see no overlap....

And don't forget, methane digestion is itself a thermogenic process, you can capture the heat to reduce space heating requirements.

"Nutrients" & "Fertilizer" are not one in the same thing.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus in fertilizer come in the form of Nitrates and Phosphates, high energy compounds.  The most common compound used is Ammonium Nitrate, also used for making bombs.  In fact the bomb factories of WWII were converted to fertilizer factories which spawned the "Green Revolution".

The process of getting Methane out of manure is a kind of reverse Haber Process, where ammonia is produced from methane.  It removes the energy content from the nitrogen compounds and transfers it to the carbon in a highly reduced form of Methane, which then can be oxidized to release the energy.  There is no free lunch here.

Ash does provide nutrients to the soil, but the energy has been sucked out of the compounds in the fire that produced the ash.  Plants and associated microorganisms can eventually recreate the high energy compounds through photosynthesis which brings energy back into the system, but it is a much slower process than using fertilizer with high energy compounds right there for the plant to suck up through it's roots and use directly.

RE

My primary goals in bringing pigs on to the land were to (a) grow healthy pork to eat, (b) add carbon and nutrients to the soil using the kind of rotational grazing practices advocated by Joel Salatin, and (c) to sell Mangalitsa piglets to other people who might want to try raising them. I do expect that one thing that will be present in surplus is feces, because pigs mostly eat and defecate. Feces can be a big problem. It's why commercial hog farms are generally hated by their neighbors. If some of the feces can go to methane generation, that's just one more positive attribute, and a little less odor to worry about.

Apparently, not all the fertilizer value of organic waste is lost in the methane generation process.

(http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/jpg/MD02.jpg)

(http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/jpg/MD03.jpg)

As the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes progresses, the process slows and layers form in the digester. All the leftovers have some potential further use.

Great article here.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/jpg/MD02.jpg (http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/jpg/MD02.jpg)

Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 06:44:40 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.
If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer.  You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:
Macronutrients for plants: N, P, K
Micronutrients for plants: B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Mo, Cl
Composition of methane: C, H

I see no overlap....

And don't forget, methane digestion is itself a thermogenic process, you can capture the heat to reduce space heating requirements.


And it can work as a very small scale locally based system that doesn't require monopolies and governments. I'm not talking about running trains. Just cooking dinner and maybe occasionally using a generator to top off the batteries of one's personal power  plant.

That I think is plausible.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 06:55:58 PM
I'm just saying from a technical standpoint, we could keep railroads around, even on a purely biomass system.  I mean, railroads were developed in the 18th century, for goodness sakes!  It's just a question of too much cost for too little benefit.

Railroads grew directly from Coal mining.

The steam engine was first applied at coal mining sites to pump water out of the mines.  The coal was right there to power the engines.

The next step was to be able to move the coal out of the mines in bulk and over to where they wanted to burn it, in cities with factories.  They had short rail sections in the mines which had cars pulled by Donkeys.  They extended those rail lines and then applied the Steam Engine to running Locomotives.  Railroads never ran primarily on wood, even in the FSoA.  The Coal Mining industry developed very early on in WV, and coal was stored in hoppers at train stations and rail yards where they filled the coal car behind the locomotive.  The train engineers got the job of stoking the furnace with the coal to make the train run.

At the same time, steam engines were applied to ships, which made transporting large quantities of coal over great distances possible.  Between the railroads and the steamships, coal energy could be dispersed across continents and between continents.

In a pinch in heavily wooded areas, trains could get their fuel from wood and charcoal, but this was not how those trains were generally powered.  If they had been, all the forests in the FSoA would have been burned in the 19th century.

This doesn't even include all the coal needed to make coke for steel production to build the trains and the rails.  It's not just that it is not economic to run this system on biomass, it simply is too energy consumptive and you couldn't grow the biomass fast enough to keep it running.
First, we're not talking about building a system from scratch, are we?  This is all in the context of catabolic collapse, where we have the detroitus of industrial civilization to work with as a starting point.

Second, I'm not talking about keeping the entire system going.  I don't think there would be any problem growing enough biomass to keep a train running from New York to Washington D.C. once a week, for an extreme example.  There is some level of activity which is technically sustainable, even if the cost per rider would be outrageous.

And quite frankly, the major advantage of a railroad is the low friction between the metal wheels and the metal rails.  Beyond that, I'm not convinced that a biomass-era railroad would have much resemblance to our current system.

I agree that through scavenging and then applying some biomass to some restricted routes and schedules that you probably could keep some trains running for a while, but it's not a sustainable system.  It's going to rapidly decay and it's utility is questionable.  Why do people need to travel between NY and Washington in this post collapse world?

In order to get somewhat close to sustainability, all the energy wasted on traveling around and shipping food around needs to be eliminated.  Food production needs to be local, capturing as much energy as you can in that location to support the population that lives in that location.

All the energy you capture through biomass takes up valuable Ag land and Water.  Burning it to run choo-choo trains simply diminishes the possible carrying capacity for a given plot of land.

RE
Title: Renewable Energy Survey: Sneak Preview
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 07:08:17 PM
For Diners, I will give a Sneak Preview of some of the text answers to the Survey.  :icon_sunny:

We are up to 107 Respondents now in pre-Release week.  I have a killer article set up for the Release on Sunday.

Below, text answers to Ugo's original survey question.

RE


2. You may explain your answer to question 1 here.

All energy scenario with 100% ER requires a strong decrease of consumption. Who want that?
 
But there are societal reasons, as important than technical reasons, that limit RE. It's for societal reasons that people refuse serious carbon tax, wind mills, smart grids,  large hydro-electric dams,  etc,    prefer voting Trump or right-end extremists than ecologists,   can't imagine they should change their way of life based on energy ( such as take plane, eat meal, ... ),  won't reduce their standard of living (and thus their energy consumption) to share with others,  etc

The energy flows and patterns structures our whole societies, our job, our mindset, our imaginary, ... It's not only a matter of price, technology and incensitive to make that change.
Climate disaster due to energy is unlikely.  Renewables do not provide for base load energy use (when winds don't blow and sun doesn't shine)
Coal needed for steel and concrete. Steel and concrete needed for wind turbines.
Faith that science and engineering will make sufficient improvements.
Fossil fuel is only cheap now because we ignore its many negative externalities. Once costs are adjusted to account the environmental impacts renewable energy sources will be cheaper.
Humans derive ALL energy by changing small amounts of mass into energy and raising the entropy of the system.  Advanced reactors running on breeder fuel cycles can offer humans the next energy source.  It is all a political issue rather than an economic or technical problem.

Instead of running our economy on hydrocarbons from the ground, why not use the Ficher-Tropes process fired by nuclear heat to convert bio mass and water into O2 and synthetic hydrocarbons?

I consider advanced nuclear fuel cycles to be "renewable" because you can transmute actinides with large binding energies into fissile isotopes.  These actinides have been around longer than the age of the sun and the sun will run out of fuel long before we can burn through these actinides without making another energy leap.
Humans have never cringed at technological challenges before and they are already moving ahead in this area.
I am somewhere between (3) and (4) -- err to (3) to be conservative.
I can find very few who trust either govt or corporate not to profit first or otherwise squander hard earned quids on the global casino.
I choose Option 6. It will happen faster than can be predicted. Government action can only lamely attempt to slow it down.
I have no formal education in these fields, this is just my opinion
I see no real serious movement to power down. When people don't buy jet skis anymore because they're too embarrassed, about the waste, then I'll think we're making progress.
I selected the 3rd option because I think it most closely matches my thoughts. I think we can technically and economically achieve it but the will is not there. I don't know what global emergency status means but I think repeated global disasters will have a huge impact on people all over the world and this is what will truly prompt change. It might also be easier then since our population will probably be drastically lowered.
If money was truly no object then it could be possible but the problem here is that once energy costs increase due declining fossil fuel use this will make renewable energy more expensive.

This will then be exacerbated by the fact peoples' incomes will be decreasing in real terms meaning they cannot afford the new technology due to reduced wages and more important a diminished capacity to obtain credit due to lack of income/wealth.
impossible at fundamental level because of scale, overshoot , growth being requirement of ind society etc. i dont think its 'a bit impossible'; its not even in ball park of possibilities. i dont think 'steady state' economy will make it possible either because even as we are, the scale of overshoot is too great, and amounts of energy, even to supply 'basic needs' are too vast. we would have to reduce our population to 1 /6th to 1/12th (im inclined to the latter) to be even in the ballpark to allow steady state economy to theoretically work. so to make RE possible, youd need to both scale down society AND build up RE at same time. the two things are mutually contradictory as functioning, growing IC is required for the astronomically massive RE build out and to maintain it indefinitely. so ITS IMPOSSIBLE and completely irrational to think RE can save us, at least without MASSIVE, unbelievable sacrifices of both population and lifestyle. and even then, highly unlikely because of fundamental contradiction between what IC needs and RE provides. another way of putting it, IC requires capital energy. RE is income energy. completely different things.
In answering 3 the type of society it will support will require much lower energy throughputs, and will look much different in terms transport infrastructure and availability, length of supply chains etc. and will still require some high density thermal sources likely from biomass and remaining fossil fuels.
It could be done, but only with hydroelectric power, since other renewable sources of energy have EROEIs that are too low to be viable. The population level that could be supported in this way is much lower than our current population, making the 'price' to modern society (mass die-off) unthinkable.
It is possible and relatively  inxpensive in first world countries. We can cannibalise the third world's resources to fuel our transition and keep them from migrating and/or consuming as much as we do with easy coercive measures  (walls, weapons, authoritarian regimes set up by the West, etc)
It may be possible for a couple of hundred years with under one billion people.  We can debate the numbers, but we have choices of what to cut: cars, people, meat eating.  Cannot have it all.
Low EROEI is the main problem.  Combining renewables with nuclear would solve that.
Low EROI = end of story
Many, many problems including all of those listed plus collapsing debt.
Maybe could sustain 5% of our current population for a short time. Expecting to convert to renewables and maintain even a semblance of BAU is akin to a fairytale told to children. Global warming and over population are predicaments humans have advanced to because of the wanton use of FF's. "Renewables" IMO are simply an extension of FF use.
N/A
renewable tech is oil derived.
Renewables use up energy from fossils in their implementation. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul. To carry on with them guarantees we burn all FFs then renewables go into liquidation.
Says it all - its never about the money, a product of debt in hope of future access to energy.

Alternatively the whole consumption-pattern and gross consumption has to shift / reduced dramatically!
Small wealthy countries can experiment and pay for miracles as in Germany. But to move large industrialized countries like the US and China, much less poorer countries such as India and Africa, there are too many problems.
Solar power and electric technology are already taking over.  They just aren't doing so quite fast enough because of vested fossil fuel interests.  If we solve the political blockage which prevents us from passing a carbon tax, we will have solved the *only* problem.
Sub-national and national governments around the world are beginning to warm up to policies previously viewed with skepticism, like a carbon tax.
Subsidies for fossil energy prevent the free market from working as it should.
The 5th dimension will provide all of our needs
to survey in a crystalline environment
The amount of renewable energy we employ at the moment is a tiny fraction of the whole mix. Trying to scale it up to 100% would be an act of folly.
The fossil fuel industry corruption of our government is the main obstacle, not thermodynamics.
The main point is the availibity of FF. I still think PO will be the main driver for any energy transition. Not climate. Not greens. But the result may be fine for both...
the necessary government intervention to bring it about would require dictatorial powers on a global scale. (not really covered in the questionnaire above)
resistance to this would be violent and certain to bring about societal collapse
The end result would be a reduced population (through war) bringing about the necessary and inevitable reduction in energy usage.
the oil industry has a stranglehold. We would have been using alternative energies 70 years ago.
The only part of the equation to be completed is cheap storage.  Everything else is already there.
The profit motive is so deeply entrenched, and so politically protected via legalized bribery as to make such a transition very difficult.
The technical reason for my choice of #1 is human psychology on a mass scale. We simply will not move in time to do the things that need to be done while we have the energy resources to do so. This coupled with the tremendous complexity and fragility of the systems we have created. Otherwise, my response might be #3.
Too many people.
Very few things are as important as securing a reliable primary energy supply, especially if it is renewable, and make it extensive and affordable to all humans . In something this important when the market cannot do it by itself, the least of my concerns is money. It is not that RE is inexpensive-it is certainly expensive-but as FDR proved in the New Deal, World War 2 and the Manhattan Project; as Obama proved in the huge bank bailout, as Eisenhower proved when he paved the inter-state highways (which he later collected in taxes) and as Reagan proved in the 1980s to end the Cold War, if a nation has a strong enough currency and can keep printed money from filtering into inflation,  deficits dont really matter when the future of humans and the economic system is at stake. In an age where electronic money transfers is routine, governments will "subsidize" the energy infrastructure the way they do their military because nothing can stop national security. Targeted government intervention is called for and will be done
We /might/ be able to afford to pull off a conversion to renewables if we quit wasting so much money on weapons systems and wars to use them in  - fat chance. We would probably also need to start on that NOW - again, good luck with that.
With consideration of third world countries, I expect most people can't afford most renewable energy technology.
Title: Amerika's Commuter Rail System is Going off the Rails
Post by: RE on May 26, 2016, 10:21:11 PM
Perfect Timing!  :icon_sunny:

RE

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/infrastructure-roads-bridges-airports-railroads/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/infrastructure-roads-bridges-airports-railroads/)

Full video report: The busiest railroad track in the country is badly in need of repair 02:40
America's commuter rail system is going off the rails

By Rene Marsh, David Gracey and Ted Severson, CNN

Updated 8:23 PM ET, Thu May 26, 2016

Washington (CNN)Nearly 40 million Americans will kick off one of the busiest travel seasons in history this Memorial Day weekend, jarred by potholes on America's roads, crossing her aging bridges, riding her antiquated railways and taking off from airports that draw international scorn.
Long a source of national pride, America's infrastructure is in critical need of repair, but federal government spending on the issue has gone down 9% in the past decade. As former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood says, "We're like a third-world country when it comes to infrastructure."
CNN aviation and regulation correspondent Rene Marsh investigates the state of the country's bridges, railways, airports and pipelines in a four-part series: America's Crumbling Infrastructure. Check back here from now through Monday.
Part 2: The busiest rails shut down by failing power cables
Cracks in the busiest bridge in the western hemisphere
Cracks in the busiest bridge in the western hemisphere origwx allee_00002328

Cracks in the busiest bridge in the western hemisphere 00:51
The Portal Bridge in New Jersey is the most heavily trafficked rail span in the Western Hemisphere. Connecting New Jersey to New York City's Penn Station, an estimated 450 trains cross it every 24 hours.
Below -- sometimes not much more than 25 feet down -- is the Hackensack River, itself a busy thoroughfare for boats and barges. To accommodate both, the Portal Bridge operates on a swing-span, allowing it to open for watercraft, then close up again to complete the rail path.
"The problem we have is that, as it swings back, those miters don't always come down right, because this thing is so old," explains Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman.
And when those "miters" don't line up correctly, train traffic grinds to a halt.
"So then you have to get crews out here," Boardman says. "That holds up a lot of trains, no matter what time of the day it is."
The Portal Bridge, like so much of America's archaic and often wonky infrastructure, was designed in the 19th century and built more than a hundred years ago.
But funding for an overhaul, or the construction of a new passage, remains elusive. An Amtrak estimate from 2013 puts the cost at just under a billion dollars.
Less than nine miles east, the tunnel that connects Jersey City to Manhattan is cracked and crumbling.
The 106-year-old Hudson River Tunnel connects more than 230,000 commuters daily, but in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in 2012 it has been plagued by power failures, causing shutdowns and days-long delays.
"This salt is eating away at the concrete, it's eating away at the rails, it's eating away at the cables that go through here for power," says Boardman, who describes it as one of the most disturbing examples of an infrastructure system long ignored or deprived of needed maintenance.
The price of renewing and safeguarding the web of railways that runs up Amtrak's "Northeast Corridor" -- more than 450 miles -- stands at an estimated $20 billion.
The cost for passengers has been steeper.
In May 2015, an Amtrak passenger train traveling more than twice the 50 mile per hour speed limit jumped the tracks in Philadelphia. Eight people were killed and more than 200 riders were injured.
The deadly derailment might have been prevented if the tracks had been fitted with a technology called "Positive Train Control," an innovation that automatically slows speeding rail traffic.
So what's taking so long?
"It takes time to make sure it works right," Boardman says. Across the country, 30 freight and passenger train accidents, 69 deaths, and more than 1,200 injuries could have been prevented had the technology been in place.
With Congress tied up in partisan knots over new spending, the bullet trains of Japan -- which cruise at over 200 miles per hour and could cut in half the travel time between Boston and Washington, D.C. -- seem a long way off. Implementing a similar system would come with a price tag exceeding $151 billion.
"You want to be able to show the benefit of the dollar you invested," Transportation Department head Anthony Foxx tells CNN. "I think members of Congress struggle, because (these projects) actually require longer than a political term to take root."
Short term thinking leads to long term trouble, and for the busiest strip of track in the Americas, the crumbling is becoming more difficult -- and dangerous -- to ignore.
Part 1: Bridges supported by crumbling 90-year-old beams
This bridge in Washington, D.C. is disintegrating
Crumbling Bridges rene marsh_00001725

This bridge in Washington, D.C. is disintegrating 02:52
Nearly 60,000 bridges across the country are in desperate need of repair. One example is just down the street from the White House and Capitol Hill. In the nation's capital, 68,000 vehicles cross the Arlington Memorial Bridge between Washington and Virginia every day. CNN was granted rare access to go inside the crumbling bridge.
"It's just eroding and concrete is falling off," said National Park Service spokeswoman Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles as she showed how the original support beams from 1932 are corroding. The beams have never been replaced, and the bridge could be closed to vehicle traffic within five years if it isn't fixed. It'll cost $250 million.
Go inside the corroding Arlingon Memorial Bridge

Go inside the corroding Arlingon Memorial Bridge 01:14
In 1932, as the Arlington Memorial Bridge was being erected, Congress was dealing with the Great Depression. That same year, President Herbert Hoover enacted the first federal gas tax at 1 cent per gallon. The gas tax is a major source of funding for bridges and roads that has been raised periodically until 1993, when it was set at 18.4 cents per gallon.
Although the gas tax has remained steady, cars have become more efficient and overall federal government spending on infrastructure has declined 9% from 2003-14, according to the Congressional Budget Office. According to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, every state has some degree of bad bridges that need to be repaired. In Los Angeles, CNN found trees growing out of cracks in a bridge. In Chicago, netting is in place to protect drivers from falling concrete.
LaHood was a rare Republican who served in President Barack Obama's administration. He says there's an easy way to fund upgrades to an infrastructure system that has become "third-world": Raise the gas tax. LaHood and others blame Congress for failing to raise the gas tax in 23 years.
Republican Rep. Bill Shuster, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said raising the gas tax "doesn't solve the long-term funding problem." But Congress has not yet come up with a solution.
Beyond funding, there is another issue: how to make the bridges better. Researchers at the University of Michigan believe they may have a fix: bendable concrete that can heal itself from cracks. Demonstration in the university's engineer lab shows regular concrete can fail quickly and suddenly. Professor Victor Li, who developed the technology over the past 10 years, said the bendable concrete can withstand a force hundreds of times more powerful than standard concrete. The researchers' hope is that it could help already crumbling bridges, like the Memorial Bridge near the nation's capital.
But new concrete is expensive. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, bridge infrastructure investment needs to be increased by $8 billion annually. The society said that increase would address the estimated $76 billion in needs for deficient bridges across the United States.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on May 27, 2016, 10:32:56 AM
All the energy you capture through biomass takes up valuable Ag land and Water.  Burning it to run choo-choo trains simply diminishes the possible carrying capacity for a given plot of land.
I never said it was a smart idea... in fact, I think using burning biomass to power engines to run a railroad is a really lame idea.

Here is more what I was thinking for a powerdown rail solution:
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n27B9xtZMTE#)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 27, 2016, 12:46:40 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.

If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

This is factually incorrect. I will leave it to JD and/or Eddie to correct you on this because I know you will vociferously claim I am in error here. I am NOT in error. I have studied the German Methane Harvesters and they DO obtain a fertilizer product from the residue.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 27, 2016, 01:04:45 PM
Quote
2. You may explain your answer to question 1 here.

All energy scenarios with 100% ER requires a strong decrease of consumption  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif).  Who wants that?

Amory Lovins and yours truly disagree with the premise that ALL 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios require a strong decrease of consumption. Yes, much less ENERGY will be used, but the assumed sine qua non correlation of less energy with dead people and lower standard of living is what I strongly find fault with.

As I stated in the survey (and Amory Lovins has fastidiously laid out in peer reviewed, hard ball, no details left out published plans to transition to 100% Renewable Energy STEP BY STEP), about 3 billion people would probably die needlessly IF an overnight transition to RE occurred.

HOWEVER, if the transition matches manufacturing replacement of vehicles and other machines with RE infrastructure over a ten to 15 year period, nobody has to die and, although CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels and nuclear power goes to a statistically insignificant amount, the STANDARD of LIVING is actually IMPROVED while the ENERGY CONSUMED is reduced over 80% from EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS in the use of the available Renewable Energy.

Amory Lovins does not DO "pie in the sky". AND NEITHER DO I!   

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d2/37/50/d23750fcbd2b0e0d1bdb7ab41552bd2c.jpg)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: K-Dog on May 27, 2016, 01:24:12 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.

If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

I took a tour of one of our three poo-poo treatment plants a couple of years ago.  Settled out product was conveyed to one of five methane digesters which are huge concrete tanks several stories tall.  Methane is produced for a few weeks and then the residue is trucked to eastern Washington for use as fertilizer.  It makes wheat grow very well.

On any given day the methane is sold to the gas company or it is burned to generate electricity and sold to the electric company to offset the plant electric bill.  The methane extracted is only enough to provide one fifth of the power the plant actually uses.

This plant receives its raw material from a mixed flow of storm drain and sewage waters.  The area served does not have a separate storm drain system though there are some street drains with fish painted next to them that claim to drain directly into Lake Washington.  The relevant fact is that product to produce methane arrives quite dilute.  This may explain some of the poor efficiency.

I am going to look into how much methane is produced by a single pig's poop on an annual basis but don't let that stop anyone from posting what they know about the process first.

I do know an elephant produces enough methane to keep a range burner on because they process their fodder very inefficiently.  They are not ruminants.  Elephant poop is apparently important to distribute nutrients in their local environment and because they don't get all the energy they could from their feed elephants are consequently always full of shit.  The Republican mascot is well chosen.

My point is that like the blood of patriots the waste product of methane digestion is useful as fertilizer.

But how many therms can a pig toot?
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 27, 2016, 01:32:25 PM
The methane production method clearly is not 100% efficient at converting the energy in the shit, so the residue has enough to also work as fertilizer.  Since it also recyclwes nutrients, definitely good for the soil.

So next question is, how many pigs do you need to be able to run your tractor for a year?

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 27, 2016, 01:36:58 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.  It is interesting to note that these successes never make the news and one must sleuth or blindly trip over them to find these success stories.  It is almost like anything that would upset the dominance of the fossil fuel extraction industries is suppressed by mainstream media.

Of course we have a free press committed to the the health of the nation and the welfare of its people so that can't happen.  For that to happen TPTB would have to actually embrace evil as a guiding creed and have total distain for their reader and viewerships.  Fortunately that is too far fetched and unpatriotic to actually be the case so there must be another explanation. 

Anyone care to tell me what that is?

Surly provided the short answer.  :emthup:

Here's one more nuanced in regard to methane, otherwise known as CH4. The CH4 obtained, after about one third by volume FLARING pollution AND the CH4 obtained from refined crude oil is HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED (see government babied welfare queen).

The CH4 obtained from methane harvesters is MOSTLY not subsidized except through general farming tax breaks and the like. CH4 from animal feces is RENEWABLE ENERGY TRULY NATURAL gas, unlike the CH4 from fossil fuels. This makes the truly NATURAL gas a THREAT to the fossil fuel industry CH4 because the fossil fuel product is NOT cost effective and the animal feces product IS cost effective.

This is a brief summary of how WE-THE-PEOPLE pad Fracking bottom line. Since the 1980's our fossil fuel gooberment has been paving the welfare queen way for the Frackers.

Subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to an industry or business. Fracking subsidies include tax breaks, government funding into research, lost government revenue such as discounted drilling fees, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to negative and harmful effects.

Congress passed a large tax break in 1980 specifically to encourage unconventional natural gas drilling, with the federal tax credit for drillers amounting to $10 billion between 1980 and 2002, according to the AP. The US Department of Energy also invested about $137 million in gas research over three decades.[1]

As documented in The Costs of Fracking report, fracking creates millions of dollars of health costs related to everything from air pollution to ruined roads to contaminated property. 

“Fracking’s environmental damage is bad enough, but it turns out that this dirty drilling imposes heavy dollar and cents costs as well,” said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America Research & Policy Center and a co-author of the report. “And in many cases, the public will be left holding the bag for those costs.”

The report’s documented examples of fracking costs include the following:

• Drinking water contamination:  In Dimock, Pennsylvania, permanently replacing residents’ contaminated drinking water with a new source was estimated at more than $11 million.

• Health costs from air pollution:  in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale region, air pollution from fracking operations impose health costs estimated at $9.8 million in one year. In Texas’ Barnett Shale region, those costs reach $270,000 per day during the summer smog season.

• Roads to ruin:  with fracking operations requiring thousands of trips by trucks and heavy machinery, a Texas task force approved $40 million in funding for road repairs in the Barnett Shale region.

Other fracking costs documented in the report range from nearby homeowners losing property value to farmers losing livestock from fracking contamination.

Moreover, the record of prior booms indicates that the public will all too often be stuck with the bill for such fracking costs. For example, Pennsylvania is now stuck with an estimated $5 billion cost for cleaning up mining pollution from decades gone ago. Similarly, the current gas drilling rush is plagued with inadequate financial assurance and the difficulty of proving liability, especially for impacts that are long-term.

“We have seen the tragedy of polluting booms before,” observed Rumpler. “In all likelihood, individual property owners and the public at large will be left holding the bag for the legacy of fracking.”
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 27, 2016, 01:53:58 PM
I know of a county in Wisconsin that is getting most of its natural gas from cow manure.

If you use cow or pig manure for methane production, then it is no longer useful as fertilizer. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) You've burned out the energy content.  You can't have your shit and eat it too.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

I took a tour of one of our three poo-poo treatment plants a couple of years ago.  Settled out product was conveyed to one of five methane digesters which are huge concrete tanks several stories tall.  Methane is produced for a few weeks and then the residue is trucked to eastern Washington for use as fertilizer.  It makes wheat grow very well.

On any given day the methane is sold to the gas company or it is burned to generate electricity and sold to the electric company to offset the plant electric bill.  The methane extracted is only enough to provide one fifth of the power the plant actually uses.

This plant receives its raw material from a mixed flow of storm drain and sewage waters.  The area served does not have a separate storm drain system though there are some street drains with fish painted next to them that claim to drain directly into Lake Washington.  The relevant fact is that product to produce methane arrives quite dilute.  This may explain some of the poor efficiency.

I am going to look into how much methane is produced by a single pig's poop on an annual basis but don't let that stop anyone from posting what they know about the process first.

I do know an elephant produces enough methane to keep a range burner on because they process their fodder very inefficiently.  They are not ruminants.  Elephant poop is apparently important to distribute nutrients in their local environment and because they don't get all the energy they could from their feed elephants are consequently always full of shit.  The Republican mascot is well chosen.

My point is that like the blood of patriots the waste product of methane digestion is useful as fertilizer.

But how many therms can a pig toot?

The problem here is the generally accepted notion of "carrying capacity" that is riddled with false assumptions on the nature of energy transfer mechanisms in autotrophs (photosynthetic sunlight eaters).

From the simplistic application of Hess's Law to the cherry picking of the fossil fuel funded Charles Halls of this world, we get an amazing array of studious peer reviewed bullshit about "carrying capacity", caloric intake requirements and required nutrients.

The fact is, K-Dog, that nitrogen fixation and other plant health and growth (NOT the same thing!) processes are complex. The thermodynamics of soil microbes is not well understood because off their enzyme mediated energy transfer systems.

The reductionist and moronic 20th century Big Ag assumptions that all you needed to grow a healthy crop are phosphates, potassium and nitrogen are based on FALSE assumptions about autotroph energy (AND HEALTH) requirements.

NOBODY has quantified ERoEI in soil microbes, of which there are several MILLION per cubic INCH (including thousands of DIFFERENT SPECIES). When they do, we can begin to understand carrying capacity. Until then, assumptions about energy from fertilizer are not based on the important, and sine qua non, thermodynamic mechanisms of the soil microbes.
Title: RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY UPDATE
Post by: RE on May 28, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
RENEWABLE ENERGY SURVEY UPDATE

The Renewable Energy Survey now has 120 respondents in the pre-release week.  Most of these respondents come from Cassandra's Legacy, the Doomstead Diner, Reddit Subs and Our Finite World.

We will be doing the Official Release of the Survey to the general blog community tomorrow, Sunday May 29th on the Doomstead Diner.  The release article contains preliminary demographic information on the respondents, but not any of the data so far collected on the substantive questions of the survey, so as not to skew the data from subsequent respondents.  I also included my rationale for not including Nuclear Energy in the matrix of possible renewable options, since there were several questions about this in the text fields.

Currently, there are a sufficient number of respondents for a 95% Confidence Index for the estimated population size we are surveying which is quite good, but we would like to get as large a sample size as possible so that we can break down survey results by various demographic groups in the analysis.

The Survey itself will remain open at least through next week, so forward on the link to anyone you think might be interested in contributing opinions to the survey.

http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd)

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on May 29, 2016, 01:10:51 AM
The main problem with Methane Digesters is scalability.  It is one thing to have a backyard digester using the shit from your own pig sty feeding your cooker for one family, but another entirely to have a four-storey concrete tank fed by a sewerage pipeline, fed by a city's sewerage and rainwater run-off system, and piping the gas back to the city peoples' homes for cooking and central heating.

Shit doesn't just produce Methane, it produces Ethane, Hydrogen, Ammonia, and Hydrogen sulphide, and while they all burn, it also produces Carbon dioxide and water vapour too which don't - in fact more of that than anything else.  This dilutes the effect of the combustible gases, and has to be removed before you can sell it, at an energy cost, of course.  Hydrogen sulphide also has to be removed as it smells foul and produces Sulphur dioxide, Sulphurous Acid and Sulphuric Acid when burnt.  The Ammonia also has to be removed because it smells foul and is corrosive and an irritant itself.

That is why the only people who use small, simple digesters are very poor people like Indian and African farmers.

So what do you do if you've got a lot of shit already, like in an industrialised piggery shed or a cattle feedlot?  Well, if there are no environmental regulations, you quietly hose it away and let it run-off into the local river, but if that is not allowed, and the laws are well-regulated, you might think of putting in a digester as a disposal mechanism, for which you will get a government subsidy, and the government will get a gold star for being environmentally conscious (Greenwash).

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/ZORG.jpg)
Title: The Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 29, 2016, 02:27:55 AM


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on The Doomstead Diner on May 29, 2016



Take the New Renewable Energy Survey HERE



survey-says







Discuss this article at the Energy Table inside the Diner



One of the biggest controversies among people who are aware of the Energy problems we face moving into the future is whether Renewable Energy (RE) can substitute for the Fossil Fuels (FF) we currently use to run our Industrial Lifestyle and Civilization. Can they produce enough energy, can we transition to them fast enough, can they replace all the things we use fossil fuels to power?



 



ugo-bardi-rLast week, Ugo Bardi of the blog Cassandra's Legacy  and Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Firenza in Italy put up the results of an Informal Survey he did of “experts” in RE who participate on a discussion forum dedicated to the topic. There were 70 respondents to this survey, and they mostly were positive in their view of the future potential of RE as a replacement for FFs. I thought it would be a good idea to get a wider sample of opinions on this topic, and hopefully a larger Sample Size as well in a new Renewable Energy Survey.  The first question in this survey is a duplicate of Ugo's question, the rest of the questions are designed to get further detail on your opinions on the future of RE as we move forward toward a Different Tomorrow.  I won't say better or worse, just that it surely will be different.



 



Now, our survey by no means is a Random Sample of the population at large, it is a sample of people who read blogs & websites where we are dropping the Links on to take the survey. However, we are not just dropping the links on Collapse oriented sites, we also are dropping them on Renewable Energy sites where the readers are generally more positive about the future potential for RE than on Collapse oriented sites. So we hope to get a balance of opinions in this way.



 



We also hope that the readers will email Friends & Relatives with the link to the survey, so we can get an even wider sample of opinions from people who don't usually concern themselves with this topic and don't haunt either the Renewable Energy blogs or Collapse Blogs. The larger the sample size we can get, the more accurate the results of the survey will be as a reflection of what people think about these issues.  Larger sample size also allows better parsing of data based on demographics.



 



http://www.easydigging.com/images-new/old-fashion-waterwheel.jpg RE doesn't come in only One Flavor, there are many forms of it, some used since Antiquity such as Mechanical Windmills and Water Wheels, which go back to the Roman Empire at least. Animal Labor from Draft animals is also a form of Renewable Energy, as long as you have food for the Horses & Oxen anyhow. Similarly with Slave Labor of Homo Saps, as long as you can feed, clothe and house them in enough numbers they reproduce effectively, this also is a form of RE.  The energy itself in both the latter 2 cases comes in the form of FOOD, but for that energy to be converted to usable work, it needs a biological machine that does that, which mainly are draft animals and slave Homo Saps.



 



More commonly though, when you talk to modern people about RE, what they think of are Photovoltaic Panels popping up on some of the rooftops around Suburbia amongst people seeking to go “off grid”. They also picture the large Arrays of Wind Turbines sprinkled across mountains in California, along with huge Hydro plants like the Hoover Dam. One of the questions in our survey is what you think the relative effectiveness of each of these types of RE will have as we move into the future?



http://www.rechargenews.com/solar/article1347212.ece/alternates/article_main/OCI%20Alamo%20I%20Solar%20Farm%20%20%20%20%20Credit%20-%20OCI.jpg   http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/wind-farm.jpg



 



Other questions revolve around your opinions on how much energy we need to maintain the techno-industrial lifestyle, and how large a population of Homo Sap is sustainable on the planet in the absence of FFs, with only REs as a source of usable energy? If we made the transition today, how many people could live sustainably on Mother Earth? We also would like to know your opinion on when serious Energy Shortages for maintaining the Industrial Lifestyle will begin to be apparent in 1st World countries, using the United States as the primary example of a highly consumptive Industrial society.



 



Our survey provides room for detailed text answers to each question, along with the Multiple Choice and Ranking options for the questions. No matter what you do on such a survey, you never can provide all the answer choices everyone would like to see. The most common criticism we get with our surveys is that “you did not ask this or that” or “you did not provide this or that answer choice”. First off, you never can think of EVERY possibility in advance, and second even if you could your questions and answers would get way too long. So inevitably, any Survey is just a subset of possibilities.



 



https://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/sjCtSm2Pn8pKn2xJSfE6cg/ls.jpg Another common criticism is that our surveys are not "scientifically" designed.  This is fucking horseshit to begin with, you don't need a Ph.D to ask a fucking question. lol.  However, insofar as designing tests that provide a decent measure of WTF you are trying to measure goes, I'm as close to an expert as you will get.  I spent several years working for The Princeton Review designing test questions to mimic the SAT for wannabee Ivy Leaguers seeking to get a leg up on that test.  I got the job because I myself am a first class test taker, it's a gift. lol.  I also taught Args (Arguments) for wannabee Lawyers taking the LSAT, and all sections of the MCAT for wannabee Doctors.  In fact I'm the only person I know of who taught all of those tests for TPR. :)  So take it from me, this survey is measuring exactly what I set out to measure here.  That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement though, and based on responses and criticisms so far dropped on, I may do a follow up of this later on.



 



One criticism which has popped up in text responses so far is WHY did we not include Nuclear Energy as a Renewable energy resource?  This one I will answer now, so I don't get more of the same critique in the text fields as more responses roll in.  There are several reasons for this.



 



https://www.icheme.org/~/media/Images/TCE/News%20Images/Nuclear/Nuclear%20Tower.jpg First off is that strictly speaking fissionable material that can be mined up is not infinite, so this is not renewable.  Even with breeder reactors, eventually this will run out, although it might take quite some time.  Then you have the spent fuel problem and the waste generated by these plants.  Although in THEORY you might make such waste benign through further nuclear processing and reactions, such a method has not been implemented anywhere, and poisonous spent fuel continues to accumulate everywhere that nuclear reactors are running.  Third is that although some projected forms of Nuclear energy such as Thorium Reactors are claimed to be safe and clean, no such reactor has been built to date to demonstrate even on small scale that it can be run economically.  So all in all, to date Nuclear energy does not appear to be renewable, but rather presents its own existential threat to the environment due to the waste problems it has.



 



Next Week or the week after, depending on the Survey Sample size we will present the results here on the Diner for further discussion, and we will keep the survey open after that to see if the discussion materially affects the total numbers for any category. You can't change your answers from your first submission, but if the discussion materially affects your choices, you can make a second submission. Put a “#2” in the beginning of the email field along with your email address if you submitted one, and I will filter the second set. Or I may just duplicate the whole survey to get a whole new sample. Or I may filter the data by submission date.  One way or the other, I will try to sort this out.



 



We did a "pre-release" of the survey in the last week, dropping links on Cassandra's Legacy, Our Finite World, Economic Undertow and various Reddit Subs as well as on the Diner Forum to get some initial readings on what the zeitgeist is out there as far as RE Questions go.  As of this publication, we currently have 121 respondents so far, which is not a bad sample size to begin with, but hopefully we can expand it some from this.



 



I'm not going to publish the current stats on answers to the the substantive questions from this sample, because that would skew answers from people who have not yet responded.  However, I will drop down here some of the early Demographics on the respondents.



survey-RE-education-1



 



https://www.rochester.edu/commencement/2013/doctoral/doctoral1.jpg The most ASTOUNDING one so far is the Formal Education level of the respondents, it is extraordinarily high.  14% of respondents have Doctorate Level education, 29% with Masters level.  This compared to a general population level of 3% Doctorate and 12% Masters or above.  So by NO MEANS is this a Random Sample!  lol.



 



You can look at this as a Good or Bad thing depending on your perspective.  If you consider that getting opinions from mostly well educated people is a good thing, then a survey which draws in mostly well educated people in responses is good.  If you would rather have a general cross section of the population at large, then such a survey is not valid for that population.



 



http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/09/gender-restroom.png A disappointing (though not unexpected) demographic so far is the number of Females who have responded.  Not unexpected because the collapse blogosphere is heavily weighted toward males, so there just aren't that many females reading this stuff to be able to get them to post up their opinions.  A suggestion I have to remedy this problem is for male respondents to the survey to coax females they know into filling it out.  Your mom, wife, girlfriend etc.  Transgender people self identifying as female are also welcome to check this box! :)  Or you can choose the "other" selection (nobody has picked that yet).



 



The rest of the Demographic questions are coming out distributed nicely, particularly the Age Demographic which is almost a perfect Bell Curve at the moment, though this has fluctuated some.  In any event, there are substantial responses in all categories besides <18 or >70 to parse out opinions by age.  Global distribution is weighted heavily to North America as to be expected given the Diner is an English language blog based in NA, but substantial contribution from Europe as well since this is where Ugo's blog Cassandra's Legacy is based in Italy.  It's been holding pretty steady at 55% North America, 30% Europe, 10% Oz & NZ and the rest everywhere else.



 



The next question you face when analyzing such statistics is their VALIDITY across the population you sample.  Across the entire population of the earth at around 7.2B people right now, this survey has virtually no statistical significance at all!  However, that is not the population being sampled here.  This population is mainly those who consider energy/collapse questions and regularly participate in net discussions on these topics.  How BIG is that population?  Well, I have been doing this biz for almost a decade now, and my estimate on the population size for people who both are aware of the eenrgy problems AND regularly haunt the websites concerned with this topic is around 50,000.  I get that number because for a variety of reasons I know what the subscription numbers are for the largest sites concerned with the topic.



 



So, if you take the current Sample Size of ~100 and the estimate of the total population you are sampling as 50,000, what is the Validity of this survey with those numbers?  For  a Population size of 50,000 with a Confidence Level of 95% and a Margin of Error of 10%, we need 96 respondents to the survey, which we have ALREADY exceeded!  Plug the numbers in on Survey Monkey if you don't believe me. lol



 



I really don't think we need a greater Confidence interval than this, so the main thing a bigger Sample Size will do is to increase the total size of population that sample is valid for.  I expect by the time this survey has accumulated  maximum responses that we will easily have a 99% confidence interval on the results for a population size of 50K.  I only do this statsitical shit because I constantly get  hammered when I do surveys they are not "scientific" enough.  The only criticism that beats "your question and answer choices SUCK!" when you do a survey is how "scientific" it is and what validity it has.  lol.  You can easily tell using CFS principles what is going on though, you don't really need to do the math.



 



Remember though, for surveys to have good validity and make them tough to deny, they need a good Sample Size! So get as many people as you can to fill it out!  This is particularly important if you want to parse the data based on different demographic parameters, which is quite interesting already. Everybody who drops an email addy on the survey will get a copy of the complete dataset (less the emails and website referrals) to do their own analysis.  If you do undertake such a dissection, let me know and I will publish your analysis.  A real nice one to look at is the difference in results between males and females.  Parsing by education level and age also is quite interesting.



 



At current pace, I'll probably have enough numbers for a publication next week of results, but I may wait 2 weeks on this depending on what the stream is and the decay rate in responses.



 



Thanks to all who have contributed to the survey so far, and for the rest of you, TAKE THE SURVEY NOW!


Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on May 29, 2016, 08:57:07 AM
The main problem with Methane Digesters is scalability.  It is one thing to have a backyard digester using the shit from your own pig sty feeding your cooker for one family, but another entirely to have a four-storey concrete tank fed by a sewerage pipeline, fed by a city's sewerage and rainwater run-off system, and piping the gas back to the city peoples' homes for cooking and central heating.

Shit doesn't just produce Methane, it produces Ethane, Hydrogen, Ammonia, and Hydrogen sulphide, and while they all burn, it also produces Carbon dioxide and water vapour too which don't - in fact more of that than anything else.  This dilutes the effect of the combustible gases, and has to be removed before you can sell it, at an energy cost, of course.  Hydrogen sulphide also has to be removed as it smells foul and produces Sulphur dioxide, Sulphurous Acid and Sulphuric Acid when burnt.  The Ammonia also has to be removed because it smells foul and is corrosive and an irritant itself.

That is why the only people who use small, simple digesters are very poor people like Indian and African farmers.

So what do you do if you've got a lot of shit already, like in an industrialised piggery shed or a cattle feedlot?  Well, if there are no environmental regulations, you quietly hose it away and let it run-off into the local river, but if that is not allowed, and the laws are well-regulated, you might think of putting in a digester as a disposal mechanism, for which you will get a government subsidy, and the government will get a gold star for being environmentally conscious (Greenwash).

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/ZORG.jpg)

In general, I favor the micro approach to sustainable energy. Expensive infrastructure and questionable EROEI schemes to funnel tax bucks into conduit schemes....that's sounds exactly like the ethanol boondoggle. I hear what you're saying.
Title: Renewable Energy Survey: Global Economic Intersect Cross Post
Post by: RE on May 30, 2016, 10:41:30 PM
This should get a few more submissions.  :icon_sunny:

http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201605310007 (http://econintersect.com/pages/opinion/opinion.php?post=201605310007)

Now @ 165 Submissions.  Still Short on Females though.  :(

Diners are encouraged to coax, cajole and BRIBE their SO females into filling out this survey!  Wives, Girlfriends, Mothers & Daughters.  Give them Chocolates & Roses if they fill it out!

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on May 31, 2016, 12:09:28 AM
Quote
RE: Another common criticism is that our surveys are not "scientifically" designed.  This is fucking horseshit to begin with, you don't need a Ph.D to ask a fucking question. lol.  However, insofar as designing tests that provide a decent measure of WTF you are trying to measure goes, I'm as close to an expert as you will get. ... So take it from me, this survey is measuring exactly what I set out to measure here. 

So what exactly did you set out to measure?

What a tiny group of self-selected, English-speaking, internet-connected people think about the complex subject of Renewable Energy, having presumably read an article by an Italian Professor, who did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that was riddled with errors, that was self-excused because it was back-of-the-envelope?
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 31, 2016, 01:17:25 PM
Quote
RE: Another common criticism is that our surveys are not "scientifically" designed.  This is fucking horseshit to begin with, you don't need a Ph.D to ask a fucking question. lol.  However, insofar as designing tests that provide a decent measure of WTF you are trying to measure goes, I'm as close to an expert as you will get. ... So take it from me, this survey is measuring exactly what I set out to measure here.

So what exactly did you set out to measure?

What a tiny group of self-selected, English-speaking, internet-connected people think about the complex subject of Renewable Energy, having presumably read an article by an Italian Professor, who did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that was riddled with errors, that was self-excused because it was back-of-the-envelope?


As far as that goes. every single opinion you have voiced on this forum, as well as everyone else's here, is statistically insignificant. Does that mean we are all supposed to disregard each other's posts, Palloy?

And SPARE me the claim that you always reference your posts with "reputable" stats. Your beloved CSIRO shit canned a reputable climate scientist just because he didn't tow the politically palatable line.

The fact that you have used CSIRO stats and studies to back up your ERoEI happy talk for fossil fuels evidences your LACK of objectivity in regard to matters of Renewable Energy.

Australia just fired one of the best climate scientists in the world

By Joe McCarthy on  May 18, 2016

SNIPPET:
He specialized in sea level rise and described why waters are rising and how this will affect countries and marine ecosystems.

His work is one of the longest standing studies of atmospheric change, with measurements taken regularly since 1976 that serve as an essential benchmark.

But he will soon be fired, along with 274 other scientists, by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (Csiro).  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/08/the-science-is-settled-so-australia-will-fire-100-climate-scientists/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/08/the-science-is-settled-so-australia-will-fire-100-climate-scientists/)


Your claim to objectivity is FAR less valid than RE's claim to objectivity.

Of course, that is just "my opinion" and you can correctly claim that "my opinion", like that of RE, has no statistically valid weight.

But several years of posts by RE, with references, along with much less frequent, but also quite well referenced, posts by myself, argue otherwise.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100115191314.jpeg)


Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on May 31, 2016, 03:19:11 PM
Quote
AG: As far as that goes. every single opinion you have voiced on this forum, as well as everyone else's here, is statistically insignificant. Does that mean we are all supposed to disregard each other's posts, Palloy?

Dumb question.  Of course individual opinions are not statistically significant, and of course they shouldn't be disregarded, but then forum posts are not (scientific or unscientific) surveys, are they?    :icon_scratch:

A report on ERoEI (the inverse of Energy Intensity) that I often quote is "Life cycle energy balance" by Dr. Lenzen of Sydney University's ISA Team - nothing to do with CSIRO.  I do this because the report and calculations are transparent, which means it explains in detail the methodology used and gives the data in spreadsheet form.  It covers Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, PV, Wind and Hydro.  The critical numerical data being evaluated are explained, are available in High, Medium and Low data sets, and are adjustable if you want to evaluate your own scenario.  I wish other scientists would as good a job.

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/isa.energy-intensity.comparison.gif)

If you can demonstrate any post I have made where I support Fossil Fuels, I will kill myself.  It might have been a valid criticism the first time, before I had made that point absolutely clear, but you do it EVERY TIME.  This detracts from your credibility, as do a lot of other things you post.  Your belief in Renewable Energy technology, regardless of the evidence against them, shows a completely biased and illogical mindset.

I'm on this doomer site because THERE IS NO SOLUTION.  Peak Fossils will cause the collapse of Industrial Civilisation, and building a lot more new stuff won't get us out of the problem - that is the same old Industrial Civilisation thinking.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 31, 2016, 06:04:24 PM
Quote
AG: As far as that goes. every single opinion you have voiced on this forum, as well as everyone else's here, is statistically insignificant. Does that mean we are all supposed to disregard each other's posts, Palloy?

Dumb question.  Of course individual opinions are not statistically significant, and of course they shouldn't be disregarded, but then forum posts are not (scientific or unscientific) surveys, are they?    :icon_scratch:

A report on ERoEI (the inverse of Energy Intensity) that I often quote is "Life cycle energy balance" by Dr. Lenzen of Sydney University's ISA Team - nothing to do with CSIRO.  I do this because the report and calculations are transparent, which means it explains in detail the methodology used and gives the data in spreadsheet form.  It covers Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, PV, Wind and Hydro.  The critical numerical data being evaluated are explained, are available in High, Medium and Low data sets, and are adjustable if you want to evaluate your own scenario.  I wish other scientists would as good a job.

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/isa.energy-intensity.comparison.gif)

If you can demonstrate any post I have made where I support Fossil Fuels, I will kill myself.  It might have been a valid criticism the first time, before I had made that point absolutely clear, but you do it EVERY TIME.  This detracts from your credibility, as do a lot of other things you post.  Your belief in Renewable Energy technology, regardless of the evidence against them, shows a completely biased and illogical mindset.

I'm on this doomer site because THERE IS NO SOLUTION.  Peak Fossils will cause the collapse of Industrial Civilisation, and building a lot more new stuff won't get us out of the problem - that is the same old Industrial Civilisation thinking.

I don't want you to kill yourself. That would really be stupid.

But you did scoff at my claim that RCP-8 is climate scenario happy talk. The data sets you point to are way too conservative in regard to climate change. That always looks like a backdoor defense of the continued use of fossil fuels to me.

In any and all issues on this forum, you react to criticism of your posts with a descent into hairsplitting in lawyerly legalese fashion, while simultaneously expecting anyone that reads your posts to accept the "there is no solution" generalization you peddle continuously, as if it was a forgone conclusion.

I seem to remember you quoting some CSIRO numbers when we were going round and round about ethanol. But since you wish to disavow CISRO data now, and I am not into hairsplitting, I'll let that, and all the other STUFF about how crop based ethanol is not "cost competitive" with gasoline, go. I think it is and have proven it, though obviously not to your satisfaction.  ;)

The corollary to the assumption that "there is no solution" (that will enable mankind to perpetuate the current standard of living of the upper 20% - the lower 80% are already mostly shafted) is that 100% Renewable Energy and the phasing out of all dirty energy and other polluting industrial activity, like irresponsible mining, will not help at all. Renewable energy technology and infrastructure, in any percentage whatsoever of the energy picture, is futile in your view. I think that is over the top. But let's assume, for the moment, that civilization takes your advice and just ignores all the "futile" renewable energy innovations.

Then the collapse comes. A huge human die off occurs. THEN what?

A recovery? Survival of a remnant of the best and brightest? A flushing of the low IQ dregs so we can move up the next rung on the evolutionary ladder? I DON'T think so.

The view that the collapse does a reset on our chances for the perpetuation of the human species, at a much lower standard of living, hinges exclusively on a massive depopulation, as far as you are concerned. Unless I am mistaken, you actually believe that a collapse of civilization is the ONLY option that is possible in our civilization.

Many things besides collapse could cause a massive depopulation. Massive meteor strikes, massive volcanic eruptions, global thermonuclear war, etc. could all individually do the trick.   

Renewable Energy obviously will delay the collapse of civilization. You think that is futile because you consider that kicking the can down the road.

I would agree IF 80% of the human population right now were the dirty energy consuming pigs. But they are not.

A mere 17% or so is doing over 80% of the piggery. SO, losing 80% of the poorest homo saps dying off from a major collapse will not do JACK SHIT to solve the current homo sap piggery.

The armed ships, submarines, factories, mines, bombs, military bases, bunkers, nukes in space, bombers, missiles, GREED, mansions, yachts, ETC. WILL STILL BE THERE.

THAT is why, even the collapse of civilization you assume is imminent, will not stop the climate change catastrophe that will REALLY kill us off.

All that said, the current trajectory of human civilization certainly is collapse followed by doom. Am I wrong in thinking that you believe that a collapse will delay our doom as a species? Am I wrong in thinking that you believe a much reduced population could make a go of it on this planet?

I believe both those premises are faulty. WHEN the collapse reaches a big die off level, the worst polluters will be STILL POLLUTING. It is wishful thinking that the most technologically advanced segments of the human elite greed balls will not insulate themselves from the carnage while they CONTINUE to flit around in executive jets with their gargantuan carbon footprints.

Sure, there may be no solution. But, if mankind is going to survive post collapse, it MUST be with about 150% (50% for bioremediation for a century or so)  Renewable Energy, 100% recycling (NO MORE MINING ON EARTH) and NO MORE chemical industry pollution.

It is quite possible that we are simply not capable of doing that. I like to think we ARE capable of doing that.

Time will tell.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140515152155.png)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on May 31, 2016, 07:06:16 PM
Quote
AG: Am I wrong in thinking that you believe that a collapse will delay our doom as a species? Am I wrong in thinking that you believe a much reduced population could make a go of it on this planet?

I believe the collapse will be caused by declining energy availability, but the "incident" that triggers the collapse will be a meltdown in financial system, much like the 2008 meltdown, only worse.  Industrial Civilisation can only continue while it is consuming energy, especially electricity and refined oil, and can only be economically healthy if it is growing.  A 20% cut in energy would lead to everything grinding to halt.  We can't go back to the 1960s because we would have build all the 60s infrastructure, and there's no energy for that.

This will lead to people starving to death in their billions, and the only survivors left will be hunter-gatherers, as this is the only lifestyle where there is no storage of "capital" that needs defending against the starving hordes.  Farmers won't be able to do farming if all there crops are stolen in the field.  Graziers won't be able to maintain their stock if bandits come along and eat them in the night.  But hunter-gatherers have at most a meal for today and perhaps tomorrow, so they can't be robbed of anything.

And then all "development" will stop, because you can't do hunter-gathering AND make solar panels.  People will still decorate their clothes and their bodies, and sing and dance, teenagers will fall in love and not respect their elders' wisdom.  But as a whole, there will be a lot less human impact on the environment, which is a Good Thing.

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/Sustainability.jpg)

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/rainforest.hunters.jpg)

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/rainforest.dwelling.jpg)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on May 31, 2016, 07:51:43 PM
Quote
AG: Am I wrong in thinking that you believe that a collapse will delay our doom as a species? Am I wrong in thinking that you believe a much reduced population could make a go of it on this planet?

I believe the collapse will be caused by declining energy availability, but the "incident" that triggers the collapse will be a meltdown in financial system, much like the 2008 meltdown, only worse.  Industrial Civilisation can only continue while it is consuming energy, especially electricity and refined oil, and can only be economically healthy if it is growing.  A 20% cut in energy would lead to everything grinding to halt.  We can't go back to the 1960s because we would have build all the 60s infrastructure, and there's no energy for that.

This will lead to people starving to death in their billions, and the only survivors left will be hunter-gatherers, as this is the only lifestyle where there is no storage of "capital" that needs defending against the starving hordes.  Farmers won't be able to do farming if all there crops are stolen in the field.  Graziers won't be able to maintain their stock if bandits come along and eat them in the night.  But hunter-gatherers have at most a meal for today and perhaps tomorrow, so they can't be robbed of anything.

And then all "development" will stop, because you can't do hunter-gathering AND make solar panels.  People will still decorate their clothes and their bodies, and sing and dance, teenagers will fall in love and not respect their elders' wisdom.  But as a whole, there will be a lot less human impact on the environment, which is a Good Thing.


I sincerely hope you are right. But the runaway greenhouse math, which is actually MUCH worse than the RCP-8 scenario, argues against the survival of even the hunter gatherers.

I don't think you appreciate, or accept, the well researched climate science consensus that, even if all pollution ended within a decade from a collapse, while about 80% of the population died off within that same decade, we would still have well over a CENTURY of increasing temperatures and other types of climate catastrophe in front of us.

Also, I am convinced that you are underestimating the polluting staying power of the top greed balls in the 17%.

Time will tell.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on May 31, 2016, 08:17:44 PM
I tend to agree with PY on this projection.

While I think a large portion  of the Earth landmass will become uninhabitable for Homo Sap, I don't think it all will.  There should be Survivable Habitat in the upper elevations and upper latitudes.  I don't believe we will surpass the PETM in terms of AGT.  The system always plateaus at this level after most sequestered carbon is released.

I discussed this with Deb Ozarko on Sunday.  I'll be airing the Podcast on the Diner tomorrow, and it is already up on Diner You Tube and Diner Soundcloud.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on May 31, 2016, 08:44:34 PM
Quote
I don't think you appreciate, or accept, the well researched climate science consensus that, even if all pollution ended within a decade from a collapse, while about 80% of the population died off within that same decade, we would still have well over a CENTURY of increasing temperatures and other types of climate catastrophe in front of us.

That just isn't so.  RCP-2.6 has temperatures steady after 2045, and that's with burning amounts of FFs that are way in excess of what Peak Fossil-ists believe is possible, and ignoring the energy needed to build the renewables infrastructure that the scenario says will replace the FFs.

The RCP-2.6 scenario was constructed by the same team as validate all the scenarios for consistency and model-ability.  None of their scenarios has a "runaway greenhouse effect", because none of the scenarios produce a runaway effect when modelled.  No doubt there must be a tipping point somewhere, but if RCP-8.5 doesn't show it, certainly RCP-1.6 wouldn't.

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/IPCC.AR5.temperature.forecasts.small.png)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 01, 2016, 07:40:38 AM
Quote
AG: Am I wrong in thinking that you believe that a collapse will delay our doom as a species? Am I wrong in thinking that you believe a much reduced population could make a go of it on this planet?

I believe the collapse will be caused by declining energy availability, but the "incident" that triggers the collapse will be a meltdown in financial system, much like the 2008 meltdown, only worse.  Industrial Civilisation can only continue while it is consuming energy, especially electricity and refined oil, and can only be economically healthy if it is growing.  A 20% cut in energy would lead to everything grinding to halt.  We can't go back to the 1960s because we would have build all the 60s infrastructure, and there's no energy for that.

This will lead to people starving to death in their billions, and the only survivors left will be hunter-gatherers, as this is the only lifestyle where there is no storage of "capital" that needs defending against the starving hordes.  Farmers won't be able to do farming if all there crops are stolen in the field.  Graziers won't be able to maintain their stock if bandits come along and eat them in the night.  But hunter-gatherers have at most a meal for today and perhaps tomorrow, so they can't be robbed of anything.

And then all "development" will stop, because you can't do hunter-gathering AND make solar panels.  People will still decorate their clothes and their bodies, and sing and dance, teenagers will fall in love and not respect their elders' wisdom.  But as a whole, there will be a lot less human impact on the environment, which is a Good Thing.

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/Sustainability.jpg)

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/rainforest.hunters.jpg)

(https://www.palloy.earth/images/rainforest.dwelling.jpg)

This is a reasonable scenario, but I have to take some issue with it. Mainly, I think it overlooks the likely reaction to the kind of financial collapse you see coming (I see it too, btw). I think there will be some period of time where we see BAU continuing under a more top-down form of government. It will be a socialist government in name, but that won't matter, because it will really be a form of slavery, where some elites (or maybe the military)  manages to maintain some semblance of control. Think of North Korea. Sheriff of Nottingham too.

There will be work programs and food programs, and mechanized farming will be replaced by the kind of stoop labor that used to prevail. People will die off, but probably at a slow enough rate it won't be as noticeable as one might think.

For a while, at least there might be pockets of refuge. In this country there is a long history of respect for Christian churches and the kind of relief work they do. In a post collapse scenario I think it's likely that established orders of various kinds will flourish, and monks and nuns will have a role to play.

I also think that it's unlikely that we will go from the kind of overdeveloped rule of law we have now to complete lawlessness. And as a result of that, we won't change from agriculture to hunter-gatherer, at least not for many years. There are way too many alternative ways to feed ourselves that don't require fossil fuels and JIT delivery.

The good land will be expropriated by TPTB and millions will go to the fields. Perhaps some small land owners in out-of-the-way places might be spared the zombie apocalypse of marauding hungry people. Fortune favors the prepared.



Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 01, 2016, 09:20:43 PM
I can see a kind of H-G/bandit symbiosis culture, with the bandits having to be very careful they don't kill off the H-Gs altogether - a bit like the situation at the start of The Magnificent Seven, or the Sheriff of Nottingham scenario.  I can't see many Amerikans going for that, no TV and no Twitter and all.

I don't know so much about "way too many alternative ways to feed ourselves that don't require fossil fuels and JIT delivery."  What are you thinking about?  - apart from bean sprouts.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 01, 2016, 09:34:40 PM
I can see a kind of H-G/bandit symbiosis culture, with the bandits having to be very careful they don't kill off the H-Gs altogether - a bit like the situation at the start of The Magnificent Seven, or the Sheriff of Nottingham scenario.  I can't see many Amerikans going for that, no TV and no Twitter and all.

I don't know so much about "way too many alternative ways to feed ourselves that don't require fossil fuels and JIT delivery."  What are you thinking about?  - apart from bean sprouts.

I think he is thinking about Bees and Mangalitsa Pigs.

(http://i.imgur.com/Un8idyh.jpg)

RE
Title: Renewable Energy Survey Update: 200 Submissions
Post by: RE on June 02, 2016, 04:54:47 PM
The Diner RE Survey is doing really well, now with 211 Submissions and still climbing.  This is more than triple the number of respondents than Ugo had in his original survey.  :icon_sunny:

I'm keeping it open at least through next week since Deb Ozarko is going to drop a link to it in her newzletter, which hopefully will get more female respondents.  Still a sausage fest at the moment, 90% male.

On the upside, the high education level is holding up well, we now have enough Ph.Ds, MDs, DDs, DOs, JDs etc to parse them out and do a separate analysis of their responses, to see if there is any significant difference from the general results.  Does having high education level make you more or less doomy than average? ???  :icon_scratch:

Remember to plug the survey to friends and your female SOs like Wives, Girlfriends, Moms & Daughters!

Survey Direct Link: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd (http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/Wixv2RMd)

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 02, 2016, 05:54:59 PM
I can see a kind of H-G/bandit symbiosis culture, with the bandits having to be very careful they don't kill off the H-Gs altogether - a bit like the situation at the start of The Magnificent Seven, or the Sheriff of Nottingham scenario.  I can't see many Amerikans going for that, no TV and no Twitter and all.

I don't know so much about "way too many alternative ways to feed ourselves that don't require fossil fuels and JIT delivery."  What are you thinking about?  - apart from bean sprouts.

I think he is thinking about Bees and Mangalitsa Pigs.

(http://i.imgur.com/Un8idyh.jpg)

RE

Bees and Mangalitsas and aquaponics.  And whatever else I can grow.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 02, 2016, 07:39:30 PM
Quote from:
Quote
Palloy on June 01, 2016, 09:20:43 PM

I can see a kind of H-G/bandit symbiosis culture, with the bandits having to be very careful they don't kill off the H-Gs altogether - a bit like the situation at the start of The Magnificent Seven, or the Sheriff of Nottingham scenario.  I can't see many Amerikans going for that, no TV and no Twitter and all.

I don't know so much about "way too many alternative ways to feed ourselves that don't require fossil fuels and JIT delivery."  What are you thinking about?  - apart from bean sprouts.

 ::) :emthdown: :emthdown: :emthdown:

You are quite right about not knowing so much, PERIOD. You don't know about Renewable Energy solutions to feeding ourselves because you can't handle the idea that people can feed themselves without fossil fuels. You seem to take absolutely every opportunity you can to make that groundless and silly assertion. Your assertion is also Orwellian because there is no other option but a full transition to Renewable energy. 

Your quaint belief that hunter gatherers will survive with over a century of increasingly intolerable baked in temperatures, even if all pollution ended tomorrow (which it most certainly won't), is an exercise in fantasy.

I recently posted an article on that place in the world where the MOST uncontacted tribes ARE (Brazil). Virtually all of them are Hunter Gatherer tribes. Survival International makes it quite clear that they are the most threatened humans on the planet. YOU ignore those realities with your fanciful idea that H-G groups are "more resilient" in a collapse scenario. That is ridiculous.

At present, it is true that civilization that is the greatest threat to those tribes. So you might argue that a collapse would favor their survival. But that's bullshit because the collapse will be triggered by climate change catastrophe, not your silly idea that the "energy will run out".

What part of over "a billion barrel basin of ACCESSIBLE crude oil just discovered in the Falklands" do you not understand?  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)

The runaway greenhouse will completely destroy ANY chance the H-G tribes in tropical areas have to survive.

But since you don't really understand, though you pretend you do  ;), what a runaway greenhouse is, let me post it here so you can pretend it isn't "relevant" to your dystopian collapse scenario.

Quote
The troposphere is warmed in part through absorption of radiation by H2O and CO2, the stratosphere is warmed, indeed created, through absorption of radiation by O3.5

Quote
   the absorption of terrestrial radiation is dominated by triatomic molecules – O3 in the UV, H2O, CO2 and others in the IR because it so happens that triatomic molecules have rotational and vibrational modes that can easily be excited by radiation with wavelengths in the IR (infrared).

These molecules are present in tiny concentrations (see Table 1.2) but play a key role in the absorption of terrestrial radiation (see Fig.2.6). They are known as Greenhouse gases. This is the fundamental reason why atmospheric radiation may be so vulnerable to the human-induced changes in composition shown in Fig.1.3. p466

Quote
The Earth radiates energy away at the same rate as it is received from the Sun. The Earth’s emission temperature is 255K; that of the Sun, 6000K. The outgoing terrestrial radiation peaks in the infrared; the incoming solar radiation peaks at shorter wavelengths, in the visible. p26

Negative Feedback mechanisms cool the planet and positive feedback mechanisms warm it.

Quote
  The most important negative feedback regulating the temperature of the planet is the dependence of the outgoing longwave radiation on temperature. p536

Quote
A powerful positive climate feedback results from the temperature dependence of saturated water vapor pressure, es, on T ; see Eq.(1.4). If the temperature increases, the amount of water that can be held at saturation increases. This further raises surface temperature. p546

THAT is WHY it is called a RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE. The HOTTER IT GETS from the addition of more and more CO2, the more water vapor (also a powerful GHG) is lofted into the lower atmosphere, WHICH, IN TURN, increases the RATE of the heating increase.

Increased temperature jacks up positive feedback mechanisms while it suppresses the negative feedback regulating the temperature of the planet BECAUSE the outgoing longwave radiation (IR) can no longer exit the atmosphere.

WE ARE THERE. NOW it is getting increasingly hotter at an increasing RATE.

Of course, people who lack critical thinking skills will have difficulty wrapping their "we are all gonna die without fossil fuels" fecal coliform infested brains around the FACT that we ARE all gonna DIE if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. You are one of them.

Absorption frequencies for energy transfer and good info on water and CO2 molecules as well as UV energy
http://gs105cocc.wikispaces.com/file/view/CH03_EOC_ExamSample.pdf (http://gs105cocc.wikispaces.com/file/view/CH03_EOC_ExamSample.pdf)

1. http://www.3sc.net/solarm/solrad.htm (http://www.3sc.net/solarm/solrad.htm)
2. http://www.grida.no/files/publications/vital_ozone_graphics_2/ozoneII_updt.pdf (http://www.grida.no/files/publications/vital_ozone_graphics_2/ozoneII_updt.pdf)
3. http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/ozone/page/1395.aspx (http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/ozone/page/1395.aspx)
4. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/)
5. http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap3.pdf (http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap3.pdf)
6 .http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap2.pdf (http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap2.pdf)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 02, 2016, 08:36:13 PM
The difficulty of growing food without FFs is not that it can't be done, it is that it takes a lot of time and effort, and doesn't produce results for months, and then will be stolen from you by bandits.  It is impossible to protect a farm against hungry bandits.

I've already explained why the Falklands oil won't be developed.

I've already explained why there is no such thing as the runaway greenhouse effect.

I understand perfectly well how the greenhouse effect works, and you do not.  The biggest negative feedback resulting from increased water vapour in the atmosphere is cloud formation, which reflects incoming solar radiation and cools the earth.

You are a complete idiot.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 02, 2016, 08:46:36 PM
It is impossible to protect a farm against hungry bandits.

That is patently untrue.  This has been done for 1000s of years since the beginning of the Ag Paradigm.

You just need more people better armed than the Bandits to successfully Protect & Defend the property.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 02, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
It is impossible to protect a farm against hungry bandits.

That is patently untrue.  This has been done for 1000s of years since the beginning of the Ag Paradigm.

You just need more people better armed than the Bandits to successfully Protect & Defend the property.

RE

- "just" being the operative word.
The farm has to be able to feed the defenders, as well as the actual workers.  The attackers can always leave and come back when the time suits them - the defenders can't.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 02, 2016, 10:06:40 PM
It is impossible to protect a farm against hungry bandits.

That is patently untrue.  This has been done for 1000s of years since the beginning of the Ag Paradigm.

You just need more people better armed than the Bandits to successfully Protect & Defend the property.

RE

- "just" being the operative word.
The farm has to be able to feed the defenders, as well as the actual workers.  The attackers can always leave and come back when the time suits them - the defenders can't.

Obviously.  ::) Which is why I support creating Tribal Organizations the have sufficient population to Protect & Defend their patch of the earth.

Solo and Small Tribes are DOOMED.  You need a decent size Group or Tribe to make this work.  I estimate 1000 people as minimum to make this work during the spin down.  Maximum would be 10,000, as I think that is the max that can be effectively and fairly governed.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 03, 2016, 05:59:19 AM
I'm not so convinced that defense against bandits would even be the main security threat. More likely here it would devolve into some kind of local fiefdom run by the militarized police and/or the military. If nothing else, they have a lot more ammo than anybody else.

My place is less than a ten minute helicopter ride from Ft.Hood, a military base so big that it takes me twenty minutes on a major freeway to just skirt the south edge of it, when I occasionally go that way. 65 square miles of land. The home of the First Cavalry, which now means tanks. If the the tanks don't have fuel, they still have plenty of personnel. They could go back to horses within a year or two.

My guess is that there are way too many small landholders in Texas with the possible means of self support for bandits to run rampant. All the farmers are armed, and many of them are good hunters.

But the main thing is that we're really spread out, fairly remote. Not real farms the way it's done now, just little tracts that are big enough for a big garden and a few animals. These gardens and animals already exist, they just need to be managed a bit better to compensate for the loss of Walmart.

Bandits tend to go for soft targets, and they would have to be very mobile to cover so much ground. Now it's nothing for me to log 150 miles of driving just to go to work and visit the animals and go back to the city for dinner. With no fuel, I'd be on the land and staying there all the time.

Just a century ago, we hanged bandits. Hell, we hanged horse thieves. Bandits would face vigilante justice at every turn. The town where I practice is at the real beginning of what was the Chisholm Trail. This is where the famous outlaw Sam Bass was killed. Interesting story.

He rode into town and made the mistake of entering a local store.Somebody recognized him, rounded up a few people with guns, and they basically murdered him in cold blood before he could get away. So much for due process.

Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 03, 2016, 06:05:00 AM
I'm not sure I completely know how to quantify the climate change threat, but I'd put that at the top of the doom list for this part of the country. We're underwater at the moment, but I'd bet we're hurting for rain in a year or two.

High temps and no rain mean no crops. That's one reason I want to get a passively cooled greenhouse figured out, and why I want a lot of solar panels. Thankfully, where I am groundwater is not particularly threatened the way it is in some places.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 03, 2016, 11:05:20 AM
The difficulty of growing food without FFs is not that it can't be done, it is that it takes a lot of time and effort, and doesn't produce results for months, and then will be stolen from you by bandits.  It is impossible to protect a farm against hungry bandits.
That's kind of like saying "Wolves will eat up all the rabbits."  It certainly is a possibility, if the wolves are stupid, because once there are no more rabbits, there will be no more wolves.  But, if a few of the wolves are smart, once they realize the rabbits are getting scarce, they will gather up the rabbits and protect their rabbits from the other wolves.

And that's how feudalism gets going.
Quote

I've already explained why the Falklands oil won't be developed.

I've already explained why there is no such thing as the runaway greenhouse effect.
Beyond the highs of the PETM, about 10 degrees C warming over baseline, I'll agree with you.  But while it *might* be survivable, that is a hellish world to put our descendants through.
Quote
I understand perfectly well how the greenhouse effect works, and you do not.  The biggest negative feedback resulting from increased water vapour in the atmosphere is cloud formation, which reflects incoming solar radiation and cools the earth.
So, how many times have you prayed for a cloudy night in May so that the newly opened blossoms on your fruit trees didn't freeze?  Water vapor is complex.  Yes, it cools the earth during the day, but warms it at night.

I think the big negative feedback mechanism that just about everyone is missing is desertification.  A lot of people think of deserts as hot places, but those are the people who haven't been out in them at all hours at all times of the year.  Yes, they heat up quickly during the day, but they lose their heat quickly at night, too.  I suspect the interiors of continents becoming vast deserts is what stops the runaway greenhouse effect -- again, not very conducive to human survival.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 03, 2016, 04:21:33 PM
Quote
Eddie: We're underwater at the moment

I was trying to find out how much rain Paris (France) region has had to produce their worst floods for a century, and Paris (Texas) overwhelmed in the search results, but I couldn't find the amount of rainfall anywhere, not even at weather sites - weather in Texas apparently consists of temperatures only.  Detailed rainfall records must exist somewhere, but are being edged out by endless newspaper articles that don't include the obvious facts.

So do you know how much rainfall you have had over some useful timeframe (days or weeks probably), and how that compares in the historical weather records?

If Paris (France) has had higher rainfall rates a century ago, then it is likely that it has had other floods almost as bad every decade or so.  These events are due to a combination of weather variability and climate change, with variability playing the larger role, but Homo adolescens, with its short-term time horizon, is likely to attribute a larger role to climate change.

We just had our first cool night of the winter, with the overnight minimum of 21°C - hopefully that's enough to knock back the mosquitoes a bit.  109 mm in the last 3 days.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 03, 2016, 05:33:27 PM
They are calling May 2016  the wettest May on record in Austin. At the airport to the southeast of town they measured 28.27 inches for the month (what is that, about 72 mm, yes?) Just for May.

http://kxan.com/blog/2016/05/31/may-2016-goes-down-at-the-wettest-may-on-record/ (http://kxan.com/blog/2016/05/31/may-2016-goes-down-at-the-wettest-may-on-record/)

The Mabry station is a National Guard post in the heart of the city, and the ABIA station is at the airport. As you can see, there is a lot of variance even locally.

The Balcones Escarpment, which is basically on the same line as Interstate 35 is a major "dry line" with rain to the west of it always being significantly less than to the East.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 03, 2016, 05:40:53 PM
I probably wouldn't have crossed my low water bridge yesterday, if I'd heard about this, which happened a few miles to the north at approximately the same time I was braving Mill Creek in my GMC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-soldiers-dead-6-missing-from-flooded-fort-hood-vehicle/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-soldiers-dead-6-missing-from-flooded-fort-hood-vehicle/)



Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 03, 2016, 08:47:36 PM
I think that's 28.27" (718 mm) for 5 months, and 15.8" (401 mm) for May.  Doesn't the ground absorb much rainwater?

Those fast-moving water videos are what you definitely shouldn't cross.  Evolutionary selection is still at work on Homo sapiens.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 03, 2016, 09:32:39 PM
They are calling May 2016  the wettest May on record in Austin. At the airport to the southeast of town they measured 28.27 inches for the month (what is that, about 72 mm, yes?) Just for May.

72 cm, not mm.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 03, 2016, 09:52:03 PM
They are calling May 2016  the wettest May on record in Austin. At the airport to the southeast of town they measured 28.27 inches for the month (what is that, about 72 mm, yes?) Just for May.

72 cm, not mm.

RE

Thank you. 720 mm.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 04, 2016, 04:49:11 PM
This is our BEST survey to date!  Even better than the Human Extinction Survey in terms of Juicy Collapse Info you can pull out of it!  :icon_sunny:  I have been working most of the day compiling data and writing up the Results Analysis post, which I will probably drop on next Sunday for my Sunday Brunch article.  Tomorrow's article is my Nostalgia historical analysis.

The survey will remain Open, but I am using my current data for this article.  Percentages have not changed much since the first 50 or so responses, other than constantly asking for more Females to respond has jacked that number up from 10% to 14%.

Can't WAIT to see how these results play in the Collapse Community!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Renewable Energy Survey Analysis: Coming Attractions
Post by: RE on June 11, 2016, 02:57:15 AM


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on The Doomstead Diner on June11, 2016



http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/2012/10/09/Your-Show-of-Shows.jpg



Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows.  The Greatest Live Show ever done, IMHO



Discuss this PLUG at the Survey Table inside the Diner



On Sunday at 4PM EDT, Ugo Bardi of Cassandra's Legacy, Gail Tverberg of Our Finite World and myself will be analyzing the results of the Renewable Energy Survey LIVE on the Collapse Cafe.  The video will be up after that as well, but we invite all regular Diners to join us live for this discussion.



The RES has drawn tremendous reponse, over 270 respondents at this point and more than 30 respondents with formal education Doctoral level or above.  The data is quite fascinating overall as a snapshot of the current attitudes within the collapse comunity of the future for Renewable Energy.



I can only hope that Sergei and the tech geeks at Google Hangouts hold up their end, and that the Cisco Routers don't garble up the audio too much.



RE


Title: The Renewable Energy Survey: RESULTS
Post by: RE on June 12, 2016, 08:51:15 AM


gc2reddit-logoyoutube-Logo-4Off the keyboard of RE



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on The Doomstead Diner on June 12, 2016



RES-5



Discuss this article at the Survey Table inside the Diner



Take the Renewable Energy Survey HERE (still open!)



Survey Discussion & Analysis with Ugo Bardi & Gail Tverberg






The RES has accumulated an enormous amount of data, so now is a good time to take a Snapshot of what the current attitudes are about its potential for maintaining the techno-industrial lifestyle.



Before we look at the numbers though, a few important points about the sample.  By no means is this a random sample of attitudes of the world at large.  If you were to drop this survey on USA Today, I am quite sure you would get completely different results.  This sample comes from 6 main websites:



Cassandra's Legacy



Our Finite World



The Archdruid Report



Economic Undertow



Reddit r/collapse & r/globalcollapse



The Doomstead Diner



There are a few contributions from other sites like Global Economic Intersection and Reddit r/solar, but by far the majority come from the sites listed above.  If you were on the list to receive the full data set, you can see how many results came from each site, most respondents did list their referral site.



All of these sites have a readership which follows collapse issues and dynamics, and there is something of a consensus opinion on these sites that industrial civilization is bound for collapse.  The results of the survey reflect that consensus.  However, the results also demonstrate that there are two distinct sub-camps among these readers, those that hold out some hope for a technological solution, and those who do not believe a technological solution can work.



For the population being sampled, this survey is highly significant and a statistically reliable measure of the population being surveyed, estimated at around 50,000.  It comes in with a 95% Confidence level with a 5% margin of error roughly.  For the most part also, since the first 50 or so responses came in, the percentages for the responses and their distribution really hasn't varied all that much.  I will leave the survey open after this article publishes to see if there is any change in the later submissions.



As a long time reader of the Collapse Blogosphere, the aggregate results of the survey didn't surprise me at all.  Does this mean the survey is correct in its predictions of timelines and numbers?  Not necessarily, but it does tell you what most of the people reading collapse blogs THINK will occur and when it will occur.  Given these readers follow the trends more closely than the average J6P, they're making a more informed decision than most people would.  It's also a very highly educated sample, with over 75% of respondents with Baccalaureate degree or above.  One of the most interesting things to do is to parse the data by the demographics, to see the differences in attitudes by things like age, gender, education level and so forth.  I'm not going to do that in this post, but readers who get the spreadsheet will be able to do that quite easily.



 survey-saysOK, all that being said, now let's look at the results themselves!  With each of the graphs, I'll include a few of the text responses that came in also.  All the text responses are included in the spreadsheet.  I calculated this data when the total submissions were at 237, they have increased some since but percentages haven't changed significantly.



First up, Ugo Bardi's original question from a survey he did on a renewable energy forum a few weeks ago.  In that survey, he got a generally positive view of the future potential of RE.  The Kollapsniks we got survey submissions from are not so positive.



The question is about the possibility of a society not too different from ours (**) but 100% based on renewable energy sources, and on the possibility of obtaining it before it is too late to avoid the climate disaster. This said, what statement best describes your position?































 


 


It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of natural resources, we'll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)




 


It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.




 


It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.




 


It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.




 


It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

128

(54%)

19

(8%)

55

(23%)

25

(11%)

10

(4%)

43.04

237


RES-1




The low EROEIs of renewables would require change to our industrial civilisation but I think that it could be qualitatively similar. The differences are enough though to create fierce resistance to that change, until it's too late to be effective.





It's technically possible but the amount we need to cut would require a radically different type of society. A type of society that would be fervently fought against by our world leaders. At the very least we need some kind of steady state economy.





Having significantly less people located in areas of high carrying capacity or high energy density would perhaps let us remain similar in quality but not in quantity. A timely transition though does not seem likely. However all depends on what is meant with "ours". If it means the average internet user – it will be different.





If you look at the first two choices as being from those who do not see renewable energy as being a possible solution and the last 3 choices as those who give it at least some chance for success, you are at about 62% with little hope it will help as opposed to 38% with some hope that it will.  What this indicates is that for people trying to promote RE as a solution, they're not convincing most people in the collapse blogosphere of this.  That doesn't mean they are wrong of course, it just means the ideas aren't selling too well in this population.



What are the major impediments to replacing fossil fuels with Renewable Energy? (rank from biggest impediment to smallest by sliding the choices up and down with your mouse on the icon to the left of the choice)



RES-2




In When trucks stop running, I show why an 80 to 100% renewable grid is not possible (partly based on research from Germany and Europe, which are far ahead of the USA in this). Indeed, DOE found that we may not even be able to cope with a 56 to 61% renewable powered grid — it is too unstable. But mainly because of limited sites for pumped hydro, CAES, geothermal, and the cost and scale of electrochemical batteries.





Fossil fuel energy use quantity is unlikely to be replaceable for a very long time to come. Most energy use is a means to a specific end though, and if the needs and desires can be met in a similar manner a full replacement is not necessary. That is why political ranks highest. Thermodynamics is likely to be a major impediment in the short and medium term (e.g. centuries). Characterizing transportation systems with a scalar is not adequate, but the gist remains the same.





The obsession to use electricity for everything is not good due thermodinamical reasons (many conversions, ineficiencies in some electrical uses, intermitenci, etc). This adds to intermitency, seasonality, YoY variability, that implies overscaling, that implies energy storing, that implies damn high costs, that are too expensive to adapt this to transportation that is the backbone of our economy right now. This will lead to increased costs, lower wages and salaries, and feedback into our economy. After all, what we are seeing now is that EROEI is too low even for FF, to sustain our economy and society. Lower EROEI of RE will do things worse. If the current status of economy (and FF depletion) will allow us to do some real switch.




I tend to agree that the biggest impediment here is the battery technology, for all sorts of reasons.  Mining up all the materials necessary for enough battery storage to balance the loads is probably impossible to do, even if there are enough materials in the ground to do it.  All manufacturing processes also create tremendous waste products, and figuring out how to safely dispose of them would be a large problem too.



I do think that the thermodynamic issue is underrated here.  Although certainly plenty of energy drops on the earth from the Sun every day, how much of it is actually collectible and convertable to usable form?  Can you get the energy from where it might be collected (say ocean waves) to where it would be used somewhere on land without a huge loss in the transmission?  What kind of EROEI is there for this?



Rank which form of Renewable Energy from which is Most Likely to be Successful to Least Likely to be Successful.



RES-3




Where is nuclear power? It seems to me that nuclear is renewable on the timescales that matter for climate change, and fully renewable if "on the horizon" designs of breeder reactors are considered. The one thing that is irrefutable is that nuclear is a low carbon technology, which is also despatchable. As such, it seems incredible that you don't include it in a transitioned world view. This is especially true as it currently contributes over a tenth of global electricity supply, which is more than wind!





When it comes to energetic return on investment, hydro tends to work better than wind, which works better than solar. Draft animal power, slave labor, water wheels, micro-hydro, and mechanical windmills have already been proven to work in pre-industrial conditions (though they don't provide much energy). For the others, large-scale systems tend to benefit from economies of scale.





Direct action renewables will be the real only source of energy in the future. Electrical society wouldn't work, and would lead to social collapse. The amount of resources to keep our current tecnology alive is overwhelming. Semiconductors, the cornerstone of our technology and the actual bet for All Electric RE require >70 elements of the periodic table. And they are NOT RENEWABLE.




In the text responses, I began with the Nuclear Energy critique, because this came up several times.  I responded to my rationale for that in my last RES post, which is that when constructing the survey I don't myself generally lump Nuclear in the "Renewable" category, although you can make the case that it is.  If I had it to do over again, I probably would include this as a choice.  There were other forms of potentially renewable energy I neglected to include as well, Solar Thermal, Small Scale Geothermal and Biomass.  However, the selection I did include allows for a good parsing of the attitudes on which of these is most likely to succeed vs not likely to succeed.



Now, because most respondents have a negative view of renewables overall, the top vote getter in this question was NOTHING is going to work to keep our modern techno-industrial culture going, and I tend to agree with that.  However, you do have the transition question to deal with, and where to invest the effort, time and money on which type of RE to develop as we spin down?



Generally the large scale projects such as Hydro plants and large Solar PV farms get a low ranking, and I agree with that.  Smaller scale distributed systems have better potential, particularly of the direct, low tech kind like Water Wheels and mechanical Windmills.  While these won't allow maintenance of a high tech society, they hold potential for keeping the slide from dropping all the way down to stone age technology and lifestyle.



One area I COMPLETELY disagree with the consensus is the high ranking of Human Slave Labor.  Of all these forms of energy conversion to work (Homo Saps aren't the energy here, just the machine.  The food they eat is the energy), Homo Saps easily have the lowest EROEI, it is actually probably negative.  It takes HUGE surplus of resources to run a slave society, besides the cost for keeping the slaves fed clothed and housed so they are available for work in a renewable fashion, you ALSO need a large class of Overseers and a Military to keep these slaves in line and not revolting.  While we may see some slave societies develop during this spin down, it is not likely they will last long, and definitely not renewable in a world of overall deficit.



If we could make a full conversion to Renewable Energy resources overnight, with the current climate conditions what would be the maximum population you think the Earth would support of Homo Saps sustainably, including all the Best Practices of Permaculture, Hydroponics and Aquaculture? (pick the choice closest to the number you think most likely)









































 


 


>7.2 Billion People (current population or more)




 


7B




 


4B




 


1B




 


100M




 


10M




 


1M




 


100K




 


10K




 


<10K Homo Saps will go Extinct



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

30

(13%)

9

(4%)

40

(17%)

101

(44%)

26

(11%)

9

(4%)

6

(3%)

2

(1%)

1

(0%)

5

(2%)

28.92

229


 



 



 



 



 



 



 





RES-4er




The population of <1B based on photosynthesis energy prior to fossil fuels wasn't all that sustainable as it was practiced. There was still extinctions of large species, soil degradation etc. With the addition of renewables I think 1B could be entirely sustainable.





Impossible to determine. I picked a number closest to global population as the industrial revolution began. We should expect to be able to maintain a population above that level due to subsequent technological advances – but disruptions will lower carrying capacity for a significant amount of time. Therefore, a population level as it was in pre-industrial times. 4 billion seems too optimistic.





Approx. the equivalent of world population pre-Columbus. In the Americas they were building soil and in Europe they were forestalling an ice age, roughly holding a balance. That is sustainable. Nuclear war or multiple meltdowns would cut that number because of contaminated land area.




Of all the questions on the survey, this one was of the most interest to me personally.  Reason for that is all the hubbub about Near Term Human Extinction you run across these days on all the collapse sites, not just on Guy McPherson's blog Nature Bats Last.  I was real curious as to how deeply this meme has penetrated among the average Kollapsniks, and apparently not too well.  Only 2% of the respondents think Homo Sap will drop below 10,000 Human Souls and then go Extinct.  That's the Good Newz here! :)



Now the Bad NewzBY FAR, the overall consensus amongst Kollapsniks is a population die off down to 1B Human Souls, maybe 12% of the current population.  There is no timeline to this question, but even if you figure it will take a full century to get down to that figure, that means for every year from now to 2116, you have to have more than 60M Deaths than Births in every single one of those years.  For scale here in ALL the years of WWII, 60M people died, about 3% of the World Population in 1940 estimated at 2.3B.  So basically here you would have to QUADRUPLE the death rate from WWII, and do that every year from now to 2116.  This scenario seems highly unlikely to me.



The more likely scenario is a crisis point to be reached, probably a year to a decade  in length where the world food supply drops and there is large scale starvation through many parts of the world.  I doubt this die off will stretch out over a century.  Can techno -industrial culture survive such a die off period with all the geopolitical problems and environmental problems resultant from it?  Burying the bodies alone will be an enormous task!  Even recycling them as Soylent Green will take a huge build out of infrastructure of Human Waste Recycling Centers!






Because of all these problems, while I think the Earth probably could support 1B Human souls, I voted an order of magnitude below that at 100M.  That is still a pretty good number though, and way short of extinction! :)  If we build a lot of good renewable energy infrastructure now, it could go a long way toward making the lives of the survivors better. :)



In what year do you expect to see the beginning of regular brownouts & blackouts and gas shortages in the United States? (choose the answer closest to the year you expect this to begin)

































 


 


2017




 


2020




 


2025




 


2030




 


2040




 


Energy scarcity in the United States will not be a problem for the forseeable future. Renewable Energy will pick up the slack.



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

24

(10%)

65

(28%)

68

(30%)

34

(15%)

9

(4%)

29

(13%)

21.46

229


 



 



 



 



 



 





RES-5




It could happen sooner if the economy collapses before that. Also it will not be uniformly seen if it happens. Cities will likely continue to have electrical power as first priority customers due to population and political clout.





The US will be one of the last places to feel the squeeze on resources due to it's wealth. I do think the decline in oil production will be readily apparent in the early 2020's.





US has large amounts of natural gas plus coal to insure electrical supplies can be maintained for quite some time. Brown outs can also come from another form of "rationing" that is many people who fall out of the economy due to unemployment will use less energy thus freeing capacity for members of society who can afford electricity. This scenario assumes there are no major outbreaks of war or there is no large scale political/social upheaval. If any of those scenarios apply then all bets are off.




This question is a close second for me to Q4, because it puts a timeline on when BAU might really start to be disrupted in 1st World countries.  The general population of these countries will not recognize BAU is going the way of the Dinosaur until the basic services of LIGHTS at the FLICK OF A SWITCH no longer work and they can't get gas on demand at every pump from Anchorage to Key West to fill up the SUV.



The VAST majority of respondents put the date for this sometime between 2020 & 2025.  I went Long on that one at 2025, basically because I think Demand Destruction through the 3rd World countries will outpace the supply shortages.  However, it really could occur anytime due to either a Financial System collapse or a major Geopolitical Event.



To finish off now with the survey stats to date, here's a Snapshot of the Demographics we got so far here.



My Gender is:(optional)



























 


 


Male




 


Female




 


Other



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

194

(84%)

33

(14%)

4

(2%)

83.57

231


 



 



 



 



 



 





My Age Range is:(Optional)





































 


 


<18




 


18-24




 


25-29




 


30-39




 


40-49




 


50-59




 


60-69




 


70+



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

0

(0%)

5

(2%)

14

(6%)

30

(13%)

46

(20%)

59

(25%)

58

(25%)

20

(9%)

21.66

232


 



 



 



 



 



 





The Region of the World I live is:(Optional)









































 


 


North America




 


Central America




 


South America




 


Europe




 


Asia




 


Africa




 


Middle East




 


Oceania (Australia-New Zealand)




 


Polynesia




 


India/Pakistan/Bangladesh



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

145

(62%)

1

(0%)

5

(2%)

56

(24%)

1

(0%)

1

(0%)

0

(0%)

23

(10%)

1

(0%)

0

(0%)

43.92

233


My highest level of formal education is:



































 


 






 


High School Graduate




 


Some College or Technical School




 


Associate's Degree




 


Bachelor's Degree




 


Master's Degree




 


Doctorate Degree



Standard Deviation

Responses

All Data

4

(2%)

3

(1%)

37

(16%)

9

(4%)

82

(35%)

75

(32%)

25

(11%)

30.61

235


 



 



 



 



 




 



 



 



 



 




 



 



 



 



 





Overall, it is a well balanced group in terms of Age, although skewed more toward the older age groups.  You can parse the data by age group to look for differences in the spreadsheet.  Education levels also well represented, again weighted toward people with a higher level of formal education.  Still a highly male dominated sample, but improved here from 10% early on to 14% responses from Females.  Geographic distribution ended up mostly North America, Europe dropped to 24% and Oz/NZ held steady around 10%.



Far as selling Renewable Energy goes, at least inside the Collapse Blogosphere it appears this will be a very hard sell indeed, not sure how hard it will be to sell to the general public though.  After years of discussions on these topics from all sides, the majority of Kollapsniks do not see this as a means to maintain the techno-industrial lifestyle.  Even so, this does not mean Renewable Energy is not worth pursuing, there are many reasons that it is, even if it can't keep 7.2 Ambulatory Homo Saps walking the Earth at the same time in perpetuity.  It may work to make the downspin slower and more manageable.  It may work to make it possible for more Homo Saps to survive a dieoff event.  It may work to keep the spark of inovation alive and present opportunities in the future to find the Holy Grail of enough energy and ways to apply it to get off Planet Earth before the Sun Goes Red Giant.  I don't see that as very likely, but if you can keep this going to some extent, it might be possible over a few million years.  So you do the best you can given the parameters and limitations you have here.



The Future is a Mystery, and nobody can predict it absolutely.  Nobody has all the answers, hell nobody really even has all the data to make a concrete prediction on a system with so many variables.  So you  just need to follow the Imperative of ALL LIVING CREATURES, which is to STAY ALIVE, just as long as you can.  Life is not meant for QUITTERS like Guy McPherson.  They can all go into Hospice and count the days down until they die.



It Aint OVAH till the Fat Lady Sings.



http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/05/fat+lady+sings-feature.jpeg


Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 12, 2016, 12:00:41 PM
The FAT LADY is Greenland. And SHE IS SINGING LOUD AND CLEAR. WE GET OFF FOSSIL FUELS OR WE PERISH, PERIOD.

Quote
In scientific assessment of variation, a typical broad measurement of what’s normally expected is the range between 2 standard deviations above the mean and 2 standard deviations below the mean.  In a normal distribution of events, 95% of events will have measurements within +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean.  To have an event with some characteristic more than 2 standard deviations above the average of that characteristic means you have a rather unusual event on your hands.  By scientific standards, this is the moment when one ought to take notice.
http://irregulartimes.com/2016/04/28/greenland-ice-melt-spikes-far-beyond-normal-in-april-2016/ (http://irregulartimes.com/2016/04/28/greenland-ice-melt-spikes-far-beyond-normal-in-april-2016/)

Greenland melt rate just EXCEEDED, not one, but TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS!  :o 
(http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_area_plot.png)

(http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_days.png) (http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_nomelt.png)

Quote
Greenland Ice Sheet Today is produced at the National Snow and Ice Data Center by Ted Scambos, Julienne Stroeve, and Lora Koenig with support from NASA. NSIDC thanks Jason Box, Xavier Fettweis, and Thomas Mote for data and collaboration.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ (http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/)

Agelbert NOTE: Don't expect the "we are all gonna die without our civilization savior and loyal servant fossil fuels" biosphere math challenged greed balls to DO THE ENERGY MATH on the gargantuan amount of ENERGY it takes to exceed two standard deviations in the Greenland ice melt rate. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)

And you will CERTAINLY not ever catch them admitting that said ENERGY MUST BE SUBTRACTED from the Energy Return on Energy Invested of fossil fuels.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

Fossil fuel energy "experts"  (http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg) do not DO Social Costs of Carbon (SCC).  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif)


Fossil Fuel Industry PUBLIC Reaction to the Runaway Greenhouse Caused two standard deviations (PLUS) Accelerated Greenland Ice Melt:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100216204839.gif)

Fossil Fuel Industry PRIVATE Reaction to the Accelerated Greenland Ice Melt:

Get somebody from our bought and paid for EIA (Energy Information fossil fuel happy talk Administration) pals to "have a talk"  with Jason Box , Xavier Fettweis and Thomas Mote about that alarmist data and, by the way, how do we ride the coming bull market in Florida houseboats?   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)


The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID  DOING THE TIME or  PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 12, 2016, 01:24:53 PM
Some inconvenient information for that 54% that believe all the fossil fuel cherry picked energy math that picks fossil fuels as ENERGY "winners" over Renewable energy:

GRIST Article on Discount Rates, Energy and Climate Change


SNIPPET 1:
How much is it worth to us today to avoid climate disruption later this century? To understand how that question has typically been answered, you need to understand what economists call “discount rates,” key parameters in the economic models used to assess climate policy costs. Such models inform policymaking and shape conventional wisdom, but their use of discount rates has led them to lowball the threat and recommend insufficient action to meet it.

SNIPPET 2:
Let’s recall a vexing fact about climate change: There’s a substantial time lag between causes and effects. Greenhouse gases emitted today affect global temperatures in 50 years or so, just as we’re experiencing temperature rise caused by emissions 50 years ago. This time lag complicates efforts to do something about the problem, to say the least, as people are not generally temperamentally inclined to sacrifice now to gain benefits (or to avoid costs) 50 years down the road. We prefer instant gratification; we’re pretty myopic.

The policy challenge, then, is to pull those damages out of the future and into the present. We need to amplify that distant signal so that it is heard in everyday economic decision-making.

The preferred way to achieve this goal is to put a price on carbon, via a tax or a cap. The carbon price is meant to reflect the damages emissions will cause later, or, in dork-speak, to “internalize the externalities.”

To do this properly — to figure out the “right” price for a ton of CO2 emissions — we have to answer two questions. One, how much damage will a ton of carbon do? And two, how much is it worth to us to avoid that amount of damage?

Climate science can help answer the first question, though it can’t, and likely never will be able to, give us a precise figure. Especially at regional or more granular levels, precision is impossible given the limitations of current science and the inherent complexities of the global atmospheric system. But if we want a figure or range of figures to work with, we can choose from the center of the probability distribution and get something that’s “good enough for government work,” as they say.

The second question is trickier. The physical sciences cannot answer it.
How much future climate mitigation is worth to us today — what’s called the social cost of carbon — is a matter for economics and ethics. And it’s here that discount rates enter the picture.


SNIPPET 3:
Here’s a thought experiment. Say I gave you a choice: I’ll give you $100 today or $100 in 10 years. You’d choose today, obviously. What if the choice was $70 today or $100 in 10 years? Hm … tougher. $50 today?

If you choose $50, you’re saying you value dollars today twice as much you value as dollars 10 years from now.

The degree to which you prefer present benefits (money today) over future benefits (money in the future) is known as your “revealed time preference.” It is “revealed” in that it is reflected in your savings and investment decisions, even if it is never articulated.

Now, here’s another scenario. What would you pay today to avoid $100 in damage to your car a year from now? In making this decision, you would think about what else you could do with the money in the meantime. “Hm, I could put $100 in a bank account and, at a 3 percent interest rate, in a year I’d have $103. I could pay off the repair bill and pocket $3 in profit!” In a situation of 3 percent interest rates, it’s only worth $97 to you today to avoid $100 in damage a year from now. Otherwise you could make more by investing the money differently. What if the $100 in damage was in 10 years? Then it would only be worth $67. How about 30 years? Just $41.

How much an investment pays relative to other uses of the same resources is known as its “opportunity cost” — for every investment, you choose to forego other opportunities.

Revealed time preference and opportunity costs together lead us to discount the value of future benefits. Think of it like compound interest, only run in reverse; to an investor today, returns lose some percentage of their “net present value” each year they recede into the future.

That percentage, the amount that a benefit declines in value each year into the future it extends, is the discount rate. In financial transactions, the discount rate is typically set somewhere around prevailing market interest rates.

OK! We know what discount rates are and how they factor into savings and investment decisions. So far so good. Things get a little stickier and more complicated when it comes to climate change, though.


SNIPPET 4:
Let’s focus on the time spans. Consider: If we have a discount rate of 3 percent — which is a fairly representative rate in economics — and we face $100 of climate damages in 2100 (roughly 87 years from now), it is worth about $7 to us to avoid it. Hardly anything.

To make it more vivid, imagine climate change were on track to cause $5 trillion ($5,000,000,000,000) in damages by the end of the century. That’s an unthinkably large number. (Go ahead, try to think about it.) And it represents unthinkable suffering. But at a discount rate of 3 percent, it would be worth just $382 billion to us today to avoid it. For perspective, that’s a little more than half the annual U.S. military budget.


SNIPPET 5:
So what should the discount rate be? What number should economists use when modeling climate change policy? And how do we decide?


SNIPPET 6:
Those who argue for a higher discount rate (in the 3-5 percent range), like Nordhaus himself [PDF], favor what they see as a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach. Ours is not to ask what the discount rate “should” be, ours is but to determine people’s actual time preferences as revealed in their everyday market behavior (i.e., look to prevailing market interest rates). It’s the only way to avoid “paternalism,” smuggling moral judgments into economics.

One of their primary assumptions is that people in the future will be richer than us, and thus better prepared to deal with climate damages. If it’s a choice between making them richer and reducing their climate damages, we should generally lean toward making them richer. Only if climate mitigation investments offer a rate of return higher than prevailing interest rates are they worthwhile. Otherwise, we’d be better off just putting the money in a bank.

For my part, I find arguments for a lower (or even zero) discount rate much more persuasive. This does not strike me as an area where “paternalism” can or should be avoided. We’re literally the parents (and grandparents) in this situation!

Agelbert NOTE: I wish to point out here that EVERY DOOMER on this site, including you, RE, believes we will be poorer, not richer, in the future. Consequently, EVERY DOOMER here has NO RIGHT to advocate for a high discount rate. A high discount rate is USED by the cheerleaders for DIRTY ENERGY to low ball the SCC (Social Costs of Carbon).


SNIPPET 7:
It’s one thing for an investor to make decisions about how much future value she will sacrifice for present value. It’s another for her to make decisions about how much value future people will sacrifice for her present value. Those are decisions that affect other people, paradigmatically ethical decisions, so it is no longer her discount rate alone that’s relevant. There’s no avoiding ethical judgment here.

More arguments against high discount rates can be found in  this post (https://www.nrdc.org/issues/clean-us-power-plants) from NRDC chief economist Laurie Johnson (to whom we will return later). I’ll share her top-line points.

First:
Quote
An increasingly disrupted climate may hamper economic productivity, causing economic growth rates to deviate below their historical trajectories. If worse-case climate risks materialize, climate change could even reverse economic growth. In that instance, people in the future would be poorer than people today, not wealthier.

More from Johnson:
Quote

Private investors (and hence market returns) do not take into account pollution externalities resulting from production, such as the depreciation of natural capital (e.g., loss of natural habitats to development and pollution) and public health damages, or other potentially negative social impacts related to economic production, such as inequality. They therefore tend to overestimate the impact growth has on real social welfare.

Yes. Private investment decisions are made entirely within market rules, but some market rules may be maladapted to social welfare, especially future social welfare. (“You can emit carbon for free,” for instance, seems like a rather imprudent rule.) Market growth in these circumstances only exacerbates maladaption. Social and ethical decisions must encompass a broader perspective than markets can provide.

The more provocative way to put this point is that global economic growth is entirely consistent with the loss of the entire African continent to drought and disease. After all, Africa doesn’t contribute much to global GDP.  :evil4:


SNIPPET 8:
Say you could ask the people of 2100 (some of whom may be your children or grandchildren), “would you rather inherit $1 trillion in cash or $1 trillion worth of avoided drought, storm, and famine?” Which do you think they would choose?

They will have lost biodiversity, up to half the species on the planet. They will have lost millions of acres of old-growth and tropical forest, most of the world’s coral reefs, and the bulk of world’s annual sea ice. Those things will never return, not in time spans relevant to our species. The natural world that has provided us sustenance since we were primates can not be restored once it’s gone. And there’s more to the biosphere than the “services” it provides humans. Some damages cannot be captured in dollar terms.

Anyway, those are the arguments for a low-or-zero discount rate.


SNIPPET 9:
Say we’re convinced by these arguments and adopt a low discount rate, a social cost of carbon that reflects that low discount rate, and a price on carbon that reflects our new social cost of carbon. What are the consequences?


Well, for one thing, renewable power immediately becomes cheaper than fossil-fuel power, including natural gas.




FINAL SNIPPET:
Quote
Overall, the analysis shows that if the well-being of future generations is properly taken into consideration, the benefits of cleaner electricity sources are greater than their upfront costs, both for new generation, and for replacing our dirtiest plants. In contrast, using the government’s estimate of CO2 damage costs tends to favor dirtier energy sources, and an ever riskier climate.

So if you take equity into account and use a low discount rate — that is, if you choose to treat future generations and vulnerable peoples with moral regard — clean energy is already cheaper than dirty energy.

That’s something I wish I could get people to understand: The “cost” of a form of energy is not an objective property of the universe, measured by a market cost-o-meter. It’s a social construct, the result of assumptions built into the way we calculate value. Those assumptions are not holy writ. They can be contested.

http://grist.org/article/discount-rates-a-boring-thing-you-should-know-about-with-otters/ (http://grist.org/article/discount-rates-a-boring-thing-you-should-know-about-with-otters/)

Agelbert Note: Anybody with a modicum of objectivity and a couple of brain cells to rub together understands that the dirty energy status quo is UNSUSTAINABLE. But the people believing the gamed math favoring dirty energy, like many here, believe that the "solution" is dead people BECAUSE Renewable Energy isn't part of the "real world".

So, they read articles like the one above and IMMEDIATELY claim damages from climate change are "over blown" DESPITE their claims that "no fossil fuels equals civilization collapse". WTF?!!!

The entire argument of ANYBODY defending fossil fuels is that one should continue an abusive relationship with a psychopath because the first couple of dates were a lot of fun, WHICH INCLUDES the biosphere math challenged, codependent mental illness based notion that we cannot live without that psychopath.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)

As the article above pointed out, it is DIRTY ENERGY that WILL collapse our civilization, NOT the LACK of available fossil fuels. The LONGER we try to rely on DIRTY ENERGY, the more SEVERE the climate change COST will be.

But trying to convince these propagandized homo saps (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif) of the ACTUAL energy cost FACTS is like talking to a dumb fucking wall. So it goes.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
 
Title: Renewable Energy Survey: Discussion with Gail Tverberg & Ugo Bardi
Post by: RE on June 12, 2016, 03:29:33 PM
Good Discussion on the Survey with Gail & Ugo!

http://www.youtube.com/v/EH5lwXYb2p8

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 12, 2016, 05:17:09 PM
Could you tidy up the survey results article to remove the blank lines, which sometimes fill the whole screen?  This makes it very difficult to read.  It happens because the box the article is entered into is a plain text box, so HTML pasted in there is stripped out, but NewLines are not.

I gave my email address for the results, but haven't received it yet.  Could you put the spreadsheet on-line?

The people who answered the population question with 7+ billion are not collapsers/doomers, so their results need to be discarded if the survey is to reflect the opinions of doomers.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 12, 2016, 05:53:09 PM
Could you tidy up the survey results article to remove the blank lines, which sometimes fill the whole screen?  This makes it very difficult to read.  It happens because the box the article is entered into is a plain text box, so HTML pasted in there is stripped out, but NewLines are not.

I gave my email address for the results, but haven't received it yet.  Could you put the spreadsheet on-line?

The people who answered the population question with 7+ billion are not collapsers/doomers, so their results need to be discarded if the survey is to reflect the opinions of doomers.

Sadly no, I cannot clean up those spaces on the forum.  That is an artifact of how the automated system which converts a Blog post in HTML to a Forum post in bbCode works.  If you read the artcile on the Blog, you don't have most of those spaces.

You will get the results presently, I am working through the list in the order it was received.  It will take a while.  I will however jump you up the list.  :icon_sunny:

You can parse the data as you please to see the differences in opinion by demographics.  That is the most interesting aspect of the survey.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 13, 2016, 12:57:34 PM
To Gail, Palloy and MKing, etc, et al:  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120616193700.png)

IF the fossil fuel industry had a product that could compete on a level energy playing field with Renewable Energy, they would not CONTINUALLY stoop to mendacity, propaganda and government corruption of pollution energy stats and energy math.

The method in the fossil fuel industry criminal modus operandi exposes their recognition that fossil fuels CANNOT compete with Renewable Energy on a level, full disclosure, energy playing field.

SEE BELOW:

Uncovered Documents Reveal MSNBC Show Worked to Promote Fracking

Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog | June 13, 2016 1:37 pm

Cable TV network MSNBC has made headlines in recent days for apparently moving away from its “Lean Forward” progressive brand, catering instead to a more center-to-right-leaning crowd.

“People might start accusing us of leaning too far to the right,” the station says in a new advertisement featuring MSNBC’s conservative personalities—an array of Republican identities such as Michael Steele, Steve Schmidt and Ben Ginsberg.

Quote
But on the issue of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for shale oil and gas, documents from 2011 obtained under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act demonstrate that the network saw itself as a promoter of both the controversial drilling method and natural gas vehicles.

NBCUniversal, at the time, was owned on a 49-percent basis by the natural gas utility and electricity company General Electric (GE) and is now wholly owned by Comcast.

The documents, obtained from Oklahoma State University (OSU), relate to the filming of an episode of The Dylan Ratigan Show on the OSU campus in April 2011. The episode came two and a half years before the network announced in late-2013 that its website would run native advertisements (content that looks like original news) on behalf of fracking lobbying group America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA). ANGA is now part of the American Petroleum Institute (API).

That episode of Ratigan’s show featured oil and gas industry hedge fund tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who now serves as a fundraiser for Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump and who was stumping at the time for his pro-fracking “Pickens Plan.” The emails offer a rare look inside the making of an episode of a popular MSNBC show and a glimpse into a future business relationship, too.

“Steel on Wheels”

The April 2011 episode of Ratigan was part of a broader “Steel on Wheels” tour MSNBC pushed at the time featuring Ratigan, whose show is no longer on-air. The tour, conducted on a bus and catching media attention for being a sponsored partnership with steel company Nucor, looked to find “solutions to the most pressing problems facing America today.”

(http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/msnbc_750.jpg)

“I am committed to getting this country back on track for the benefit of all Americans (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif) and ‘Steel on Wheels’ is the perfect vehicle to show how we can make that happen,” Ratigan said in a statement announcing the partnership between Nucor and MSNBC. “There is no better partner for this than Nucor and their visionary CEO Dan DiMicco, a man who is as dedicated to his own extraordinary employees as he is to helping get all of America working again.”

The relationship between Nucor and MSNBC was described at the time by Ad Week as “a first of its kind partnership.” Mediaite, a media outlet that covers the U.S. media apparatus, described one on-air segment of the tour as something which “easily could have been confused for a human resources video to boost Nucor employee morale.”

“Not Josh Fox”

“Steel on Wheels”  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg) focused on finding solutions to many problems ailing the U.S., including health care, education, manufacturing, public works and energy.

At the center of the energy portion sat T. Boone Pickens, the Pickens Plan, Clean Energy Fuels and promotion of natural gas vehicles. Days after the three-day (March 30-April 1) energy portion of the “Steel on Wheels” tour ended, Congress introduced the Pickens-promoted NAT GAS Act on April 6, which offered subsidies to the industry to produce gas-powered automobiles and ended up not passing.

A planning document for the three-day energy segment shows that anti-fracking voices, such as that of Josh Fox—director and producer of the two Gasland documentaries and of the forthcoming film How to Let Go of the World: and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change—would not have a slot on the three days of energy-focused episodes. Natural gas receives an explicit mention as a “solution.”

Though Josh Fox gets mentioned as a potential guest who will not receive an invitation, prospective guests listed on the document included climate change denier and U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), former Shell North America CEO John Hoffmeister and Pickens.

Fox ended up as a guest on the show on March 31, 2011. But he was treated in a hostile manner by Ratigan when Fox pointed out that Pickens had money riding on the fracking boom and that the fracking boom could lead to global climate change chaos, water impacts and human health impacts.

“I get it, you believe that natural gas will ruin the universe and can’t be solved,” Ratigan  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) exclaimed to Fox in closing out the segment. “I want to have a conversation to solve the problem with you. I’m not looking to have a propaganda speech from you more than I am from Boone Pickens or anybody else.”

Pickens though, interviewed the day before Fox on Ratigan’s show, received a much friendlier reception.  ;)

Photo credit: Oklahoma State University (copy of letter at article link)

“The goal of the Steel on Wheels Energy Summit is to capitalize on the emerging opportunity to address America’s energy problem,” the document reads. “[With] (s)ignificant disruptions in the Middle East and unprecedented opportunities here in the U.S., Free America would culminate its quest to find jobs and solutions for America by highlighting ENERGY as a trillion-dollar problem that we CAN solve and in the process create jobs, capture trillions of value, and create lasting nation (sic) security—and it is (sic) problem both businesses and politicians are ready to tackle.”

“Our Cause”

On March 24, 2011, MSNBC public relations employee Tanya Hayre emailed Jay Rosser—vice president of public affairs for BP Capital, a hedge fund owned by Pickens—to introduce herself and get the ball rolling on logistics for the following week’s episodes and the events surrounding them. In that email, she referred to the need to “drum up press” in service to “further promot[ing] our cause/discussion” and then asked if Pickens could speak with reporters in order to complete that task.

Photo credit: Oklahoma State University (copy of letter at article link)

GE’s business interests in natural gas and gas-powered vehicles went unmentioned in the segment, an interview between Ratigan and Pickens, which took place at OSU. OSU’s football stadium is named after Pickens and he is a major donor to the university.

In that interview, Ratigan showered praise on Pickens and called him a “patriot” while not mentioning where Pickens makes his money: from both investing in the natural gas industry and owning a major natural gas vehicles fueling station company, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, that was actively lobbying for the NAT GAS Act at the time.

“My recollection is that I was approached by Dylan’s team wanting to factor energy into one of their town halls,” Rosser said via email. “I connected them with OSU, Boone’s alma mater [but] didn’t have any meaningful input into the program outside of Boone’s direct participation (i.e., speaking format, etc.).”

In November 2012, a year and a half after Ratigan’s shale gas-promoting stint at OSU, Pickens’ gas fueling station company Clean Energy Fuels Corporation bought some of GE’s natural gas vehicle fueling equipment as part of its “America’s Natural Gas Highway” marketing effort.

“GE is proud to be partnering with Clean Energy  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif)  Fuels to develop natural gas infrastructure in the U.S. Clean Energy is an industry leader in pioneering a new way for America to fuel its vehicles and to further gain energy independence,” GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt said in a press release announcing the deal. “With an abundance of cleaner, more affordable natural gas here in the U.S., this is an important opportunity for GE to join Clean Energy in changing the way America drives.”

The two companies would later sign another business deal in October 2013, linking them in the effort to beef up the number of natural gas-powered trucks on U.S. highways. GE also promotes its “CNG in a Box” (compressed natural gas) vehicles fueling station equipment on its website.

Lean Right: “They Already Do”

Cenk Uygur, founder and show host of the popular YouTube-based The Young Turks Network and former MSNBC show host, reacted to the news of MSNBC’s looming rightward shift by giving a contrarian take on the announcement. In the past, Uygur said he left MSNBC when he was told by CEO Phil Griffin that “We’re the establishment, and it would be cool to be like outsiders, but we’re not, we’re insiders, and we have to act like it.”

Right-wing in the Fox News sense of the term? Not quite.

But right-leaning in terms of being a corporate-owned media outlet with business interests that often converge with the stories they cover? As the case of T. Boone Pickens, Dylan Ratigan and OSU shows, without a doubt.

“MSNBC is a good case study on the parameters of mainstream media. There are certain lines you can’t cross and when people do, there’s consequences,” Michael Arria, author of the book Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC,  said in an email. “Everyone I researched for my book seemed extremely earnest about what they’re doing. Someone like Maddow seems genuinely convinced she can do any story she wants.”

Ratigan did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

(http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)


http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/13/msnbc-promoted-fracking/ (http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/13/msnbc-promoted-fracking/)

Agelbert COMMENT: This is Par for the Course for the fossil fuel industry double talking, "we are all gonna die without our fossil fuel loyal servant and savior of civilization", SCC (social Cost of Carbon) IGNORING, energy math gaming, propaganda.

The FACT that the methane leaks from oil and gas drilling have been DELIBERATELY low balled BY the EPA should tell you all you need to know.

QUOTES from a recent EchoWatch article:

Specifically, wrote NC WARN in a press statement, “Dr. David Allen , then-head of EPA’s Science Advisory Board, has led an ongoing, three-year effort to cover up underreporting of the primary device, the Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler and a second device used to measure gas releases from equipment across the natural gas industry. Allen is also on the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin, where he has been funded by the oil and gas industries for years.”

“The EPA’s failure to order feasible reductions of methane leaks and venting has robbed humanity of crucial years to slow the climate crisis,” said Jim Warren, director of NC WARN. “The cover-up by Allen’s team has allowed the industry to dig in for years of delay in cutting emissions—at the worst possible time.”

The cover-up was discovered by NC WARN, the group wrote in its complaint, when it became aware that the very inventor of the Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler, an engineer named Touché Howard, had been attempting to blow the whistle for years on the crucial instrument’s malfunctioning. The critical failure causes the instrument to under-report methane emissions “up to 100-fold,” the organization wrote.

The complaint describes Howard’s repeated attempts to warn the EPA and Allen about the instrument and the silence he received in response.

“It appears that the goal of the [University of Texas] team was not to critically examine the problems but to convince [Environmental Defense Fund, who co-authored the study] and its production committee members that no problems existed, ” NC WARN added.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/10/epa-fracking-methane-emissions/ (http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/10/epa-fracking-methane-emissions/)




Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 13, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
For those who can still add and subtract, the following FACTS about fossil fuel ERoEI thermodynamic efficiency (That is, the Fossil fuel ERoEI math, that Gail Tverberg and at least 54% of the Renewable Energy survey participants swear by, including Palloy, DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE FACT that, in the real world of the science of thermodynamics, Energy RETURN EQUALS work (as defined by physics) MINUS WASTE HEAT)  reveal the error of assuming fossil fuels have a higher ERoEI than Renewable Energy technologies.

The fossil fuel industry originated disingenuous trick is to FIRST hammer the "high energy density" (excluding waste heat, of course) Hess Law based thermodynamics into us while avoiding discussions of waste heat like the plague. When they have established the FALSE MEME that fossil fuels have a "higher energy density" than Renewable Energy technologies, they cleverly create a false equivalence between the cherry picked "higher" fossil fuels ERoEI and "higher" MONETARY Profits.  :evil4:

Massive Fossil Fuel Industry Welfare Queen Subsides, COSTS to we-the-people, which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to ERoEI thermodynamics, ALWAYS make it to the "higher" MONETARY profits happy talk.  ;)

However, the SCC (social Cost of Carbon), like waste heat thermodynamics, never gets included in the fossil fuel ERoEI happy talk OR the false equivalence "higher" MONETARY Profits fossil fuel happy talk, even though ALL MONETARY INVESTMENT DECISIONS, on which energy sources to use, are based on ALL COSTS.

HELLO? Is anybody there?

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our IVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg doing the (http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg) bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216161405.jpeg)

Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 13, 2016, 05:23:21 PM
Quote
AG: Energy RETURN EQUALS work (as defined by physics) MINUS WASTE HEAT)

Wrong again.   :emthdown:
Waste Heat is what it says it is - waste, it doesn't do work by definition.
Instead of wasting electrons on this load of crap, you should learn some Physics first.
Title: Renewable Energy Survey: Cassandra's Legacy Parallel Thread
Post by: RE on June 13, 2016, 08:00:07 PM
Ugo published his take on the results of the Renewable Energy Survey on Cassandra's Legacy (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2016/06/will-renewables-ever-replace-fossils.html).

My response to his article is below, he hasn't approved it yet.

RE

This is a REALLY difficult problem on so many levels that giving one "answer" to it is impossible.  As Gail indicated a few times in the discussion, the leading problem here is the Financial System and it's continued operation.  Obviously, with a failed financial system, making the necessary investments in Renewable Energy will be difficult if not impossible.

The difference in attitudes between the population Ugo sampled and the population I sampled are extremely interesting.  However, our sample wasn't strictly Diners, it came from numerous websites, including Cassandra's Legacy.  The really interesting sample we cannot get is that of the general population, say the readers of USA Today.  What does the average person think of this, and can Renewables be sold to these people, given it would be an extremely costly thing to do?

We also wanted to make some discrimination here between the high finance systems of large PV farms and Windfarms and the smaller more self contained systems that are not necessarily Grid Connected.  What I would like to see moving forward here is a financial and energy analysis of how large scale compares to small scale.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 13, 2016, 08:14:08 PM
Quote
AG: Energy RETURN EQUALS work (as defined by physics) MINUS WASTE HEAT)

Wrong again.   :emthdown:
Waste Heat is what it says it is - waste, it doesn't do work by definition.


Instead of wasting electrons on this load of crap, you should learn some Physics first.

Palloy reaches for some of these, AGAIN:
(http://www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org/images/20071010_GraspingAtStrawsSign.jpg)

I apologize for the confusing statement about waste heat. I was trying to say ENERGY RETURN should
EXCLUDE WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT doesn't contribute to Energy Return, but it came out a bit mangled. I suppose you will want me to study English too. ::)

So, let me fix the phrase so you can understand it: Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics).

The old "dismissal" type fallacious argument technique, complete with aspersions to the opponent's level of intelligence and education is really tired, but thanks for the great laugh, Palloy.   

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-050616182935.png)
Here's to waste heat electrons  :icon_mrgreen:  :icon_sunny:

And as to your laughable claim to know what you are talking about, you just exposed yourself as being an abysmally, and embarrassingly, ignorant example of one BESOTTED (your adjective for me is far more applicable to you  ;D) with fossil fuel love. 

What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS!

WHY? Because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES to the "HIGH" ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.  :emthdown:

It's just MORE science challenged BULLSHIT from Palloy, the biosphere math challenged mathematician.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)

How stupid can you be to claim WASTE HEAT isn't figured in the ENERGY in ALL the enthalpy of formation tables known to thermodynamics?

ALL HEAT is ENERGY. THAT is where the fossil fuel ERoEI MATH gets it's BASIC DATA. 

ONLY when it cannot do MECHANICAL WORK is it CLASSIFIED as "WASTE", you ignorant, double talking fossil fueler.
 
When you figure out how Hess's Law works, THEN you can make some intelligent remarks about physics in general and thermodynamics in particular, instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance of science side by side with your brain dead bias for fossil fuels.

I have met some stubborn, hide bound, recalcitrant sophists in my day, but you take the prize for STRAW GRASPING DENIAL of reality.

Have a nice day.

THE FACTS Palloy wants to pretend do not exist:

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our INVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg or PALLOY doing the (http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg) bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216161405.jpeg)



Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 13, 2016, 09:30:32 PM
Quote
AG: What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS! WHY, because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES the ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.

I'll try and decipher what you mean by that garbled nonsense.  Then you might learn something.

Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste. 

The percentage of Energy that ends up doing useful Work via an engine, is called the engine's Efficiency.  An engine doesn't have to be a FF-to-mechanical engine - a solar panel is a sunlight-to-electricity engine.

The problem of both FFs and solar panels (and every other kind of engine) is that the engine's manufacture itself takes Energy.  So in an increasingly energy-constrained world, building NEW engines is not a solution, even if they are more efficient.  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.

Got it now?
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: RE on June 13, 2016, 11:12:03 PM
\

The problem of both FFs and solar panels (and every other kind of engine) is that the engine's manufacture itself takes Energy.  So in an increasingly energy-constrained world, building NEW engines is not a solution, even if they are more efficient.

That's not entirely true.

If you could make solar panels just utilizing the energy from previously produced solar panels and still have a surplus of energy to use for other purposes, then building more solar engines IS a solution.  It becomes a self-replicating system.  It is in fact then only limited by the amount of material you have available to make the solar panels, which is quite large for the straightforward silicon based ones.  You could keep churning them out until they covered the entire Sahara Desert and Gobi Desert and all of Death Valley.  You could pave every road with them and roof every house.  They could line the sides of a rail track along the right of way and power your trains.

However, as of yet nobody has demonstrated making new solar panels just using energy from already produced solar panels.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 15, 2016, 01:22:52 PM
Quote
AG: What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS! WHY, because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES the ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.

I'll try and decipher what you mean by that garbled nonsense.  Then you might learn something.

Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste. 

The percentage of Energy that ends up doing useful Work via an engine, is called the engine's Efficiency.  An engine doesn't have to be a FF-to-mechanical engine - a solar panel is a sunlight-to-electricity engine.

The problem of both FFs and solar panels (and every other kind of engine) is that the engine's manufacture itself takes Energy.  So in an increasingly energy-constrained world, building NEW engines is not a solution, even if they are more efficient.  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.

Got it now?

That you are as arrogantly insulting as ever is what I get from your post. You are the one that doesn't get the fossil fuel favoring "high" energy density con. I'll try again for the benefit of readers here.

Quote

Palloy:  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.
:emthdown:

Yes it is. You cannot arrive at efficiency assumptions without FIRST starting out with an energy density figure. THOSE energy density calculations FAVOR fossil fuels because the false equivalence between gross high energy density and  "high" FF ERoEI is peddled by the fossil fuel industry.

Although the subject of engine design is appropriate BECAUSE our entire civilization routinely replaces most engines manufactured in a 20 year cycle, there are more significant factors at play here. Your claim that the high thermal processes required by industry requires fossil fuels ignores the fact that electric arc furnaces can be powered quite well by electricity, at least the last time I checked. There is nothing in industry that beats electric arc furnaces at rapid heat increase and easily controllable temperatures for smelting metal alloys. PV and wind can supply that electricity quite well. No combustion is required to make PV and wind infrastructure, even though we stupidly still do a lot of that, to the joy of the fossil fuel industry. But that is a political/corporate issue, not one that has beans to do with thermodynamics or energy density.

I am referring to the fact that enthalpy values are based on scientific measurements of EXTERNAL combustion, not INTERNAL combustion.         

Energy density is a function of the total amount of energy in a chemical compound that will be released when combusted.  You are the one that does not get Hess's Law flaws.

Hess's Law is used to determine, in energy units per mass units, the thermodynamic release (for exothermic reactions) or absorption (for endothermic reactions) of energy in the form of heat energy (enthalpy).

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-020216004023.png)

Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY. The Hess Law ASSUMPTION that the total CHANGE in ENTHALPY (sum=Σ of changes=Δ  in enthalpy=H°f in intermediate reactions= Σ ΔH°f )  can be used to arrive at an enthalpy value ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT  is USEFUL HEAT.

Yes, HEAT IS a form of energy. But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

BUT, it is NOT subtracted. Therefore, oxidized (i.e. combusted) compounds with LOW waste heat like ETHANOL appear ERRONEOUSLY to have LOWER enthalpy values than compounds with HIGH waste heat (i.e. ALL HYDROCARBONS - i.e. fossil fuels). This Hess Law ERROR is reflected in the published tables in chemistry texts for the Enthalpy of Combustion of chemical reactants AND makes its way to ERoEI values.

The following table is factual, though the reasonable facsimile of Agelbert  ;D saying "NO WAY" is also accurate.  (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216235741.png)

If we used fossil fuels exclusively to boil water, the above table is accurate BECAUSE the "work" of boiling water (or running a steam engine) makes them the winners.

But if you combust the above compounds in the above table in an INTERNAL combustion engine, ETHANOL is the WINNER. You cannot understand that, for some reason.

As to the energy density of PV and Wind, they are far and away above that of fossil fuels and even ethanol, regardless of what you wish to believe.

In closing, I recommend your "erudite mathematical highness" to be sure and tell Richard Heinberg he does not "get it" and needs to go study physics.

How We Get to a 100% Renewable Energy Future

Richard Heinberg | June 15, 2016 12:20 pm

I spent the last year working with co-author David Fridley and Post Carbon Institute staff on a just-published book, Our Renewable Future. The process was a pleasure: everyone involved (including the twenty or so experts we interviewed or consulted) was delightful to work with and I personally learned an enormous amount along the way. But we also encountered a prickly challenge in striking a tone that would inform but not alienate the book’s potential audience.

As just about everyone knows, there are gaping chasms separating the worldviews of fossil fuel promoters, nuclear power advocates and renewable energy supporters. But crucially, even among those who disdain fossils and nukes, there is a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between those who say that solar and wind power have unstoppable momentum and will eventually bring with them lower energy prices and millions of jobs and those who say these intermittent energy sources are inherently incapable of sustaining modern industrial societies and can make headway only with massive government subsidies.

We didn’t set out to support or undermine either of the latter two messages. Instead, we wanted to see for ourselves what renewable energy sources are capable of doing and how the transition toward them is going. We did start with two assumptions of our own (based on prior research and analysis), about which we are perfectly frank: one way or another fossil fuels are on their way out and nuclear power is not a realistic substitute. That leaves renewable solar and wind, for better or worse, as society’s primary future energy sources.

In our work on this project, we used only the best publicly available data and we explored as much of the relevant peer-reviewed literature as we could identify. But that required sorting and evaluation: Which data are important? And which studies are more credible and useful? Some researchers claim that solar PV electricity has an energy return on the energy invested in producing it (EROEI) of about 20:1, roughly on par with electricity from some fossil sources, while others peg that return figure at less than 3:1.

This wide divergence in results of course has enormous implications for the ultimate economic viability of solar technology. Some studies say a full transition to renewable energy will be cheap and easy, while others say it will be extremely difficult or practically impossible. We tried to get at the assumptions that give rise to these competing claims, assertions and findings, and that lead either to renewables euphoria or gloom. We wanted to judge for ourselves whether those assumptions are realistic.

That’s not the same as simply seeking a middle ground between optimism and pessimism. Renewable energy is a complicated subject and a fact-based, robust assessment of it should be honest and informative; its aim should be to start new and deeper conversations, not merely to shout down either criticism or boosterism.

Unfortunately, the debate is already quite polarized and politicized. As a result, realism and nuance may not have much of a constituency.

This is especially the case because our ultimate conclusion was that, while renewable energy can indeed power industrial societies, there is probably no credible future scenario in which humanity will maintain current levels of energy use (on either a per capita or total basis). Therefore current levels of resource extraction, industrial production and consumption are unlikely to be sustained—much less can they perpetually grow. Further, getting to an optimal all-renewable energy future will require hard work, investment, adaptation and innovation on a nearly unprecedented scale. We will be changing more than our energy sources; we’ll be transforming both the ways we use energy and the amounts we use. Our ultimate success will depend on our ability to dramatically reduce energy demand in industrialized nations, shorten supply chains, electrify as much usage as possible and adapt to economic stasis at a lower overall level of energy and materials throughput. Absent widespread informed popular support, the political roadblocks (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif)
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)
to such a project  [/color]will be overwhelming.

That’s not what most people want to hear. And therefore, frankly, we need some help getting this analysis out to the sorts of people who might benefit from it. Post Carbon Institute’s communications and media outreach capabilities are limited. Meanwhile the need for the energy transition is urgent and the longer it is delayed, the less desirable the outcome will be. It is no exaggeration to say that the transition from climate-damaging and depleting fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is the central cause of our times. And it will demand action from each and every one of us.

You can help by visiting the Our Renewable Future website (http://ourrenewablefuture.org/), familiarizing yourself with the issue, sharing your thoughts and spreading the word with friends, family, colleagues and allies.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/15/our-renewable-future-heinberg/ (http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/15/our-renewable-future-heinberg/)

Rob Brown: Great column. To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. We may never get to 100% renewables but, unless targets are set, progress will not be made. A number of countries have reached the 50%+ barrier on renewable power. These countries have been steadily reducing CO2 emissions and other types of pollution for decades. Sweden is a good example.

https://sweden.se/society/ener... (https://sweden.se/society/ener...)
 
agelbert > Rob Brown

"To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. "

Exactly right.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

And Amory Lovins has shown how to do that. The Post Carbon Institute's insistence that a 100% Renewable Energy powered civilization, in order to be sustainable, requires a lower energy use is true. BUT, their attempt to equate a lower total energy use to an obligatory lower standard of living is flawed because, as Amory Lovins painstakingly proves in his peer reviewed work titled Reinventing Fire, Renewable Energy plus energy use efficiency improvements can shave over 80% of current energy demand off of our civilization without any lowering of our standard of living.

Richard Heinberg portrays this 'type of energy use' argument as two sides of a polarized, and irrational, debate. It's not. Those defending unsustainable dirty energy have conclusively been proven to be, not just wrong, but an existential threat to our biosphere.

Richard Heinberg fails to point out the fact that political roadblocks to 100% Renewable energy have zero basis in science, both from an energy density happy talk for fossil fuels point of view, and climate cause and effect. It is those vested interests in a dirty energy status quo who don't want to hear the facts, not those advocating a 100% Renewable Erengy transition.

This is not, as Heinberg claims, about what "people want to hear" about the transition to Renewable Energy. This is about, as he points out without sufficient emphasis, the FACT that any dirty energy scenario is not optional to a 100% Renewable energy scenario, PERIOD.










Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 15, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
Quote
AG: Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY.

True.   :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:

As I said before:
Quote
Palloy: Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste.

There is definitely no inefficiency in Hess's Law - Thermodynamics wouldn't work if there was.
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol

A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram
This differs from your quoted figure of 55.496 kJ/gram because that assumes burning Methane produces liquid water, not Steam (they have different ∆H: -241.8 and -285.8 ).  If liquid water remained in the furnace, it would eventually flood the reaction, so the furnace output (not the boiler) MUST be steam.  The difference between your figure and the correct one is the energy it takes to turn the liquid H2O to steam.
Isn't Hess's Law neat?

Quote
AG: But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

No, that is wrong.   :emthdown: :emthdown: :emthdown:
Hess's Law describes the chemical reaction - it doesn't say anything about what you are going to do with the heat after you've got it.

OK, so now you have your heat, 50.143 kJ/gram of Methane, what are you going to do with it? - boil water to produce steam.  Try as you might, that process is going to be less than 100% efficient because some heat will always be lost through the walls of the boiler to the atmosphere.  That Energy is Waste Heat, but it is NOT the fault of Hess's Law, it is the fault of the boiler's efficiency (an engine).

Then you are going to take that steam and run it through a steam turbine (maybe several in cascade).  That is another engine and it will have an efficiency of less than 100%.

Then you are going to take the Energy of the spinning shaft and couple it to an electrical generator, another engine, again with an efficiency of less than 100%.

So the complete process is:
(Mass of Methane * Energy Density) = Fuel Energy
and Fuel Energy * efficiency of boiler * efficiency of turbine * efficiency of generator = Electrical Energy
and (Electrical Energy / Fuel Energy) is the efficiency of the whole system.

Now the amount of Methane entering the system is known, and the amount of electrical energy leaving the system is known, so the efficiency of the whole system is known, and that is what is used in ERoEI calculations.

I can't see what your problem is, except that your 55.496 figure is wrong, it should be 50.143.
Hess's Law and its table of ∆H values is 100% correct and is nothing to do with waste.



Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 15, 2016, 06:09:34 PM
Quote
AG: Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY.

True.   :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:

As I said before:
Quote
Palloy: Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste.

There is definitely no inefficiency in Hess's Law - Thermodynamics wouldn't work if there was.
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol

A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram
This differs from your quoted figure of 55.496 kJ/gram because that assumes burning Methane produces liquid water, not Steam (they have different ∆H: -241.8 and -285.8 ).  If liquid water remained in the furnace, it would eventually flood the reaction, so the furnace output (not the boiler) MUST be steam.  The difference between your figure and the correct one is the energy it takes to turn the liquid H2O to steam.
Isn't Hess's Law neat?

Quote
AG: But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

No, that is wrong.   :emthdown: :emthdown: :emthdown:
Hess's Law describes the chemical reaction - it doesn't say anything about what you are going to do with the heat after you've got it.

OK, so now you have your heat, 50.143 kJ/gram of Methane, what are you going to do with it? - boil water to produce steam.  Try as you might, that process is going to be less than 100% efficient because some heat will always be lost through the walls of the boiler to the atmosphere.  That Energy is Waste Heat, but it is NOT the fault of Hess's Law, it is the fault of the boiler's efficiency (an engine).

Then you are going to take that steam and run it through a steam turbine (maybe several in cascade).  That is another engine and it will have an efficiency of less than 100%.

Then you are going to take the Energy of the spinning shaft and couple it to an electrical generator, another engine, again with an efficiency of less than 100%.

So the complete process is:
(Mass of Methane * Energy Density) = Fuel Energy
and Fuel Energy * efficiency of boiler * efficiency of turbine * efficiency of generator = Electrical Energy
and (Electrical Energy / Fuel Energy) is the efficiency of the whole system.

Now the amount of Methane entering the system is known, and the amount of electrical energy leaving the system is known, so the efficiency of the whole system is known, and that is what is used in ERoEI calculations.

I can't see what your problem is, except that your 55.496 figure is wrong, it should be 50.143.
Hess's Law and its table of ∆H values is 100% correct and is nothing to do with waste.
Now I remember why I dropped PChem when I got accepted to dental school.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 15, 2016, 06:54:50 PM
But it's BEAUTIFUL, what's more it's absolutely TRUE - always was, always will be, not just here on Earth but everywhere in the Universe, and in parallel Universes if they exist.  You can't do better than that.

What's more, Hess's Law is true for nuclear reactions as well - you have a separate table of ∆Hs for nuclear reactions of course.  In the simplest fusion reaction, Deuterium + Tritium forms Helium and a neutron and Energy:
2H + 3H => (4He + 3.5 MeV) + (1n + 14.1 MeV)
The Kinetic Energy of the Helium cannot escape the magnetic bottle, but the Kinetic Energy of the neutron can.  The 3.5 MeV is not "wasted", it just exists.
(Again, this is NOT a pro-fusion statement, it is just a fact.)

If AG just pursues his perceived fault with it one more step, his misunderstanding of it will be made clear to all.  I'm still not sure what he is thinking is wrong with it, but it definitely not Hess's Law.  This is the point where he will turn to his usual ad hom and "have a nice day", thus not exposing himself.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 15, 2016, 07:12:53 PM
Quote
AG: Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY.

True.   :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:

As I said before:
Quote
Palloy: Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste.

There is definitely no inefficiency in Hess's Law - Thermodynamics wouldn't work if there was.
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol

A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram
This differs from your quoted figure of 55.496 kJ/gram because that assumes burning Methane produces liquid water, not Steam (they have different ∆H: -241.8 and -285.8 ).  If liquid water remained in the furnace, it would eventually flood the reaction, so the furnace output (not the boiler) MUST be steam.  The difference between your figure and the correct one is the energy it takes to turn the liquid H2O to steam.
Isn't Hess's Law neat?

Quote
AG: But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

No, that is wrong.   :emthdown: :emthdown: :emthdown:
Hess's Law describes the chemical reaction - it doesn't say anything about what you are going to do with the heat after you've got it.

OK, so now you have your heat, 50.143 kJ/gram of Methane, what are you going to do with it? - boil water to produce steam.  Try as you might, that process is going to be less than 100% efficient because some heat will always be lost through the walls of the boiler to the atmosphere.  That Energy is Waste Heat, but it is NOT the fault of Hess's Law, it is the fault of the boiler's efficiency (an engine).

Then you are going to take that steam and run it through a steam turbine (maybe several in cascade).  That is another engine and it will have an efficiency of less than 100%.

Then you are going to take the Energy of the spinning shaft and couple it to an electrical generator, another engine, again with an efficiency of less than 100%.

So the complete process is:
(Mass of Methane * Energy Density) = Fuel Energy
and Fuel Energy * efficiency of boiler * efficiency of turbine * efficiency of generator = Electrical Energy
and (Electrical Energy / Fuel Energy) is the efficiency of the whole system.

Now the amount of Methane entering the system is known, and the amount of electrical energy leaving the system is known, so the efficiency of the whole system is known, and that is what is used in ERoEI calculations.

I can't see what your problem is, except that your 55.496 figure is wrong, it should be 50.143.
Hess's Law and its table of ∆H values is 100% correct and is nothing to do with waste.

Don't you ever get tired of thumbs down? Talk about wasting electrons.

What, exactly, is your problem with the enthalpy of COMBUSTION table I just gave you?

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216235741.png)

My math comes from published tables. If you have a problem with them, argue with wikipeda, not me.

You can rant and rave about efficiency and there allegedly not being any "inefficiencies" in Hess's Law until the cows come home, but I never said beans about the Hess Law "inefficiencies". I merely stated that the experimental basis for obtaining the energy density values, WHEN THEY CAN OBTAIN THEM (which is simply impossible in some cases), is through measurement of EXTERNAL combustion.

What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?

Every time the subject of the higher ERoEI of ethanol than other hydrocarbons comes up, you have spasms of uncontrollable twitching, for some reason.

You have often gone into great detail about how much of this, that and the other is fossil fuel based to deny the cost effectiveness of SEVERAL Renewable Energy technologies, not just ethanol and other biofuels.

YET, when I point out peer reviewed studies  that prove ethanol beats hydrocarbon fuels, you pull out your down thumb smiley. LOL!

Hess's Law had its place in contributing to the Law of Conservation of Energy, but it is an inappropriate method of basing the start of ERoEI calculations. Even wikipeda agrees that ERoEI calculation should ONLY INCLUDE USEFUL ENERGY. Gross Energy density values include potentially useful and potentially useless energy known as waste. Deny it all you wish, but those are the thermodynamic facts.

Quote
In physics, energy economics, and ecological energetics, energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI); or energy return on investment (EROI), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy used to obtain that energy resource.[1][2] It is a distinct measure from energy efficiency as it does not measure the primary energy inputs to the system, only usable energy.

A fuel or energy must have an EROEI ratio of at least 3:1 to be considered viable as a prominent fuel or energy source.[3][4]

The irony of the above quote is that wikipeda then proceeds to post all the Charles Hall fossil fuel and nuclear power happy talk ERoEI charts.

But, to their credit, they do admit that ERoEI calculations have no actual standard rigorous and required inputs. Therefore, ERoEI math is a fossil fuel industry cherry picking paradise.

Quote

Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed-upon standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be completely different from the output. For example, energy in the form of coal could be used in the production of ethanol. This might have an EROEI of less than one, but could still be desirable due to the benefits of liquid fuels.

How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers.[28] A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.

However, when comparing two energy sources a standard practice for the supply chain energy input can be adopted. For example, consider the steel, but don't consider the energy invested in factories deeper than the first level in the supply chain.

Energy return on energy invested does not take into account the factor of time. Energy invested in creating a solar panel may have consumed energy from a high power source like coal, but the return happens very slowly, i.e. over many years. If energy is increasing in relative value this should favour delayed returns. Some believe this means the EROEI measure should be refined further.

Conventional economic analysis has no formal accounting rules for the consideration of waste products that are created in the production of the ultimate output. For example, differing economic and energy values placed on the waste products generated in the production of ethanol makes the calculation of this fuel's true EROEI extremely difficult.

They also break down the three prominent ERoEI calculations, while ignoring the fact that the Charles Hall type SUNY "studies", whether they allegedly  ;) use 'point of use' or 'extended' (FORGET 'societal' - the dirty energy corporations don't DO 'societal') exclude inconvenient costs and include gamed dirty energy subsidies that artificially give fossil fuel and nuclear power "high" ERoEI and lowball Renewable Eenrgy ERoEI.

Quote
There are three prominent expanded EROEI calculations, they are point of use, extended and societal. Point of Use EROEI expands the calculation to include the cost of refining and transporting the fuel during the refining process. Since this expands the bounds of the calculation to include more production process EROEI will decrease.[21]

Extended EROEI includes point of use expansions as well as including the cost of creating the infrastructure needed for transportation of the energy or fuel once refined.[30]

Societal EROI is a sum of all the EROEIs of all the fuels used in a society or nation. A societal EROI has never been calculated and researchers believe it may currently be impossible to know all variables necessary to complete the calculation, but attempted estimates have been made for some nations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested)




Things were simpler in the middle of the 19th Century

Hess's Law of the constant summation of heat was obviously a special case of the law of the conservation of energy, which had not yet been formally stated.

But that was then. NOW the polluters use Hess's Law to our detriment and their profit.
 
The REALITY of WASTE HEAT in fuels for internal combustion engines, as well as the ENERGY REQUIRED to ameliorate the POLLUTION those fuels produce when combusted, is excluded. This convenient fiction distorts the value of selected energy sources, resulting in the use of NEGATIVE ERoEI, inefficient and polluting, hydrocarbon fuels to run industrial civilization.

In the REAL world we live in called the biosphere, this is unsustainable because the balance of energy radiated to space versus that received from the sun is altered towards life destroying heat.

It IS a closed system. ALL factors must be computed. Hess's Law is an ABERRATION of the Law of Conservation of Energy because it reduces the concept of "energy" to heat, whether or not it is waste (i.e. USELESS for work and damaging to the biosphere) heat.

TODAY, Hess's Law is used BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY and the CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY to arbitrarily to exclude inconvenient thermodynamic FACTS in order to downplay the value of Renewable energy based technologies that produce fuels, textiles, plastics, medicines, etc.

Hess's Law, because it is the most basic enthalpy step to obtain energy density values for chemical compounds that are subsequently used in Energy Return on Energy Density (ERoEI) calculations, has helped the Fossil Fuel Industry Perpetuate the following MYTH: It Takes More Energy to ­Produce Ethanol than You Get from It! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif)


Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel (http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg) and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.

In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI. (http://www.permaculture.com/node/490) Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative.

That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).

The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.

But perhaps more important than ERoEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.

Put your DOWN THUMB out there all you want, Palloy. You are wrong about high ERoEI for fossil fuels and low ERoEI for Renewable energy..
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 15, 2016, 08:33:11 PM
Quote
AG: What, exactly, is your problem with the enthalpy of COMBUSTION table I just gave you?

I've already explained that - your table assumes the reaction produces liquid water, when in fact it produces steam.  The correct figure for Methane burning is 50.143 kJ/gram.  The problem is you just grab these "facts" without understanding them, or saying where you got them from so the context can be checked.

Just like you say that iron ore can be smelted in electric arc furnaces.  It can of course, but it uses up electrodes, and the electrodes are made of Carbon (in graphite form) so the reaction is still:
Fe3O4 + 2C + Energy => 3Fe + 2CO2
so it is still a CO2-producing reaction.
And producing pure graphite electrodes is an energy-consuming process itself, much more so than just digging up coal.  And building new electric arc furnaces is an energy-consuming process.  And making solar panels to power the electric arc furnace is an energy-consuming process.  And building the solar panel factory is an energy-consuming process.

It is true that there is no formal agreement on what items should be counted in the Energy Budget of a technology or not - the System Boundary problem.  The broadest of system boundaries is obviously best, but is the most difficult to do.  Dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere and forgetting about it (an externality) is a cheat that FF producers do, but solar-powered electric arc furnaces do it too.  The Energy required to undo the Entropy of Mixing is huge, which is why CCS is not a viable solution.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 15, 2016, 10:18:03 PM
Quote
AG: What, exactly, is your problem with the enthalpy of COMBUSTION table I just gave you?

I've already explained that - your table assumes the reaction produces liquid water, when in fact it produces steam.  The correct figure for Methane burning is 50.143 kJ/gram.  The problem is you just grab these "facts" without understanding them, or saying where you got them from so the context can be checked.

Just like you say that iron ore can be smelted in electric arc furnaces.  It can of course, but it uses up electrodes, and the electrodes are made of Carbon (in graphite form) so the reaction is still:
Fe3O4 + 2C + Energy => 3Fe + 2CO2
so it is still a CO2-producing reaction.
And producing pure graphite electrodes is an energy-consuming process itself, much more so than just digging up coal.  And building new electric arc furnaces is an energy-consuming process.  And making solar panels to power the electric arc furnace is an energy-consuming process.  And building the solar panel factory is an energy-consuming process.

It is true that there is no formal agreement on what items should be counted in the Energy Budget of a technology or not - the System Boundary problem.  The broadest of system boundaries is obviously best, but is the most difficult to do.  Dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere and forgetting about it (an externality) is a cheat that FF producers do, but solar-powered electric arc furnaces do it too.  The Energy required to undo the Entropy of Mixing is huge, which is why CCS is not a viable solution.

Palloy,
 :emthdown: (sorry, I couldn't resist  :laugh:).

Your post is not worthy of a response because you are engaging in false equivalences.

And since the "standard" for ERoEI is a cherry picked one so as to put the best face on dirty energy, people like you should stop trying to pretend you have a handle on fossil fuel ERoEI versus Renewable Energy.

I am going to ask RE a question about some Hess Law math. I would appreciate it if you waited for his answer before jumping in.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: agelbert on June 15, 2016, 10:59:10 PM
RE,
I am having some difficulties with Hess Law calculations. Even though I have performed them repeatedly, I get values that are inaccurate. Therefore, I must be doing something wrong. These calculations deal with the combustion of Hydrogen gas versus the combustion of the hydrocarbon methane. Since the water gas product, in a standard atmosphere, immediately goes to its lower energy state of a liquid, I am using the liquid water enthalpy value in both reactions.

I would appreciate the use of your Columbia University graduated Chemist brain.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140216175259.jpeg)

This is what I have calculated:

Combusting the common hydrocarbon CH4 gas (methane), we get CO2 plus water. According to the Standard Enthalpy of Formation table, CH4 has a value of -74.81  kJ/mol, CO2 −393.509 kJ/mol and water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mol.

CH4 + 2(O2) --> CO2 + 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The enthalpy of the reactants equals ONE mole of CH4 (ignoring the two moles of O2 gas because, according to Hess Law convention, elements in their standard state have an ARBITRARY VALUE OF ZERO) =  -74.81 kJ

The enthalpy of the products equals One mole of CO2 + TWO moles of H2O = 965.509 kJ.

−393.509 kJ + [2(-285.8 kJ) MINUS [(-74.81 kJ) + (2 (ZERO))] = -890.299 kJ/mole


That was pretty straightforward. :icon_sunny: Now for the combustion of hydrogen gas.

In the following reaction (Thermochemical Properties of selected substances at 298 degrees Kelvin and 1 atmosphere of pressure.), oxygen gas + hydrogen gas = water gas. WATER gas has an enthalpy of formation of −241.818 kJ/mol.

That means that an Exothemic (energy releasing reaction) sent out (a certain amount of) kJ/mole of ENERGY from two gases.

When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

2(H2) + O2 --> 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The total enthalpy of the reactants is, according to Hess's Law, ZERO.

The enthalpy of the products equals one mole of water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mole.

-285kj - [(2 times ZERO) + ZERO] =  −285.8 kJ/mole

So, it appears that burning methane releases (890.299 kJ minus 285.8 kJ) 679.709 kJ/mole (about 76%) MORE ENERGY than burning hydrogen. This is inaccurate.  :(  :emthdown:

I did some checking and the more accurate figure for the energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane is 802 kJ.

THE ENERGY FACTS:

Quote
"Since there are 500 moles of hydrogen gas in a kilogram, this means that burning a kilogram of hydrogen gas releases 500 times as much energy, or 121 MJ (million joules), assuming that the water comes out as a gas, as is usually the case in a combustion process."

"The energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane turns out to be 802 kJ. The combustion of one kilogram of methane releases 50 MJ. Heavier hydrocarbons generally yield more energy per mole, but approximately the same energy on a per-kilogram basis. Gasoline, a mixture of hexane, heptane, octane, and various other hydrocarbons, yields about 44 MJ per kilogram."

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/eee/chapter4.pdf (http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/eee/chapter4.pdf)

NASA preferred Hydrogen over methane in their main space shuttle tank for a no bullshit thermodynamic higher energy release per unit mass reason. Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry peddles the "hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source" baloney 24/7. Bad mouthing Hydrogen as an energy source is right behind ethanol in the  fossil fuel propaganda fun and games.  :evil4:  But somehow they couldn't convince NASA of that  ;). 

 
So, what am I doing wrong that I can't make Hess's Law math come out right for the chemical reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen gas?

(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif)          (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif)         ???         (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)
Title: It ain't OVAH 'till...
Post by: RE on June 15, 2016, 11:18:35 PM
My latest reply to an Extinction Troll over on Ugo's Blog.  :icon_mrgreen:

Not up yet, waiting for approval from Ugo. lol.

RE

Quote from: RE

Don't forget the Zombies & Cannibals!

What about using the lard from Fat People?  It might not be Renewable, but it could be a very good extender!  Great EROEI, no deepwater drilling, no fracking necessary!  Just Liposuction!  A Beverly Hills doctor proved this works during the financial crisis when things were tight.

http://gizmodo.com/5115588/liposuction-doctor-powered-his-cars-with-human-fat (http://gizmodo.com/5115588/liposuction-doctor-powered-his-cars-with-human-fat)

It Ain't OVAH till the last Fat Lady is Liposuctioned!

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--l2OHVRzY--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18mkbpy02a1tgjpg.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: RE on June 15, 2016, 11:43:48 PM
RE,
I am having some difficulties with Hess Law calculations. Even though I have performed them repeatedly, I get values that are inaccurate. Therefore, I must be doing something wrong. These calculations deal with the combustion of Hydrogen gas versus the combustion of the hydrocarbon methane. Since the water gas product, in a standard atmosphere, immediately goes to its lower energy state of a liquid, I am using the liquid water enthalpy value in both reactions.

For each bond you break through oxidation, burning H2 gas gives you more energy back than each bond you break in the oxidation of methane.  The bond energy for  H-H is 432 Kj/mole.  The bond energy for the C-H bond in Methane (and all the single bonded alkanes +/- a bit) is 410 Kj/mole.  So for an equal number of moles of H2, you have more energy stored in the Hydrogen than the methane.  However, in the Gas phase, methane is more energy dense than hydrogen, because each molecule has 4 C-H bonds to break, whereas each molecule of H2 only has one bond to break.  So it is almost 4X less efficient a store of energy in the gas phase, even though each individual bond holds greater energy.

This changes if you liquify the gas though.  In this case, an equal amount of liquid hydrogen to liquid methane would contain more energy and release it on oxidation.  For space applications, it is not that energy consumptive to keep these gases liquified, because space itself is so cold.  On earth, this is a much bigger problem.  So NASA for space uses Hydrogen, but on earth generally methane works better with a higher energy density in the gas phase.

Liquid Alkanes (basically pentane and up at normal earth temps) pack a lot more punch than both hydrogen and methane by volume, because they are liquid at normal earth temps.  To keep Hydrogen gas liquified at earth surface temps would itself expend tremendous energy, so it is not a practical alternative on earth.

You can't just apply Hess' Law without dealing with the Phase Change problems here between Liquids and Gases.

RE

Note: This assumes both Hydrogen Gas and Methane Gas operate according to the combined gas laws PV=nRT.  Both gases do operate very closely to that law except at very low temps or very high pressures.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: RE on June 16, 2016, 03:18:55 AM
Just for the purposes of discussion, I will go Elon Musk here.  :icon_mrgreen:

In THEORY, with nano-engineering similar to that used to create "Bucky-Balls" which are networked carbon atoms in various configurations, you might also be able to create H6 molecules, in a Hexagonal Planar ring configuration.   Nothing in the electron distribution around the Hydrogen atom prevents this, in fact it is condusive to it.  Such a molecule would have a much higher energy density than H2, and would liquify at a much higher temperature, although probably not at normal earth surface temps.  A WAG on this based on the properties of Benzene (a planar hexagonal carbon based molecule) and the molecular weight of Hydrogen is maybe -100 Kelvin.  Still quite cold, but the energy density might make keeping the phase to liquid worthwhile in net energy at earth temps.

The problems here are substantial though.  First off, H6 does not exist in Nature, and there is probably a good reason for that.  I would guess for some reason it is highly unstable, sort of like tri-nitro-toluene, aka TNT.  So a tank full of H6 is probably an explosion waiting to happen.

All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 16, 2016, 06:48:03 AM
Quote
AG: When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

When you are doing thermodynamics, phrases like "quickly turns into" have to be accounted for.  It takes energy to boil water, and you get that energy back when it "quickly turns into" liquid again.  If you choose not to capture that energy (perhaps in a condenser) it becomes waste heat and that's your fault, not Hess's fault.

To repeat the Methane burning calculation:
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol
A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram

Now do the same calculation for Hydrogen gas burning:
2H2 + O2 => 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: 2*0 + 0 = 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 2*241.8
X = 483.6 kJ/mol
A mol of Hydrogen has a Mass of (2*1) = 2 grams
So Hydrogen has an Energy Density of 241.8 kJ/gram

Hydrogen gas certainly is a fuel, but since it doesn't exist freely in nature, it has to be made by the chemical reaction of something else.  That is why H2 is called an energy carrier.  H2 has the ability to leak out of taps and pipe joints much more than other gases have, so it is not an easy material to handle.

As RE points out, gases can be compressed (P*V = N*R*T), where N is the number of molecules in a mol and is equal to 6.022E+23 for ALL gases.  So while gases have an Energy Density in Volume terms as well as Mass terms, you have to be careful when considering pressurised gases.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 16, 2016, 08:20:49 AM
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Eddie on June 16, 2016, 08:49:11 AM
Or you could just fuse two hydrogen nuclei into helium. 

That is said to produce a certain amount of energy.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/30/3a/45/303a451459b8096058617628e11b9b6f.jpg)
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: RE on June 16, 2016, 09:41:14 AM
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.

Except then when you burn the methanol you get CO2 as one of the byproducts.  I believe the goal here is to eliminate carbon emissions.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 16, 2016, 06:32:04 PM
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.
Except then when you burn the methanol you get CO2 as one of the byproducts.  I believe the goal here is to eliminate carbon emissions.
One carbon in, one carbon out, so, Net Zero.

Plus, ever wonder why methanol is called "wood alcohol"?  A popular source for the carbon monoxide is pyrolizing wood in a low-oxygen environment.  (Plus, if you can use the hydrogen right away, you've got "wood gas".)  And wood alcohol is a nineteenth-century technology, so it's got some collapse resistance.
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: agelbert on June 16, 2016, 06:37:35 PM
RE,
I am having some difficulties with Hess Law calculations. Even though I have performed them repeatedly, I get values that are inaccurate. Therefore, I must be doing something wrong. These calculations deal with the combustion of Hydrogen gas versus the combustion of the hydrocarbon methane. Since the water gas product, in a standard atmosphere, immediately goes to its lower energy state of a liquid, I am using the liquid water enthalpy value in both reactions.

I would appreciate the use of your Columbia University graduated Chemist brain.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140216175259.jpeg)

This is what I have calculated:

Combusting the common hydrocarbon CH4 gas (methane), we get CO2 plus water. According to the Standard Enthalpy of Formation table, CH4 has a value of -74.81  kJ/mol, CO2 −393.509 kJ/mol and water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mol.

CH4 + 2(O2) --> CO2 + 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The enthalpy of the reactants equals ONE mole of CH4 (ignoring the two moles of O2 gas because, according to Hess Law convention, elements in their standard state have an ARBITRARY VALUE OF ZERO) =  -74.81 kJ

The enthalpy of the products equals One mole of CO2 + TWO moles of H2O = 965.509 kJ.

−393.509 kJ + [2(-285.8 kJ) MINUS [(-74.81 kJ) + (2 (ZERO))] = -890.299 kJ/mole


That was pretty straightforward. :icon_sunny: Now for the combustion of hydrogen gas.

In the following reaction (Thermochemical Properties of selected substances at 298 degrees Kelvin and 1 atmosphere of pressure.), oxygen gas + hydrogen gas = water gas. WATER gas has an enthalpy of formation of −241.818 kJ/mol.

That means that an Exothemic (energy releasing reaction) sent out (a certain amount of) kJ/mole of ENERGY from two gases.

When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

2(H2) + O2 --> 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The total enthalpy of the reactants is, according to Hess's Law, ZERO.

The enthalpy of the products equals one mole of water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mole.

-285kj - [(2 times ZERO) + ZERO] =  −285.8 kJ/mole

So, it appears that burning methane releases (890.299 kJ minus 285.8 kJ) 679.709 kJ/mole (about 76%) MORE ENERGY than burning hydrogen. This is inaccurate.  :(  :emthdown:

I did some checking and the more accurate figure for the energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane is 802 kJ.

THE ENERGY FACTS:

Quote
"Since there are 500 moles of hydrogen gas in a kilogram, this means that burning a kilogram of hydrogen gas releases 500 times as much energy, or 121 MJ (million joules), assuming that the water comes out as a gas, as is usually the case in a combustion process."

"The energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane turns out to be 802 kJ. The combustion of one kilogram of methane releases 50 MJ. Heavier hydrocarbons generally yield more energy per mole, but approximately the same energy on a per-kilogram basis. Gasoline, a mixture of hexane, heptane, octane, and various other hydrocarbons, yields about 44 MJ per kilogram."

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/eee/chapter4.pdf (http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/eee/chapter4.pdf)

NASA preferred Hydrogen over methane in their main space shuttle tank for a no bullshit thermodynamic higher energy release per unit mass reason. Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry peddles the "hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source" baloney 24/7. Bad mouthing Hydrogen as an energy source is right behind ethanol in the  fossil fuel propaganda fun and games.  :evil4:  But somehow they couldn't convince NASA of that  ;). 

 
So, what am I doing wrong that I can't make Hess's Law math come out right for the chemical reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen gas?


(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif)          (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif)         ???         (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)
[/size].

For each bond you break through oxidation, burning H2 gas gives you more energy back than each bond you break in the oxidation of methane.  The bond energy for  H-H is 432 Kj/mole.  The bond energy for the C-H bond in Methane (and all the single bonded alkanes +/- a bit) is 410 Kj/mole.  So for an equal number of moles of H2, you have more energy stored in the Hydrogen than the methane.  However, in the Gas phase, methane is more energy dense than hydrogen, because each molecule has 4 C-H bonds to break, whereas each molecule of H2 only has one bond to break.  So it is almost 4X less efficient a store of energy in the gas phase, even though each individual bond holds greater energy.

This changes if you liquify the gas though.  In this case, an equal amount of liquid hydrogen to liquid methane would contain more energy and release it on oxidation.  For space applications, it is not that energy consumptive to keep these gases liquified, because space itself is so cold.  On earth, this is a much bigger problem.  So NASA for space uses Hydrogen, but on earth generally methane works better with a higher energy density in the gas phase.

Liquid Alkanes (basically pentane and up at normal earth temps) pack a lot more punch than both hydrogen and methane by volume, because they are liquid at normal earth temps.  To keep Hydrogen gas liquified at earth surface temps would itself expend tremendous energy, so it is not a practical alternative on earth.

You can't just apply Hess' Law without dealing with the Phase Change problems here between Liquids and Gases.

RE

Note: This assumes both Hydrogen Gas and Methane Gas operate according to the combined gas laws PV=nRT.  Both gases do operate very closely to that law except at very low temps or very high pressures.


(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/thankyou.gif)

Although a certain member of the peanut gallery will vociferously disagree (and hurl ridicule and ad hominem  arrogant insults along with bullshit about Hess Law "beauty") at what I am about to say, you have confirmed my view that Hess's Law belongs in the dust bin of thermodynamics history.

When Hess's Law was formulated, bond energies were not known. It was not until many, many years later that Linus Pauling's table of electronegativity was published. This aided in the knowledge of chemical reactions in regard to the positioning of molecular bonds between adjacent reactants and atomic orbitals in what physical chemistry now knows about the energy required to break bonds and the energy released (in exothermic reactions) when they are reformed.

As you pointed out in so many words, Bond energies, not Hess's Law, is the only accurate way, when gas phase changes are involved, to calculate energy density AND how much energy is released in a chemical reaction.

The following graphic illustrates the bond energy values, NOT AVAILABLE when using Hess's Law, whether phase changes are involved or not, that accurately reflect the high energy density of H2

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160616190052.jpeg)

Although you mentioned that in certain states, methane is more energy dense that hydrogen, as a rule, that's a technicality that doesn't justify methane over hydrogen. For example, a very long chained hydrocarbon is much more energy dense than a short chained one.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160616185642.png)

HOWEVER, the refining process, using a massive amount of heat, probably a greater amount than that required to keep hydrogen cool prior to combustion, produces short chains and VOCs at the top of the cracking tower.

BEFORE you get to the point where those short chains are massaged chemically and thermally to get long chains so your internal combustion engine will actually run, you have gone through one hell of a lot of energy per unit mass. This makes the CH4 (and every other hydrocarbon liquid or gas) perceived advantage in energy density at certain gaseous states as insufficient to prefer it to Hydrogen gas as an energy source, regardless of the energy required to keep hydrogen gas at a low temperature.

Hess's Law confuses this issue, not just in regard to gases involving phase changes, but in arbitrarily assigning ZERO enthalpy of formation values to ALL elements in their ground state, be they gas or liquid. This fails to account for, among other things, catalytic energy of activation lowering action based on element or compound electronegativity differences, to the unwarranted perceived advantage of fossil fuels.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160616192637.png)

We KNOW the bond energies. We DON'T NEED Hess's Law any more to estimate energy density. As you pointed out, energy density varies by temperature and pressure. As I point out very often, the fossil fuel industry people peddle the energy density data according to Hess's Law without absolutely any regard for the vast amount of energy they expend to package their product. They will ENDLESSLY go into detail about all the energy difficulties of packaging hydrogen for combustion, but are silent as DEATH about the much greater energy expended to prepare gasoline or methane for the market.

I know you and I disagree on this. You often mention the high energy density of fossil fuels as the reason we still use them instead of a hydrogen plus solar plus wind EV run world. I simply ask you to remember the energy cost of packaging fossil fuels in addition to the energy cost of cleaning up after the pollution they expel. Hydrogen has always been more efficient in energy and cheaper in dollars, if fossil fuels were not subsidized.

One more thing that Hess's Law does not account for, but bond energies (with some detailed internal combustion physical chemistry) do account for, is the energy density of oxygen carrying fuels like ethanol. Measurements based on external combustion ignore some thermodynamic realities that molecular electronegativity evidence. When you are oxidizing a substance through combustion, the efficiency of that reaction is contingent on the availability of oxygen. Nobody wants to talk about that elephant in the fossil fuel energy density room (except for maybe Palloy with a thumb down following ridicule and huffing and puffing  ;)).

There is simply NO WAY for a hydrocarbon to combust as efficiently and cleanly as an oxygen carrying fuel like ethanol in an atmosphere of 21 to 23% oxygen. As you know, the formation of incomplete combustion products in a combustion chamber is caused by the lack of sufficient oxygen reactant.

Gasoline never even releases, in the time it has to combust in the chamber, all of its energy density that SHOULD BE USEFUL ENERGY, never mind the waste heat, because of the lack of oxygen. Incomplete combustion is the NORM in gasoline. YET, Charles Hall deliberately ignored that in his ERoEI calculations with his erroneous assumption of complete combustion. Simply put, that was thermodynamic mendacity to make gasoline look better than ethanol.   

That is one of the reasons that it is CRAP compared with ethanol. The other reason is that ethanol complete combustion reduces waste heat and engine friction. 

Although I have never been able to convince you of the superiority of ethanol over gasoline or diesel, I hope that you consider agreeing with me that bond energy math is preferable to Hess's Law in computing energy density in elements and chemical compounds in a standard atmosphere, as well as the only truly accurate way to measure energy release in exothermic reactions and energy absorption in endothermic reactions.       


Bond Enthalpies, NOT Hess's Law, should be the gold standard used to base ALL assumptions about energy density in chemical compounds and elements:


(http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/165/169060/tool0801.gif)

If you don't agree, that's okay. Thanks again for the info.  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey : RE - I need your Columbia Chemist Brain
Post by: RE on June 16, 2016, 07:13:18 PM
All of this does not make Hydrogen a bad store of energy though, it just will take up space.  Not good in density for carz generally speaking, but could work as a storage medium for large PV facilities
Or, you could just combine 2 hydrogen molecules with a carbon monoxide molecule and get a rather dense, shelf-stable liquid product (methanol) that you can burn for energy or use directly in fuel cells.
Except then when you burn the methanol you get CO2 as one of the byproducts.  I believe the goal here is to eliminate carbon emissions.
One carbon in, one carbon out, so, Net Zero.

Plus, ever wonder why methanol is called "wood alcohol"?  A popular source for the carbon monoxide is pyrolizing wood in a low-oxygen environment.  (Plus, if you can use the hydrogen right away, you've got "wood gas".)  And wood alcohol is a nineteenth-century technology, so it's got some collapse resistance.

Net 0 yes, except we want to do better than net 0 so that we can begiin the process of sequestering the carbon already released.  So perfectly clean burning hydrogen is ideal for this purpose.

The problem with energy density really only comes in vehicular applications.  For stationary solar PV or wind power plants, you could build as many tanks as big as you need for the storage.  On bright sunny days or windy days, you use surplus power to electrolyze water and store the hydrogen gas.  At night or windless days you run the other way using the hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity and water.  This is as clean a system as you could possibly get.

As for what the loss rate would be in the conversions back and forth, this I have no idea on.

RE
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 16, 2016, 09:39:23 PM
Quote
AG: Although a certain member of the peanut gallery will vociferously disagree ... Hess's Law belongs in the dust bin of thermodynamics history.

Yes, I disagree.
You do know, don't you, that all bond energies can be calculated from ∆Hs?  They are EXACTLY the same thing, just looked at from different viewpoints.  If it were not so, then Thermodynamics wouldn't work.

Quote
The Standard Molar Enthalpy of Formation, ∆H, of a substance is the amount of heat absorbed in a reaction in which one mole of the substance in a specified state is formed from it elements in their standard states.

As is made clear in the definition, both methods have to allow for phase changes.  With ∆Hs this is simply
∆H(H2O gas) - ∆H(H2O liquid). 

Since it is only the ∆ (i.e. change) in energy we are looking for, it doesn't matter what the zero of the scale is. The zero is taken to be the H2 molecule, and since that can't be turned into any other element via chemical reactions, all other elemental molecules are going to be zero too.

But by all means keep on making a complete fool of yourself.   :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Renewable Energy Survey
Post by: Palloy on June 06, 2017, 01:53:10 AM
Quote
AG: When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

When you are doing thermodynamics, phrases like "quickly turns into" have to be accounted for.  It takes energy to boil water, and you get that energy back when it "quickly turns into" liquid again.  If you choose not to capture that energy (perhaps in a condenser) that's your fault, not Hess's fault.

To repeat the Methane burning calculation:
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol
A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram

Now do the same calculation for Hydrogen gas burning:
2H2 + O2 => 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: 2*0 + 0 = 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 2*241.8
X = 483.6 kJ/mol
A mol of Hydrogen has a Mass of (2*1) = 2 grams
So Hydrogen has an Energy Density of 241.8 kJ/gram

As RE points out, gases can be compressed (P*V = N*R*T), where N is the number of molecules in a mol = 6.022E+23 for ALL gases.  So while gases have an Energy Density in Volume terms as well as Mass terms, you have to be careful when considering pressurised gases, because a gas at above Standard Pressure has had Energy used to compress it, and