0
0

What it will take to get off fossil fuels.


 invite response                
2012 Mar 28, 10:40am   21,472 views  52 comments

by freak80   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

The following website shows what it would take to get off of fossil fuels with current technology:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

The analysis is for Great Britain, but a similar analysis could be done for any country.

I think it's good enough to warrant it's own thread.

Comments 1 - 40 of 52       Last »     Search these comments

1   freak80   2012 Apr 5, 3:07am  

I'm suprised this hasn't generated more discussion. Anyone taken a look at that link? The author fully accepts human-caused global warming and does some basic calculations to determine if it's physically possible to stop using fossil fuels while maintaining our standard of living.

2   clambo   2012 Apr 5, 3:14am  

The world is not getting off fossil fuels and doesn't need to.
The USA has an ocean of natural gas under it and it can run all cars and trucks here for 200 years or so.
If they find a way to harvest the deep sea methane hydrates, our fuel supply will be another thousand years or so.
Whether humans cause warming is irrelevant, since the sun's energy varies so much we are likely to freeze to death anyway in another mini ice age. This was a scare in the 70's, the "norther hemisphere cooling" caused southern hemisphere droughts and bad grain harvests in argentina,australia, etc.
Buring natural gas and methane hydrates (someday) produces less CO2 anyway because of the chemical structure of methane compared to gasoline or coal.
What is the ideal temperature of the earth? What year was the ideal temperature?

3   freak80   2012 Apr 5, 3:59am  

Well that's a whole different argument. My point is to show how much of a challenge it will be to completely stop using fossil fuels IF we decide to do so.

4   clambo   2012 Apr 5, 4:09am  

How hard could it be? We just get 50% of Americans to stop using electricity, which is how much is generated by burning coal.
We will never "decide" to do any such thing of course.
I have lived in England and been around in Europe. They have no energy and this is one of the several reasons that Europe is essentially poor, but they do have a decent standard of living because of their welfare state. No one really starves in France or Spain.
Outside of London, most of England was quaint and the people mostly were broke. Bed and breakfast is when you have no money, no job and have a house so you rent out a room to strangers.

5   freak80   2012 Apr 5, 5:03am  

True. It would be very difficult. Maybe even impossible. At least with current technology.

I didn't start this thread to imply it would be easy to get off fossil fuels. Quite the contrary.

There are too many people that think it would be an easy thing to do, and think the only reason we don't is because of evil fill-in-the-blank.

6   Vicente   2012 Apr 5, 5:21am  

I don't think we CAN "get off fossil fuels".

Could we reduce our use by 50% or more? Easily.

What we need:
1) Living closer to where you work
2) Housing targeted towards efficiency & livability
3) End of the 3,000 mile Caesar salad
4) Urban design for people & neighborhoods not for cars.

All those would go a long way WITHOUT techno-miracles

Here's a great TED Talk with Kunstler about suburbia:

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html

I watched it twice. I find myself seeing "Nature bandaids" everywhere now.

7   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2012 Apr 5, 11:19am  

CaptainShuddup says

Quote Like Dislike (1) Permalink Share Edit

A Plan

Really??? A dislike?

I don't know why that surprises me, if there's one thing Liberals just LOATHE is a well thought out plan.

8   tts   2012 Apr 5, 12:21pm  

clambo says

The USA has an ocean of natural gas under it and it can run all cars and trucks here for 200 years or so.

No we don't. All those gas wells have over stated capacity. That is why they keep having to reduce reserves by huge amounts:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38463/

And nat. gas has lower energy density then gas or diesel too BTW, you need much more of it to go the same distance as you would vs gas. It could be a nice supplement to gas powered vehicles but you couldn't replace all vehicles with nat. gas ones, not for 50 yr and definitely not for 200.

clambo says

If they find a way to harvest the deep sea methane hydrates, our fuel supply will be another thousand years or so.

LOL where the hell are you getting these ideas, SyFy movies or something? They'll never be able to harvest methane clathrates economically. Deposits are too sparsely dispersed and buried deep below the ocean floor to be worth while to get, EROI would probably be worse than solar power. Also the estimated amounts that exist are thought to be only somewhat more than current nat. gas reserves, nowhere near 1,000 yr worth of it exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Oceanic

9   tts   2012 Apr 5, 12:25pm  

wthrfrk80 says

Well that's a whole different argument. My point is to show how much of a challenge it will be to completely stop using fossil fuels IF we decide to do so.

We just have to go nuclear. Even if you happened to dislike LFTR's you can still run thorium or uranium in a proven CANDU style reactor. The newest versions are very safe and cost efficient. You just standardize the design and build many of them to reduce costs and legal as well as manufacturing delays, which BTW is how France runs their nuclear program.

The main issue with doing something like that is getting past the "OMG ATOMZ" NIMBY crowd. They'd probably stone wall it.

10   freak80   2012 Apr 5, 12:37pm  

tts says

We just have to go nuclear. Even if you happened to dislike LFTR's you can still run thorium or uranium in a proven CANDU style reactor. The newest versions are very safe and cost efficient. You just standardize the design and build many of them to reduce costs and legal as well as manufacturing delays, which BTW is how France runs their nuclear program.

I've heard different things about nuclear...like that we only have 50 years of uranium. Others say we have much more. I really don't know who to believe. I guess if it's good enough for France it's good enough for us. Assuming we have access to uranium here in the states. Of course that still doesn't solve the transportation problem, just the electricity problem. Although batteries keep getting better.

11   Dan8267   2012 Apr 5, 1:00pm  

wthrfrk80 says

What it will take to get off fossil fuels.

Combining wind power with porn.

12   tts   2012 Apr 5, 1:29pm  

wthrfrk80 says

I've heard different things about nuclear...like that we only have 50 years of uranium. Others say we have much more. I really don't know who to believe.

Anti-nuke activists are the guys who go around telling everyone we only have 50 yr worth of uranium left. What they fail to mention is that you can reprocess the stuff many times over and there is still plenty left in the ground. Reprocessing fuel isn't done in the US because Carter made it illegal but France does it without issues.

One odd side effect of Carter's decision is that the US has vast stock piles of uranium...in the form of nuclear waste just sitting around in cooling ponds. They can start reprocessing that if they really want to, just have to change the law to allow it. The real world pessimistic estimate is we have somewhere around 80-100yr supply available, the optimistic estimate is over 200yr.

Note, that is for uranium. We have much much more thorium available for use if need be.

wthrfrk80 says

Of course that still doesn't solve the transportation problem, just the electricity problem. Although batteries keep getting better.

If they pushed mass electric trains in areas of high population density that would go a long way towards fixing the transportation problem. Rural areas or the exurbs would probably still have to rely on gas, same thing for tractors on farms and such, but that probably isn't so bad.

13   Vicente   2012 Apr 5, 4:08pm  

Dan8267 says

Combining wind power with porn.

How about more directly turning human energy into motive power, like hooking up a generator to gym equipment:

14   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2012 Apr 5, 10:27pm  

CaptainShuddup says

Threads: 8
Comments: 86
Add Location

Update Profile
7 Thu, 5 Apr 2012 at 6:19 pm Quote Like (1) Dislike (2) Permalink Share Edit

CaptainShuddup says

Quote Like Dislike (1) Permalink Share Edit

A Plan

Really??? A dislike?

I don't know why that surprises me, if there's one thing Liberals just LOATHE is a well thought out plan.

Why was my "Serious" and yet honest and most of all intelligent answer deleted?
Really do you people really think we'll get off Fossil fuel by deceit, lies, fighting, fraud, and waste?
Patnet is testament, to why this country is like two big Idiots with stew pots on their heads playing head on chicken. God forbid someone has a better idea, you folks get all chagrin and systematically flag their answer.

If there's one thing Liberals hate is a well thought out plan, they hate that as much as they love censorship.

We'll never get off fossil fuels, until you guys grow up, and learn to communicate. ... and more importantly become capable of formulating a PLAN.

15   MisdemeanorRebel   2012 Apr 6, 2:35am  

There's no getting off fossil fuels without abandoning the suburbs.
It's very difficult to convert the national power grid to renewable energy. Adding to the power grid by replacing all or most of the cars on the road today with electric cars will make that nigh-impossible in the foreseeable future.

The suburbs have to go, biggest waste of resources and energy in Human History.

16   leo707   2012 Apr 6, 2:53am  

Vicente says

How about more directly turning human energy into motive power, like hooking up a generator to gym equipment:

http://inhabitat.com/human-powered-gyms-in-hong-kong/

17   freak80   2012 Apr 6, 2:59am  

Right. We can run our civilization on human power alone. LOL.

18   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2012 Apr 6, 3:48am  

There already a guy in our highly conjested town running up and downtown Hollywood Blvd on busy week ends. with one of these numbers...

I'm just waiting for the idiot report, to report carnage on night on the 6 Oclock news.

19   Dan8267   2012 Apr 6, 4:14am  

Vicente says

How about more directly turning human energy into motive power, like hooking up a generator to gym equipment:

You mean like the Green Lantern?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/nlLI2dywfEw

20   Vicente   2012 Apr 7, 1:46pm  

Last 2 nights I watched:

End of Suburbia (2004)
Escape from Suburbia (2007)

On the one hand, I think they often overstate the "disaster" part of the equation. Society will adapt, and the unsustainable parts will turn into ghost towns.

On the other hand, I really side with Kunstler there will be no magic replacement for oil that will let us keep running as we are now, forever and ever. I believe the original linked article is accurate enough in how we can and WILL replace much of our fossil fuel usage with alternatives. However in the end there WILL be some adjustments such as localizing a lot of our living & food arrangements.

21   mdovell   2012 Apr 8, 2:00am  

The interesting bits about current fuels is that well...they work but more importantly this is how it works

1) You have a physical fuel you can buy and ship safely across the planet

2) There isn't any lag time in fueling to operation. Gasoline works in a car or a lawnmower without any questions (provided the engines work)

3) It is well established how it is made from a refinery.

4) storage is not a significant issue (this is a biggie). Gas, diesel, oil can sit and be OK.

So basically you have distribution, generation and use being established.

Other fuels are fine but unless they are distributed in a good fashion they will not be used, if there is no production that means importation can be an issue. This isn't to say that gas is perfect. Right now the northeast is buying brent instead of wti which runs about $20 more a barrel.

Solar and wind seem nice in terms of generation but the storage means more batteries which will eventually run out. If the batteries don't store the power long enough then during darkness and no wind it eventually runs out. while it is true in some parts of the country this is reliable it is not true for all.

Fraking with natural gas might contribute to earthquakes and the prices are so low eventually natural gas cars and trucks might start coming out. I think offshore wind has significant potential provided the power lines are maintained. Nuclear might get a comeback but it opens up a significant amount of concerns given that the yucca plan was cancelled by Obama.

22   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2012 Apr 8, 6:39am  

When I was Peru last summer, there were taxis, recommissioned 4 cyl cars circa '90's discarded from the USA. They spent about $1500 to convert to natural Gas, and for about $7.00 USD they can go 300 miles.
There is just far to much politics and regulations to ever allow that. These are small mom and pop shops they go to, to do the NG conversions. Here in the states to convert a car would cost more than the car its self. Large corporations with fleets and their own resources to do so, get to enjoy the benefits of NG and LP, us lowly cretins can suck eggs. We talk the talk but we walk like Idiots.

23   tts   2012 Apr 8, 3:27pm  

Regs and politics have nothing to do with stopping garages from doing nat. gas conversions. The main problem is the cost of the conversion (labor intensive so $$$) and the cost of the high pressure CNG tank (also $$$).

Once you get all that done then you have to find a place to fill up, which isn't always possible, or have a home refill station installed which is expensive ($$$). Fuel works out to be a little less than half the cost of gas IIRC so you won't be filling up for $7 unless you happen to live in a state that has subsidized fuel prices. The government will also give you tax credits to do a conversion but they aren't worth much AFAIK.

Its makes some sense for large fleet vehicles to do a CNG conversion but right now for most people it doesn't. After all you can get cars that do around 50mpg for less than $19k now and ones that around 35mpg for $14k.

24   MisdemeanorRebel   2012 Apr 9, 1:08am  

Vicente says

End of Suburbia (2004)
Escape from Suburbia (2007)

On the one hand, I think they often overstate the "disaster" part of the equation. Society will adapt, and the unsustainable parts will turn into ghost towns.

+1

I agree. The suburbs may become small cities, condensing around a train station or other distribution point. The more sprawling suburbs distant from any city, lacking any kind of real downtown area or rail station, are probably doomed unless they get one.

Cross-country high speed rail is problematic in a big country like the US, but most of the traffic is going in and around metro areas.

NY to Boston by train is a helluva lot easier hassle-wise, and takes just as much time when you factor in getting to and from the airports back to the downtown of both, getting through security theater,and the likelihood of having to sardine yourself while waiting for take-off clearance or circling waiting for a landing. Most of the time, both means would take 4-5 hours.

Kunstler has some good point, but I think a little too gloomy. We *do* have a better understanding of wind, solar, and hydro, so it won't be an exact return to 19th Century living. Lots of places in the world are largely powered by hydro, so while imported goods may become difficult, power for manufacturing wouldn't be. We also have coal and diesel for critical things we wouldn't want to do without. Rudy Diesel invented the diesel engine to run off vegetable oil in the first place. Yeah, bubba won't be able to drive his F-150 all over town, but he could grow and distill enough diesel to run the tractor.

25   freak80   2012 Apr 9, 2:11am  

Kunstler is an entertainer, but he's got a lot of good points. Like any good pundit, he's half right and half full-of-shit.

26   zzyzzx   2012 Apr 9, 2:44am  

I think we are more likely to see cars go electric and more oil being made synthetically (like from seaweed, trash, etc.) than we are to see the end of suburbia. We could make a significant amount of oil with various bio-waste products if we really wanted to. That and some demand destruction from people switching from heating with oil to heating with something else. If I were dictator, I'd ban the use of heating with oil.

27   ArtimusMaxtor   2012 Apr 9, 8:49pm  

I don't like electric cars, oil being used. Notwithstanding what the car is made of. So. I am not a dictator or supreme commander. Trash mostly comes from trees and oil they use it in more than you can know and can lower your sperm count. The people that make things with it know that. Amen to Kunstler being half full of shit. The enviromental stuff you see mainwaters is mostly fluff and ear tickling.

All of this stuff does something. People are ignorant of what a tree does. What oil does. What copper does. Your taught none of this with all of the great scientific research that has been done on these things. They do things in their natural state. They are not inate things that just sit there and do nothing. If they were inate they would have no reason to misuse them the way they do. Natural gas is acceptable. However what you have to put it in is not.

Most of these things have a purpose. Once again your never taught what they do to any significant degree. Because if you knew you might be a little hesitant to work in anything affiliated with whats being misused. Because there are consequences. In that what they do in their natural state help. Those things react badly when misused. Oil the taking of has gotten people shot up all over the world. You might say yea and? Don't see that going on over gold. Japan, WW2 was an oil embargo. That started it. A boatload of people died over that. 35,000 car accidents a year. 65k worldwide. Not to mention all the maimed and crippled. You can clearly see this stuff needs to be left alone and where it belongs. So this is kind of stuff you won't hear from someone like a Mr. Kunstler. Things that people like him GD well understand. Some of those little cash loving strumpets know more than you assume. Its just "bad for business" for them to talk about it.

You can't live without a car. Yes you can. A whole lot of the world does so. Auto's are dangerous. I don't know why people don't get the very real fact they are dangerous its beyond comprehension why no one reacts to that. Obviously no one gives a shit about the 65k dead worldwide. the maimed, the crippled. So much for your concern about humanity. Then again believe me everyone gets what they "deserve" for using things that should not be used. The trouble in your life is there believe me. You just need to open your eyes and see it. Or in the same vain its not some devil or a demon thats causing the trouble in your life. Its what your screwing with.

You are not taught to be self sufficent in your schools. IF you lost your job you would not know what to do next. SEE. Lose your job your screwed. IF they taught you to be self sufficent which actually MAKES SENSE. You would know what to do. So OBVIOUSLY they don't want you to be self sufficent. They NEED you to be working for and simultaneously and subsequently in debt to the debt merchants and cash printers. It might be because debt merchants the do all the bond issues and lending on things that a city needs. Not to mention debt merchants have private control of the only legal means of trade, cash. People wonder about my repetitiveness. People are always changing the little channel in their heads back to some nonsense spewed out by the debt merchant news and financial news and other offerings they have. So loose your jobbie and all you know is soup kitchen. Mostly it has to do with one way communication and what they want you to know and repeat and you can't communicate in any relevant way with the people that put out all the debt merchant information. Of course you get represented by some lackey from some other sector of their gaudy empire in many cases. Which many follow like lemmings right off the debt cliff to dependency on the cash printers and debt merchants that keep you at labor, building and maintaining their "empire" of assets. Then again hey thats what you get for "wanting" whats not yours to being with. Thats the deal. You want someone elses and have to shine shoes and worry that someone else in life makes it first before you. Kind of like a wife. But then again debt servitude dosen't seem to bother many people or being a bonded laborer. Very sick place no doubt usury is a vice like gambling which they often "substitute" or conjoin with being a borrower. Its coming to someone saying I'm to weak please lend me something. Its sick.

I understand why some don't talk like I do. Because you know that by osmosis something may get into the ears of your "masters" and you won't get your little fruit cup for lunch. Or by that same "osmosis" if you talk the way you know they like and think the way your masters like you just may get a little "reward". Life just may be a little smoother for you also you can't handle the rough water. So be it. Its kind of like the way a weasel lives. Some people are more clever than you would guess. They know how to use the supposedly inate to their advantage. You don't think these "inate" things do something. You might want to consider the "electric chair". It's in some peoples future.

29   leo707   2012 Apr 10, 2:36am  

zzyzzx says

I think we are more likely to see cars go electric and more oil being made synthetically (like from seaweed, trash, etc.) than we are to see the end of suburbia. We could make a significant amount of oil with various bio-waste products if we really wanted to.

Perhaps, but any energy source we switch to is still going to be a lot more expensive than oil was in the heyday of suburbia. The cost of the new energy source could still spell the end of suburbia.

30   joshuatrio   2012 Apr 10, 3:28am  

Anyone use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation? I've been doing it for almost a year now and really enjoy it. I know it's not for everyone, but it saves a ton of money each month - and bikes are cheap/easy to maintain.

My commute takes about 30-35 minutes by bike and about 20-25 by car. It's about 18 miles round trip. It's pretty safe, great exercise, lowered my blood pressure 20 points and lost my love handles. Wife loves it.

There are a lot of countries today where bikes are the main form of transportation - people just have to live reasonable distances from work.

My guess is by eliminating a car (we are a one car family), you save over $500/mo. on average. Figuring $300 car payment, $100 insurance, $100 gas, $50 maintenance. Some car calculators are much higher, but I figured that was a pretty decent number.

This does not include parking/tolls etc...

31   leo707   2012 Apr 10, 3:30am  

joshuatrio says

Anyone use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation?

Actually, I use shoes as my primary transportation. My commute is about 25 minutes on foot.

joshuatrio says

people just have to live reasonable distances from work.

This would be the end of suburbia.

32   Vicente   2012 Apr 10, 4:43am  

joshuatrio says

Anyone use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation?

Yep. My daily driver is a Trek Atwood:

Although my example has a few mods over the base model shown above. Added slightly raised handlebars for more upright seating, ergonomic grips, rear rack for panniers, and a few other things. 5 miles each way to work every day, get my workout right there. It's a worst-case commute for my little burg as our rental house & my job are at the farthest extremes of town, all my other trips are generally shorter.

I'm lusting after a Brompton right now, for train travel just fold it up and stick in the luggage rack as per this animated gif:

33   freak80   2012 Apr 10, 5:07am  

If I can find a house closer to work I'll use the bike...in the summer at least.

34   freak80   2012 Apr 10, 5:11am  

leoj707 says

Perhaps, but any energy source we switch to is still going to be a lot more expensive than oil was in the heyday of suburbia. The cost of the new energy source could still spell the end of suburbia.

I don't think it will be the end of suburbia. It will just mean a lot more "mixed use" development with houses and apartments mixed together with offices and services- within walking distances of each other. The whole "city vs. suburb" distinction is probably a relic of the "industrial" era. Example: I don't want to live next to a steel mill, but I don't mind living next to an office park.

35   leo707   2012 Apr 10, 5:25am  

wthrfrk80 says

I don't think it will be the end of suburbia. It will just mean a lot more "mixed use" development with houses and apartments mixed together with offices and services- within walking distances of each other. The whole "city vs. suburb" distinction is probably a relic of the "industrial" era. Example: I don't want to live next to a steel mill, but I don't mind living next to an office park.

But isn't the loss of the city vs. suburb distinction an end to the suburb?

36   freak80   2012 Apr 10, 5:34am  

leoj707 says

But isn't the loss of the city vs. suburb distinction an end to the suburb?

I suppose it all comes down to semantics. What exactly is a "suburb"? A place with relatively low density located near an area with high density?

I still think we'll have plenty of "low density" areas, whether they're called suburbs or not. Why? Well, many people consider dense areas to be too crowded. Many still like to have the green space, yards, golf courses, and the like. But with oil running out, I think you'll see more "mixed use" development rather than endless tracts of housing and endless tracts of big box stores. Why not have office parks, "small box" stores, and housing mixed together?

37   EBGuy   2012 Apr 10, 5:35am  

Anyone use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation?
Rain or shine -- unfortunately today was rain. But still better than waiting for the bus. Only two miles though. JT, I agree with your figures -- that bike is helping fund my Roth IRA.

38   freak80   2012 Apr 10, 5:37am  

I guess I'm thinking of something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodlands,_Texas

Even in Texas, the home of "cowboy capitalism" and Big Oil, they've got some good ideas!

39   leo707   2012 Apr 10, 5:45am  

wthrfrk80 says

I suppose it all comes down to semantics. What exactly is a "suburb"? A place with relatively low density located near an area with high density?

Yeah, I was thinking of suburb more as a residential community within commuting distance to a city/job center.

For what it is worth:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suburb?s=t
sub·urb
noun
1. a district lying immediately outside a city or town, especially a smaller residential community.
2. the suburbs, the area composed of such districts.
3. an outlying part.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English

World English Dictionary
suburb

a residential district situated on the outskirts of a city or town

[C14: from Latin suburbium, from sub- close to + urbs a city]

40   freak80   2012 Apr 10, 5:54am  

leoj707 says

Yeah, I was thinking of suburb more as a residential community within commuting distance to a city/job center.

I agree that the "bedroom community" type suburbs are probably going the way of the dinosaur. That's probably a good thing. Who wants to spend 30-60 minutes per day in their car fighting traffic? Ouch!

Comments 1 - 40 of 52       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions