Fossil Fuel is Subsidised

[Breakable]

There are some challenges involved in subsidizing renewable technology.
If installations are subsidized, then they can be build cheap/low quality and in non-competitive areas.
If energy price is subsidized then energy from non-renewable sources can be repackaged as renewable to game the system.
Ending fossil fuel subsidies, creating a carbon tax (or other system) and letting the market adjust itself would probably slow down the economy.

Still I wonder on what scale is the system being gamed, I would expect it to be a pretty modest amount as most of the people should be fair and others would not want to get caught.
Also the subsidies are being reduced already, because they did their job of starting up this sector:
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/7865/germany-reduces-solar-subsidy/

Of course in case FF comes online I will know which sector to short in the first place.

[Brian H]

The entire industry is “gamed”, since none of it has current or prospective economic justification.

FF will finish it off completely.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote: The entire industry is “gamed”, since none of it has current or prospective economic justification. …

The only way this could be true if the EROI for renewable was less than 1, which it is not (except for some bio-fuel).
There might be better investments for now, until there is no serious energy crisis, but the subsidies are changing that.

Yes EROI for renewable in most situations is much lower than fossils, Coal or Nuclear,
but their EROI is decreasing with not much perspective.

Where renewable EROI can only go up in evolutionary (bigger, more, simpler, efficient, cheaper)
and revolutionary (intrinsic storage, high altitude wind, orbiting pv) ways.

So unless FF or some revolutionary nuclear comes online, it might be the only energy option.

Even after FF comes online it might be the cheapest option for some time,
considering that most materials, transportation and production prices are based on energy.

So basically the production costs for renewable generator factories will drop and profits will have to be increased
by decreasing price and increasing sales volume.

Basically what I expect FF to achieve is to make energy a non issue.
You might be running a diesel generator at home,
but the diesel will come from a factory that produces it by using a FF generator and co2 from air.
Alternatively you can generate energy from wind, solar or modular nuclear which will be comparably cheap as using FF (or other) grid electricity.

The entities who will have the most pain are going to be energy providers who bough energy production capacity by using loans,
because energy prices will drop and there will be no way to repay the loan. So they will probably go bankrupt,
but somebody else is going to acquire their capacity for fraction of the cost and probably just keep running it.

So basically yes, I would agree that installing more renewable capacity now does not make much sense if you thinking FF has good chances of success,
but there are always risks in business, so you can still build the installations and short energy futures at the same time to hedge your risk.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

The entire industry is “gamed”, since none of it has current or prospective economic justification. …

The only way this could be true if the EROI for renewable was less than 1, which it is not (except for some bio-fuel).
There might be better investments for now, until there is no serious energy crisis, but the subsidies are changing that.
…
Alternatively you can generate energy from wind, solar or modular nuclear which will be comparably cheap as using FF (or other) grid electricity.

…
I think if you look at the options (other than modular nuclear), from cradle to grave, and include all the associated “backup” costs (the sun/wind variable sources must have quick-response 100% conventional backup available, because the chance of drop-off to very low, even zero, output for even brief periods is intolerable), plus the subsidies, the EROI for any plausible improved versions still are terrible.

The arguments against using every bit of fossil fuel available before resorting to hyper-expensive renewables are nonsense, of course. If every gram of known coal, oil, and natural gas were burned they would add about 1/3 to the current CO2 content of the atmosphere, with a hypothetical maximum temperature impact of a degree or so over the course of a century.

The only rational course is to make efficient use of hydrocarbon fuels until FF or some equivalent is available, and then, as Eric indicates, use the hydrocarbon supplies as feedstock for useful stuff (organic molecules of all sorts).

[vansig]

I hear a lot of worry, from energy analysts, about the risks of neglecting to install and scale up replacements for fossil fuels, in time for “The End”. As yet, they are skeptical of the ultimate feasibility of fusion.

Building the infrastructure while there is still time is a REALLY good idea. Our “oil lords” try to protect their future, but they don’t have to pick up the pieces. If there are 75yrs remaining for fossil fuels, then that’s beyond the life time of anyone currently in charge, so we cant count on them to install replacement infrastructure.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable is spot on (as he so often is) when he says;

Breakable wrote:
Basically what I expect FF to achieve is to make energy a non issue.

Of course there are other resources besides energy – water not least among them.

Aside from water (which has been much discussed already), what can FF do to make other resources a “non issue” too?

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
I think if you look at the options (other than modular nuclear), from cradle to grave, and include all the associated “backup” costs (the sun/wind variable sources must have quick-response 100% conventional backup available, because the chance of drop-off to very low, even zero, output for even brief periods is intolerable), plus the subsidies, the EROI for any plausible improved versions still are terrible.

There are solutions to backup issue without sacrificing much EROI.
1)Combining CS with existing (or new) gas plants to preheat or boil water when sun is shinning and turning up the gas when it is not should be probably done with minor engineering and cost investments. And the cost is minimal because most of the infrastructure is shared,
2)Hydro is being used as storage capacity for a long time.
3)Smart grid or just simple planning (adjusting demand side, instead of supply) should soften some issues.
4)New generation of renewable’s are going to have cheap inherited storage, that is better than baseload – “dispatchable generation”:
Molten salt
http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/04/why_csp_should_not_try_to_be_coal.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Underwater compressed air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUhlsV32iHk

Also how do you include the cost of lives, health and businesses lost in the humanitarian and ecological disasters?

Brian H wrote:
The arguments against using every bit of fossil fuel available before resorting to hyper-expensive renewables are nonsense, of course. If every gram of known coal, oil, and natural gas were burned they would add about 1/3 to the current CO2 content of the atmosphere, with a hypothetical maximum temperature impact of a degree or so over the course of a century.

The only rational course is to make efficient use of hydrocarbon fuels until FF or some equivalent is available, and then, as Eric indicates, use the hydrocarbon supplies as feedstock for useful stuff (organic molecules of all sorts).

That area is off-limits.
Please dont go there, especially with incorrect information and bias.
Just look at the historical chart how much co2 we had historically in the atmosphere and where it is now. Magic isn’t it?

[Phil’s Dad]

Most of it’s in limestone Mr B.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Most of it’s in limestone Mr B.

How much exactly is most? I guess all the scientists did not know that most of it is in limestone and there is no danger of GW?
Actually they did check that and if you want to see where it actually went you can do some calculations yourself (I did).
And it is enough to check the recoverable coal to see that our friend is not right on this:

If every gram of known coal, oil, and natural gas were burned they would add about 1/3 to the current CO2 content of the atmosphere…

Still probably this thread will get closed because it went off track. I wish I got a ban as well so I can finally have some rest from all the GW debate.

[Rezwan]

Yep. Off track. This thread is now closed : )

I will split off the emerging bit about what FF can do to make other resources a “non-issue.“

[Author]

Posts