Comments on: Replacing Oil Ain’t Easy

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:31:43 +0000

We'll just have to cross our fingers and trust in ingenuity and technologies yet to be discovered and implemented to take us forward.

That's a serious answer. And one I have faith in.

As do I, without reservation, since it has always worked for us in the past. Now, if we can keep the government and the environazis out of the way of that development...

By: JustADude

JustADude — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:17:46 +0000

One company , based on their models and test units, concludes they can use an area 10 miles square off the coast of California and provide the entire electrical needs of the state.

By: JustADude

JustADude — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:15:23 +0000

You left out a big potential source that is totally green and there all the time.

Experimental installations are already being tested world wide and that is Ocean Wave power.

Models show that there is approximately 2TW per year electrical generation power available which is more than the total world wide production of electricity currently available in total.

All they have to do is build it.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:30 +0000

Conflating what are actually two distinct issues, energy and fuel, isn't particularly helpful. For this country about half of our power generation is coal; about 1.6% is oil. Nearly all of our oil is used either for vehicles or heating (most oil heating is in the northeast). There is no ready alternative to oil for use as a vehicle fuel. Problem: the fleet would need to turn over. Even if oil were to increase in price ten fold it would still take decades for that to happen.

By: C.Wagener

C.Wagener — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:28:14 +0000

Whoa, what's this - oil is a highly efficient energy source, not easily replaced?

Stupid Republicans!!! We just need a government program and energy will soon be almost free and nonpolluting! Clearly all these people and companies have been making irrational decisions over the past six generations. It's a conspiracy or something. I read it in the Village Voice.

By: fahrrad

fahrrad — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:27:43 +0000

I’m a chronic recycler, but I know I should do more. Thanks for this post.

By: gewinnspiel

gewinnspiel — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:25:08 +0000

Thanks for the post, its really informative. But i'm anxious about alternatives!!

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:13:32 +0000

Assuming annual electricity capture of 2.1 megawatts per solar panel, we’d have to place them on 4.2 billion rooftops. In other words, we’d have to install on them on 250,000 roofs per day for the next 50 years to have enough solar panels to offset our current annual oil usage (and this ignores things like coal; see below).

Somewhere they converted from watts/panel to watts/rooftop. Are they using 1 panel/roof? A single house can potentially support multiple panels, and apartment complexes and office buildings can support even more.

The difficulty here won't be the scope of installation, but rather the per-unit cost and production rate. If you could produce a panel capable of producing 2.1 megawatts per year for $1000, you should have no trouble selling 250,000 or more per year.

By: Hoodlumman

Hoodlumman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:09:16 +0000

We'll just have to cross our fingers and trust in ingenuity and technologies yet to be discovered and implemented to take us forward.

That's a serious answer. And one I have faith in.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:07:44 +0000

James, it won't be easy--I don't dispute that. But it's not going to be nearly as difficult as this article suggests, either. I'm actively involved in environmental initiatives for my company, so I'm pretty up to speed on how fast a lot of this tech is evolving, especially at the present moment. There is a LOT of money going into alternatives to oil, even in places where it might not be obvious.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:54:51 +0000

Alex: I'm sure that there are some efficiencies not accounted for here and, certainly, my expertise here is that of a casually informed reader. Still, I think most people think that it's just a matter of making some relatively mild lifestyle changes or simply switching to another energy source. Even crude figures show that's just not the case.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:29:35 +0000

What a ridiculous article. Not only does it provide quantification without giving all of the numbers of available, it also assumes that the existing state of the technology will persist, rather than the usual trend of improved efficiency and methods. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that the use of some technologies doesn't require the same level of output as fossil fuels. For example, if we adopted the installation of solar panels on buildings to provide power on an individual level, we wouldn't need the same amount of power as is provided by a power plant, because not nearly as much energy will be lost to distribution.

By: Maxwell James

Maxwell James — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:29:09 +0000

Here's one way solar could become a viable alternative. It's a huge and unlikely project, but neither as huge or as unlikely as what you describe.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:22:00 +0000

Carpooling and better lightbulbs probably aren’t going to cut it. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t conserve, implement available alternatives where practicable, and continue to explore other options. It’s going to be tremendously difficult.

Correct, it will not be easy.
But we're making it harder on ourselves than needs be, in so many ways...