Replacing Fossil Fuels: Energy Evolution Has Happened Before

fool.com ^ | Travis Hoium

[ckilmer]

Agree that subsidies are making solar viable in many parts of the country. However they have achieved grid parity without subsidies in the southwest —naturally. Likely they’ll achieve grid parity in 3-4 years with subsidies in the rest of the country.

That said the revolution in energy won’t come until the cost of energy drops to 1/4-1/10 the cost of cheapest coal/natural gas.

[Sequoyah101]

PS...re: Not understanding energy production.

I doubt there was very little understanding about it at all. I imagine it was a decision made in ignorance and pandering to the equally ignorant tree hugging electorate.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[ckilmer]

One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
.............
I don’t disagree with this but imho in a less than a decade solar and wind will reach grid parity. AND eventually they’ll cost less.

However, the real revolution won’t come until energy is 1/4-1/10 the cost of current cheapest coal/natural gas. That will likely come byo some form of nuclear energy. The betas for that are +-5 years off and production is +-10 years off.

I agree with the article’s premise that its an interesting time for energy but not quite for the reasons they give.

[D Rider]

You are exactly correct. But if you look at it as a system, it couldn't be further from the truth. Coal is with us. It is extremely cost effective. Running it steady state reduces the scrubbing. Taking excess generation to produce clean oil would also need to be added into the equation. The same could be done with nuclear, but that may be a bridge too far. But at that point coal would not be burned, but would be used as a base material to generate clean oil.

On another related topic...Petroleum as a fuel source for vehicles is extremely clean when compared to electric due to batteries anther losses...etc. But that is another discussion.

[bert]

fossil fuel replacement is rejected by the wackos.

all sorts of small nuclear units could be in existence were it not for the wackos.

if the wackos were in their graves, there would be an abundance of energy

[D Rider]

I doubt there was very little understanding about it at all. I imagine it was a decision made in ignorance and pandering to the equally ignorant tree hugging electorate.

You just nailed the biggest problem with all energy and environment related issues.

[old gringo]

i do on electric cars put a scoop on the hood with a vortex fan hooked to a alt.but that would be to simple,i’m sure they would have to hook a dozen computers to it.

[Sequoyah101]

And I think that would be a good start to a viable solution to a bad problem.

[Chuckster]

In the final analysis, all energy is solar. Wood, petroleum etc. are just different forms of stored solar energy. Even hydro’s root source is the sun. The energy you expend walking originally came from the sun, was stored in plants that you consume directly or in the meat from animals who converted it from the plants they eat.

Eventually, solar energy and storage battery technology will mature to the point where it is more efficient and economical than fossil fuels. At that point, fossil fuels will cease to be the major source of energy.

No matter how much we like the smell of gasoline and the roar of turbocharged internal combustion engines (Nothing like the sound of an Offenhauser running at redline), they will ultimately be replaced by the clean silence of solar electric power and the culture will adjust. NASCAR will never be the same.

[Sequoyah101]

I’m very skeptical about coal NOT being burned or somehow heated with some source of energy to make “clean” oil. Even if you merely heat coal there is a lot of by-product waste to be dealt with.

I say “clean” oil because it is just not clean burning. There is always a by-product to burning. Small maybe, but always a by-product.

I do not want to slice at small amounts or points but just want an honest discussion.

Running steady state or not. What is not fuel is waste and it is irreducible.

[Ozark Tom]

And it’s true! “Liberal-Central” California divested of local generating plants, and imports electricity through every adjoining state border.

[D Rider]

The process is actually adding hydrogen to coal to create hydrocarbon chains from the excess carbon within coal. Oil made this way is cleaner than oil pumped out of the ground. It is a completely honest discussion. We are talking about trying to produce the cleanest energy possible not in a lab. but in practice. In reality, there are many energy sources that need to be exploited to meet our energy needs. When considering the energy sources available there is not a single one that could meet all our needs, except for possibly nuclear. So please, let's have an honest discussion.

Also I disagree with your irreducible waste theory. History is replete with very ingenious ways of dealing with waste and turning a profit.

[Ozark Tom]

Don’t need the thorium breeder to implement a molten salt reactor program, as 95% of the energy content remains in the fuel bundle assemblies stored in cooling pools. MSR can burn bulk of remaining U235 and actinides content for many-many decades, and reduce the long term storage issues by 98%.

[Ozark Tom]

Fly ash works well in cement compositions.

[Ozark Tom]

Reduce the subsidies and find out.

[jonascord]

Then comes refining and cracking. Remember that, by the cracking process, it recombines the hydrocarbons and doubles the gasoline output from the same amount of feedstock.

The Left has always hated the idea of personal transportation. It gives the proles ideas that are above themselves.

'1984' is a Leftist wish list. The dimmer they are, the higher they see themselves ranked and honored in a Communist utopia. If everyone is absolutely equal, then the dimmest union floor sweeper is worth the same as a theoretical physicist.

Ponder this. It took 8 years to catch the serial killer Chicatilo because Marxist theory dictates that in the Communist Perfect World, good party members would only kill as a benefit to the Party.

[jonascord]

I would also offer the "coal tar" of 19th century London. Cooking coal gave off gas, which was used citywide for illumination. Since they didn't know what to do with the leftover goo, the gas company dumped it in the Thames. From 1812 to 1856, when chemists developed the production of aniline dyes, all that goop went into the river.

With this in mind, I question the demand that all radioactive materials should be placed beyond reach.

[D Rider]

The Coal Tar to aniline dye is a perfect example of waste being turned to use for a profit.

It is also a great example of searching for one thing but discovering something completely different. ( the inventor was looking for a synthetic drug)

[Sequoyah101]

Yes, it does but you can only use so much of it.

[ckilmer]

One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
................
Agree. But in the next five years of so alternatives will get cheaper. But it will be incremental.

The real energy revolution that will make the 21st century successful is the one that delivers energy for 1/4-1/10 the cost of current cheapest coal and natural gas.

That will come from some form of nuclear. in the near term thorium lftr designs will have betas out in five years and production in 10 years.

I don’t even begin to understand fusion well enough to predict a due date for that technology.