"... fossil fuels are qualitatively superior on the matrix categories..."

One day, the notion of burning fuels to move things will seem as primitive as cooking a meal in Manhattan at a campfire on the floor in the kitchen. Yes, fossil fuels are compact, but not as compact as electricity delivered by wire. Fuels are explosive too, whether fossil or bio, and it is absurd to have these dangerous substances held in conveyances being hurdled along at highway speed. Now please don't be confused; I'm not advocating EVs with batteries – yet another primitive notion for the urban landscape.

Teams around the world are designing transportation systems based on solar energy, with PV panels directly overhead to meet 100% of the systems' energy demand (on average, net-metered). Teams are designing these systems to place small, on-demand vehicles above the street, where they won't run into people, pets or deer. This is not a pipe dream. 

"... and that transportation without fossil fuels will be hard..."

Maybe that's true in the USA, but not in Europe. Really, how hard can it get?! When was the last time you looked at a freeway cloverleaf? That's what's hard: accommodating a free-wheelin' half-drunk cowboy in a 3-ton behemoth with a wide margin for error – 12' per lane?! – plus a shoulder or barricade. Tons of steel and concrete can be eliminated by greatly streamlining the urban transit system using this emerging technology, with 200 kg podcars on switched computerized networks above the streets. One day we will be jackhammering the streets to turn them into parks where kids can play again, in their village, without getting run over by the above-mentioned cowboy or a choo-choo train cleaving the community in half.

We can do better. Come on, it's time to roll up our sleeves and stop kicking the can down the road for our children's children to figure out what to do. It is obvious: the age of fossil fuels is moribund, and it's time we stopped killing over a million people a year (globally in traffic) with a transport system design that's completely out of step with peak oil realities – and the reality of 21st century technology that is 10X better in so many dimensions: 10X less weight, 10X less energy, 10X greater safety.

 Join the solarevolution!

Reducing global CO2 emissions could soon become a lot easier. Our fossil fuel supplies are in rapid decline, and since humanity is doing so little to address this decline, in more graphic terms, we might call this "sticking our heads in the tar sand."

Climate change activists wring their hands about increased emissions:

What Will the U.S. Energy Mix Look Like in 2050 If We Cut CO2 Emissions 80%?

As if we have a choice! Reducing carbon emissions 80% is a given if total energy consumption worldwide drops 80% due simply to depletion (and not just in the USA; we’re all in this together). With aggregate oil, gas and coal depletion from existing fields already reaching 5% or more per year, this isn’t a flippant scenario. Resource depletion has hardly been mentioned in the climate activist community, but depletion is as real as climate change. 

Market penetration of renewables in 2050 may well be close to 100%. But that may not be such a happy picture, as 100% of then could be more like the 20% of now.

In 2050 our descendants are likely to be using a lot less energy, period. Will they be happy about that? Not necessarily. Between now and then, fossil water aquifers will also be severely depleted; exhausted fuel supplies will not likely be on hand to pump these exhausted water sources from the deep. Since producing meat is so much more energy intensive than vegetables, it may come down to a choice between meat for the few or veggies for the many. Think about it.

I fret about humanity's ability and desire to find alternatives to fossil fuels while there's still enough fuel left to build a robust civilization equipped to survive beyond the age of oil. It won't happen if we continue to invest in fossil-fuel-dependent infrastructure, hoping that a long term solution will magically land in our children's laps in 2050. 

Humanity has been kicking the can down the road for decades, in the USA since Carter. If we want our children and their children in turn to thrive, we in our time must begin figuring out ways to do a lot more with a lot less. I call that notion 10X. We are seeing solutions that use 10X less energy for specific energy services (light, mobility, …). These will actually bring us a better quality of life … if, and that’s a big if, we actually get busy to transform our society from oil to ingenuity. 

 Of course, it is just the opposite for energy-empoverished countries like Nigeria (with 12 watts average electric power per capita) or Afghanistan (with 1 watt per capita). These impoverished countries will have a better quality of life when energy use is 10X greater than it is today. Where energy use now is 100X to 1,000X less than in the OECD countries, an increase in supply of 10X would greatly help to create a higher quality of life.

Afghanistan is the country where average electricity consumption per capita was about the lowest in the world in 2001; it is even lower now ten years on, in 2012.

2001

Population =  25,838,797

Electricity Consumption = 20  kWh(e)/year/capita
Always-on power use equivalent = 2.3 watts/capita average
%(US) = 0.16%

Oil consumption = 2.19 M bbl/year.
Oil consumption = 0.08 bbl/yr/capita
%(US) = 0.3%

2011

Population =  29,835,392

Electricity Consumption =231.1 million kWh / 29,835,392 = 7.75 kWh(e)/year/capita
Always-on power use equivalent = 0.9 watts/capita average = 40% of 2001
%(US) = 0.06% or less than one tenth of one percent.

Oil consumption =  = 4,800 * 365 = 1.75 M bbl/year.
Oil consumption = 0.06 bbl/yr/capita = 75% of 2001
%(US) = 0.2%

Energy conservation has been taken to a whole new level in Afghanistan, with greater than 50% reduction in just 10 years, a testimony to American diplomacy.

Afghanistan has the second highest rate of infant mortality and second lowest life expectancy of any country, above only Angola.

Part 2: Solar Energy

Imagine what might have happened if the USA had invested a mere $1B in delivering solar panels to Afghanistan. Putting that amount in perspective, the cost of war in Afghanistan has been about $500 billion as of January 2012 and the war costs $300 million a day according to the Pentagon.

Let's use $3/watt as the price of solar. (Panels alone are now selling well below $1.50/watt and some complete large utility-scale systems are at or near that $3/watt price.)

$1B ÷ $3/watt = 333 megawatt, ÷  29,835,392 people = 11 watts/capita. Multiply this by 5 hrs equivalent production per 24 hour day (21%) and the result is 11 watts*21%= 2.3 watts/capita, the same as was available in 2001.

Conclusion: A timely investment of $1 Billion in solar panels in Afghanistan in 2001 would have doubled electricity production per capita in Afghanistan. The same investment today would increase electricity production by 250%.

Would Afghanistan have the third lowest literacy rate in the world if electricity were available to its people?

I learned a new phrase a few days ago, "drop-in fuels." Leave the fuel-hogging devices all the same -- ask no questions about efficiency -- and concoct a new fuel to keep feeding the hogs. (On small islands in ancient Polynesia, it was discovered that hogs were competing for the same food as humans, and they were exterminated. Oh, that we could learn such lessons from our ancestors.)

The military is looking for a way to fuel jets, tanks, personnel carriers, etc., without oil, and the politicians are providing the rhetoric to suspend the laws of physics until they get re-elected.

Just as with the flawed notion of "shovel ready," we have institutionalized business-as-usual (BAU) remedies which have no future. Rebuilding America, fixing our infrastructure, etc., is all about constructing stranded assets -- artifacts of the age of oil which will last 50-100-200 years longer than the fuel that is needed to operate them. Pity. 

What is the alternative?

• Simultaneously with putting solar panels on our roofs, we must swap out our incandescent bulbs and put in LEDs that use 10% as much energy. The same goes for the efficiency of refrigerators and washing machines. We can do better.
  
• In the haste to convert our cars to electric propulsion...
  • Did anyone notice that the car itself is only about 1% efficient? (Most of the fuel is used to move metal. We use a ton of metal to move a person!)
    
  • With help from other 2 & 4 wheeled contraptions, the car kills a million people worldwide every year and maimes countless others.
  • The electric vehicle uses as much in materials as a conventional car -- or more. There are no savings in materials.
    
  We did not speed up the horse by feeding it on the newly discovered fuel, kerosene. We created the horseless carriage. As the horseless carriage scaled up, we didn't notice its limitations. We now know how to achieve mobility without oil, and we can solve the other flaws of our transportation system at the same time. Getting off oil is liberating, not confining.

If we do all these things and more, we won't be needing the over-powered military machinery which is being used mostly to protect our sources of oil. 

We have a unique opportunity in the context of peak oil to redesign our infrastructure, to transform personal transport to 100% renewables -- and while we are at it, eliminate the fundamental flaws in our present system.

First principles:

• grade separation (put fast-moving vehicles above pedestrians and bicyclists with podcars or below with subways),
  
• automated on fixed guideways,
  
• dispatchable at will, not scheduled,
  
• solar powered,
  
• light weight, aerodynamic,
  
• consuming less than 100 watt-hours per vehicle-km.

You don't know how to do that? If you jettison the oil, you will be able to figure it out. Don't leave it to future generations to struggle in an oil-depleted world. It is time for our generation to become responsible. Let's not kick the can down the road to the next generation.

Reading all these price predictions by peaksters, I’m reminded of the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard who said, “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

We know that the media (government / business / religious leaders) are giving very little attention to Peak Oil, but I would like us to consider what we, the Peak Oil community, are not talking about.

We’re not talking about slamming the brakes on fossil fuels.

Read more at ASPOUSA.org. 

 This comes from the National Academy of Science

An understanding of the scale of deployment necessary for renewable resources to make a material contribution to U.S. electricity generation is critical to assessing the potential for renewable electricity generation.  Large increases over current levels of manufacturing, employment, investment, and installation will be required for non-hydropower renewable resources to move from single-digit- to double-digit-percentage contributions to U.S. electricity generation.  The Department of Energy’s study of 20 percent wind penetration discussed in Chapter 7 demonstrates the challenges and potential opportunities -- 100,000 wind turbines would have to be installed; $100 billion dollars’ worth of additional capital investments and transmission upgrades would be required; 140,000 jobs would have to be filled; and more than 800 million metric tons of CO2 emissions would be eliminated.  

Imagine $100 billion in sales for the automotive (or trucking) industry. They would have to retool and produce something useful, something that would reduce US dependence on foreign oil rather than increase it. 

Can you imagine hearing a politician complaining, "140,000 jobs would have to be filled"? No, a politician would be ecstatic to say, "140,000 jobs would be created."

 What motivates the authors of this document to make it sound so difficult? The US government has thrown $100's of billions into financial institutions with little to show for the effort, but the National Academy of Science "experts" worry that it would take manufacturing, capital and labor to tackle global warming. 

The USA always does things right, after it has tried everything else.
Winston Churchill

From a friend

One question I have about renewables in general is has anyone done a rough calculation of the energy and material requirements to actually ramp up a renewable energy regime that would allow some semblence of a complex civilization to continue operating?

there is no comfort in understanding how much potential energy is available from the sun ...

SOLAR POTENTIAL

Actually, for me, understanding solar potential in its various forms _was_ the first step to discovering a plausible path to sustainability. Our challenge is merely to discover what we have to work with and how to use it. (Grown-ups' first job is to figure out how to live within their means, after all.) I did a chart in my recent Solar Today article on page 17 (same issue as Bartlett's article referenced below)

In this chart you note that the sun delivers 120,000 Terawatts ("TW") to the earth's surface continuously, while humans generate only 13 TW = 1/100 of 1% of solar -- everything from nuclear power to firewood. From there you can see how much each form of solar energy might be able to deliver, conservatively at least 60 TW using direct solar, and various amounts for hydropower, wind, geothermal, etc.

WHAT WON'T WORK

You may note in the chart that the potential of annual photosynthesis is 7-10 TW (theoretical) -- and far less as a practical matter. Without even considering its emotional baggage, nuclear is demonstrably pathetic. For details, see these pages on my website:

• Ethanol
• JunkScience
• biomass
• nuclear

THE AUTOMOBILE: INEFFICIENT IN THE EXTREME

The next thing to consider is not merely how much energy we will need, but what technologies can plausibly work, post-peak-oil? It has been especially hard for society to dream up a substitute for oil in the private car; we've gone from the New Generation Vehicle (Clinton) to the Hydrogen Highway (Schwarzenegger), cellulosic ethanol and plug hybrids (Bush). These all fall into the category of answering the wrong question. No _fuel_ per se is going to bail us out: the automobile itself will follow the Hubbert curve down. It is just too grotesquely dangerous and inefficient. The IC engine is maybe 25% efficient to the flywheel and the transmission to the tires drops that down to 10% (if you're lucky), so you might think we're doing pretty well. But gasoline pushes 4,000 lbs of parasitic mass (steel etc.) for every 200 lbs of people -- 5% efficient! So take 10% to the wheel x 5% people and the car is 1/2% efficient in converting gasoline to moving people. Drive a Prius or a Tesla and you're up to 1% -- congratulations! You're doing almost as well as the 1813 Puffing Billy.

Conclusion? Pervasive use of fueled vehicles, even electrics (Sorry, Greg!) or hybrids, cannot possibly survive peak oil. And good riddance! Yes, we may still have gasoline ambulances and fire trucks, but not commuter SUVs.

FUEL-FREE TRANSPORT

Is there an alternative? Yes. Several well capitalized groups are building personal rapid transit ("podcar") systems which will get 100's of miles per gallon equivalent. A continuous overhead solar panel about 4' wide will deliver all the power necessary to move podcars carrying over 20,000 passengers per day -- a freeway lane's capacity. Solar panels producing electricity without _any_ subsidies will pay off in 4 years compared to liquid fuels (gasoline). Costing less than 10% as much as light rail or "freeway" construction, Podcars are about to scale up rapidly. If implementation in the USA gets bogged down, America will be even further behind Europe and Asia.

http://www.solarevolution.com/PRT/

Once upon a time, humanity made the connection between hay and horses, and people moved faster. In our times we juxtaposed oil and the automobile, and those of us who survived moved around faster. (Four members of my immmediate family didn't make it. Many of you have also lost friends and family to the automobile.) After peak oil, it will be 80% electricity and 20% fuel (if that), or we will be riding horses again.

RAMPING UP?

Technology isn't the whole story by any means, but here again technology is playing a critical role. Solar manufacturing is capital intensive: $1 million invested in a factory will support 1 million watts of production per year. This is about to change.

MODELING SUSTAINABILITY

I know I've only touched the surface, but the starting point is to realize that the only way out of our collective mess is to make real changes. In his State of the Union last night, Bush spoke of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel in 10 years. If he's right, the planet is toast. We must deliver credible EROI analyses to our policy makers pronto, so we won't keep wasting so much time and effort, destroying our soils and our aquifers. And we need to demonstrate the physics (thermodynamics) and the economics of plausible technologies.

WHAT NEXT?

The rest of my Solar Today article goes into some detail about ramping up to solar. For example, see my graph on page 19. Jack, I can help you to further define the parameters so that our team can effectively calculate the human capacity, energy and materials needed to build a bridge to a world beyond oil.