Bradstreet Beige Color

Why will not solve the energy crisis

Source: sapedia.gosaints.org

Dear readers,

A first explanation for those of you more time to follow me: this post there is nothing new, or not substantially, just try with that letter put together some ideas already expressed in posts and comments above. The main thing was voiced in " The limits of renewable capital" and " The EROEI of all-electric society ." I think, anyway, it's time to fix recap what my position on the future of the energy crisis that is both an economic crisis that is both a financial crisis that is both an environmental crisis that is both a political crisis, which is in short, a crisis model for its lack of sustainability.


The comments of the last posts have been a number of ideas to improve efficiency systems use renewable energy, and have even been proposed some new renewable sources waiting to be exploited. All the discussions and proposals are set out in purely technical aspects specific to each proposal and are not able to see the overall difficulties greatly complicate if not prevent altogether, the future development of these options. Let's do a quick review of these problems. To begin, do a lot of separation between the systems that produce electricity and biofuels, whose problems and limitations are different.


Biofuels now account for about 3% of all oil and equivalents consumed in the world, and that is getting worldwide consuming 6.5% of the grain harvest to 8% of the vegetable oil . Taking into account the problems that are causing food shortages, further increase our consumption of biofuels may be suicidal, because the final problem is not confined to the poorest countries, as already discussed , some of the most affected countries are producers of oil and time are heavily dependent on food outside, and this causes internal instability and unrest, and eventually supply problems for us rich countries. Some might argue that the problems of global food shortages have more to do with poor harvests this year in Russia (by the drought and fires) and Australia (ironically, by the torrential rains and floods) that abuse biofuels. However, in an interesting article Stuart Staniford present the following figure that is very enlightening:

In graphic compares the variations on the trend average wheat production in Russia ( fluctuations, red line) with the amount of grain (an average crude but it serves to get an idea of \u200b\u200borders of magnitude) allocated to biofuels worldwide (blue line; value is represented as negative because it is a detriment on the other uses of cereal). The rapidly increasing use of corn for ethanol is several times higher than the annual crop fluctuations. All that is added as a problems already identified in a previous post, the most consistent low TRE (English: EROEI) of biofuels, issues that apparently can not trace or the second-generation biofuels (cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel from algae), and it will be apparent that biofuels, although they will have a place in our energy future (for good energy density and to already have engines that can take) are not never produced a much larger scale of the current (even more likely to decrease).


With respect to all other sources of renewable generation, his main problem is to generate electricity, not liquid fuels such as high energy density that we used to. As a result of which, produced a succession of problems and interactions that tend to limit or banish, the massive introduction behold a relationship, certainly not exhaustive (particularized for the case of Spain, but surely with the weather here is extrapolated to comment other countries):

• Electricity consumption in Spain is not able to grow since the beginning of the acute phase of the crisis. The promise of electric cars are not just met (and we've talked about why three times: 1 , 2, 3 , and gift a more general discussion) and no electric car there is no increase in consumption are possible or as often praised and announced intelligent networks with distributed storage (and paid by the consumer, faith). That makes more economic interest in investment in power generation is limited.
• total electric power installed in Spain is 98 GW to cover a power consumption equivalent to an average of 32 GW, with peak demand of just over 45 GW and valleys of about 20 GW. Although the load factor from various sources, particularly renewables, is considerably less than one, overall installed capacity in Spain is greater than necessary to ensure stability of the electrical system, as consumption.
• Because of this excess generation capacity, and in spite of net exports to Portugal, Morocco and pásmense, France (which has many problems with the supply of uranium, but we will discuss another day) The fact is that traditional generation companies are losing a lot of money (or rather, you lose the division of power generation), since to ensure supply when demand peaks are kept a few power plants and combined cycle minimum active power waiting to take action if necessary. But with the tariff system for electricity generation in Spain, are paid every kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed at the price of the most expensive source has been used, which is always the last to join, always start by the kilowatt · nuclear time (because you can not regularly go to fixed gear), then if necessary, add the wind and other sources of special arrangements, after finally hydro and thermal plants, the network has national coverage and is interconnected with those of our neighbors, but consists of subnets and a part of the generation is managed so relatively local, so it is possible that in an area of \u200b\u200bSpain are building power plants while in others it is not necessary. The problem occurs when between nuclear and wind will cover all the demand, which happens ever more frequently, because that makes kWh will be paying almost $ 0. For this reason, the managers of these big companies regularly charge against renewables, and particularly against the wind, they are ruining the business.
• To appease utilities, and to address certain perceived abuses (most bleeding was the case of solar wind produced electricity at night, if we have to trust your records) the Government has redefined the support system to new energies, eliminating or greatly reducing subsidies. This makes investment less attractive in them, because the time for payback (payback time) grows significantly and this investment is seen as less financially attractive.
• In this context it is hard to believe it worthwhile to invest in power generation entrepreneur. The truth is that investment is stagnating or falling, and that is that no one can force an investor to pull their money, rather than a strategic investment is needed for the country. The solution, say some readers, is that it is the government who ordered this investment. But how? Embedded as we are in a financial crisis the Government of Spain is increasing difficulty in raising money for his expenses, and in this context is difficult to convey the need to get into a market, spoiling the competition therein and damaging the commercial interests of companies . And over at great cost to the state. It's obviously not going to do well.
• We've already discussed here: the energy from various sources is not necessarily fungible, and therefore serves not account for all that we Mw ⋅ h generate, if we do not use it to existing corporate applications. And apart from the cars is the use of trucks, ships, aircraft and heavy machinery. The battery technology today has progressed a lot, but its energy density is still about 100 times less than gasoline or diesel. It seems wiser, therefore, to use another vector, and one possibility is hydrogen. But, as already discussed, the small molecules that form hydrogen when trying to contain a certain pressure (necessary for good energy density) is rapidly released from its container if the walls are not very dense (and therefore very expensive .) Transform hydrogen power (hydrolyzing) wastes between 33 and 50% of electricity used, and the comments above has to do to eat soon, it is clear that hydrogen is a bad choice. And fuel cells that use hydrogen more efficiently are still very expensive ... So what to do? It is proposing to quickly convert organic matter into methane (which is over 80% natural gas) using electricity, but have not achieved commercial developments and necessary ...
• But to further deterioration, there are many industrial uses fossil fuels are not easily replaced due to loss of efficiency, by electrical means. It is unthinkable to have the large ovens that require cement to make concrete electrically powered instead of gas and how to make steel without coal coke? Without solving these problems, the necessary increase in electricity consumption will not occur, and we will run over essential commodities.
• Some analysts say the nuclear and renewable energy tracts of fossil fuels (fossil fuel extenders ), ie, can increase the power of our fuels fossils but they can not exist without them. And it certainly can not create, operate, maintain and dismantle these facilities without extensive use of fossil fuels, and it is difficult to imagine how we could do without them, especially considering the problems of storage and energy density discussed now.
• The economic crisis that is connected and feedback to the energy, and therefore it can never end will cause the consumption capacity of individuals and businesses decay indefinitely. And pray also that the power consumption, with investment in generation will become most unlikely and endless brawls between supporters of the pro-nuclear and wind increase, which the two factions dreaming of a future powered only by your preferred choice. In the end, their own power are at risk of bankruptcy and go bankrupt, its services and infrastructure deteriorate.
• To counteract the above effect, it may eventually impose a war economy, perhaps through an authoritarian regime. At that time, many people would have to work almost as a force to build the new infrastructure. That will lead to much political instability and the loss of the sense of this infrastructure, because if consumers become virtually slaves of those who are paid the minimum ergo have no purchasing power, what sense does it seek to establish major infrastructure? Since we could not also enjoy the benefits of this energy, better physical effort directly employ their own benefit by planting the land. Depending on the location, the obvious contradiction (another way of looking at it is that the EROEI of renewable facilities created and maintained with human muscle has a very low value) will create tensions and riots, and make it much more difficult for renewable utopia.

That is one thing clear: I am not against renewable energy. In the medium and long term is the only thing that remains, and is and has to be our future project. We simply have to be realistic about how and why we can exploit. Humanity for thousands of years taking advantage of these energies, so if we overcome our hubris that blinds us we will be able to see how to use them.

Salu2, AMT