That may be true, but your going to need one hellava extension cord to move that energy from outside of our atmosphere to the ground where it can be used
@R29k: There was an experiment done which demonstrated a very efficient way of converting off-world solar energy into microwaves and beaming it back to earth. Not practical, but possible. EDIT: Here's the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US3434678
I honestly wonder whether the human population increases global warming bc we breathe out carbon dioxide
Oil is used for other energy sources because it used for mining, manufacturing, petrochemicals, and shipping of renewable energy components. Very few energy sources can be employed for heavy machinery in mining, petrochemicals in the manufacturing process (and even mechanized agriculture), and container ships. That's why it's not surprising that extensive manufacturing and the Green Revolution from the end of WW2 to the present involved extensive levels of fossil fuels. Worse, not only oil but iron ore, fresh water, cement, coal, copper, phosphorus, and more are used for industrialization. All of them face the same problems as oil. EROI is critical because energy is needed to obtain energy. That's why oil is needed to make solar panels, build dams, and even extract oil from the ground and process it. Energy returns are low for solar power, etc., and have been dropping for oil. There are no technofixes to solve this problem. One simply has to accept the scientific fact that biocapacity is limited. The only way will involve extensive levels of coordination and cooperation. That is, the equivalent of a socialist global economy with incredible levels of regulation. That's not going to happen. Also, there is no such thing as 100% renewable. The copper and many other components used to deliver electricity to you involved extensive levels of oil. So did the cement to make your home, the furnished goods and appliances that had to be manufactured and delivered, and more. Likely, most of the goods that you are currently using, including components for renewable energy, involve or are even made from oil. That car alone not only runs on fuel, it was made using fuel.
One needs to differentiate oil as source of a mixture of its compounds and their role as source for making other products out of them just as pharmaceuticals and oh well plastics....and as a source to gain energy by burning it as a fuel! Some of the products made from oil are recyclable whereas when it is burnt nothing can be recycled any more. Oil is actually too precious to just burn it. EROI is a consideration made for economists who have money in their mind at first place. For idealists who want a change to renewable energies it's meaningless, though. As you've posted rightly energy is needed to obtain energy, but your conclusion is wrong. Oil is one of many fuels to obtain energy and is hence replaceable by other energy delivering fuels. Solar panels and wind turbines and the like can be produced without to have oil as fuel. There might be needed other products made from oil to a small amount, yes. It happens already today. Fossil fuels such are oil are replaced step by step, they are replaced by solar and wind energy. As posted already oil should lose its 'job' as a fuel and remain a source of its natural components and products made of them. Concerning a car the only purpose of oil would be a lubricant and source of the used plastics, both would be recyclable. The future of vehicles are e-vehicles. And the future of gaining electricity is 'renewable' fuels. Yes and no. It depends on the definition. There is common usage of terms such as energy and renewable and strictly scientific definition. From the pure scientific view there is no energy creation and no energy consumption, one can only transform energies from one into another. Also the term renewable can be only valid when relating to a closed and determined process of consumption and 'reacquisition'. An exception is the sun. Sun energy is actually no renewable energy also its 'derivative' wind. Anyway both are clean energies themselves. And their amount of energy -besides of the commonly named renewable energies- is by far enough to deliver all the needed energies to produce anything on earth...solar panels and wind turbines included. The limiting factor will be raw materials needed for their production only. I'd have a question to you if you don’t mind. What would be the right way for humankind when it comes to future energy demand and sources also related to global warming? I have read your statements and your opinion/concerns and ideas...anyway it is not clear to me what's your personal vision.
@Yen: So true. That's why we simply can't dismantle the entire petrochemical industry, just because carbon is used in their processes. More research needs to be funded to streamline and refine the processes so that minimal waste is produced. At the same time, we must keep up on safety practices, or accidents like this happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn What saddens and worries me is that nobody there knew that dimethyl mercury will penetrate multiple pairs of latex gloves very quickly. And that stuff is toxic and almost always lethal to the touch. Sadly, in the US, we have many diesel engine trucks. We need to make them hybrid.
Diesel from oil is used for mining and some parts of heavy manufacturing and mechanized agriculture. Bunker oil and marine diesel are used for electric power and container ships. Diesel has many purposes, including trucks in places where there are rough roads and steep inclines. Petrochemicals are used for tens of thousands of applications. It is critical for modern industrialization and may have been one of the key components for the same from the end of WW2 to the present. Today, it is essential for most of the world which is still developing. The amount of material resources and energy needed for most countries exceeds what the biosphere allows. Actually, it's the other way round. It's ignored by economists because they use credit to measure economies, and much of credit consists of numbers in hard drives. It's definitely meaningless for idealists as they believe that components for renewable energy magically appear. Reality shows otherwise, though. Actually, oil is needed to make solar panels and wind turbines, together with many other material resources. Here's an example for solar panels: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/solar-devices-industrial-infrastructure.html In short, significant amounts of oil are needed to extract minerals, process them, and then ship the finished goods using container ships. It's only in a fantasy world that small amounts of oil are needed. No, they're not being replaced. Oil is not only used for lubricants and fuel, it's even used to manufacture cars. And that's not the only problem: fresh water, iron ore, copper, etc., are also used. No, it's not based on any definition. Most of the manufactured goods that you use were made using or from oil. Shipping components and finished goods alone through global supply chains require fuel. It's renewable only with lower levels of technology, such as drying clothes under the sun. If you want to store energy derived from sunlight using mass-manufactured goods, then you'll need oil. BTW, oil is also needed to manufacture clothes, together with fresh water and many other materials. No, they're not clean energies. The minerals used for these components, not to mention inverters, charge controllers, etc., require diesel used in heavy machinery. Container ships running on marine diesel, etc., are used to transport them across thousands of km. Raw materials plus the oil needed to mine them, parts of manufacturing, plastics, etc., and shipping. Humanity has to cut down on energy and material resource use to only one global hectare per capita, which is the equivalent of subsistence living (no electric cars, solar panels, smart gadgets to run them, etc.), in order to decrease both global warming and environmental damage. They won't because the economy that we have is free market capitalist, which means what people don't choose to do nature will force them to do so: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse
Dismantling that means dismantling much of mining, mechanized agriculture, manufacturing, and a massive global supply chain required for most manufactured goods, including the computer that you are using to access this forum, not to mention most of the foods that you eat, the medicine that you need, and more.
Organometallic compounds are critical concerning toxicity. And a scientific job in a lab comes with a higher risk concerning health. We in a lab have the huge advantage that we have access to any kind of published informations safety data sheets and the like. Other people involved in production don’t have it. Also the conditions there are worse, the amounts of substances are by far greater than used in a lab. The probability of exposition of such substances at production is much greater. There are many people who get sick because they have to deal with harmful substances. The tragic example of Karen is only one example we could know about because she has a particular grade of prominence. The majority is left unknown and appear as a statistic only... Anyway there is also a progress. Tetraethyl lead (also organometallic) has been used as antiknock additive in gasoline. It has been replaced with methyl tert-butyl ether. Concerning gloves we have access to data sheets with permeability/duration for particular compounds. Also there is a huge variety of special gloves. Latex gloves are for a very basic protection only... Hybrids are also a step to renewable energies. I think we have to work on storage technologies and their recycling infrastructure. I do have concerns when it comes to a raising Lithium demand.
@monkeylove: Exactly. But so many people think that we should burn it down, just because it's messy. @Yen: I started brushing up on organic chemistry, especially organometalic compounds, because I live in a place that has multiple superfund sites. Between toxic chemicals and radioactivity, you never know what you'll find in your basement here. In Greenpoint, there was an enormous crude oil spill. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill I grew up not 15 blocks away from that place. And only heaven knows what toxic chemicals were in that crude oil. A few people I knew complained about oil smells in their basements. And many of them have health problems, including cancers. Here's another travesty: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/22/nyregion/alarm-on-tainted-dust-near-williamsburg-bridge.html Brooklyns' history is peppered with events like this. Some of them had been covered up, so as not to affect the real estate prices. And we're not alone. We're just one place on a long list of places that are suffering because of big business. Forgive me if this appears to be off-topic, but this should help explain the apathy that many people have towards the climate change agenda.
There is nothing wrong with the reasons you have posted why Diesel is needed. Anyway there are places where Diesel can be replaced as fuel. If you would include sun as energy resource you would get an 'extension' what biosphere would allow. When I look out of my window I see the solar panels on my neighbour's roof. When I go 5 kilometres away I see a huge wind turbine. Am I dreaming or should you make up your mind? You do not consider recycling and you do not consider the fact that oil that isn’t burnt any more will be left for other purposes. What is the difference of producing a wind turbine to a turbine that is driven with steam heated up by burning fossil fuels?.... ....And at the moment when I decide to use solar panels instead of fossil fuels such as oil and I compare their sun energy gained during their lifetime to the kilowatt hours which are needed for their production and the oil equivalent for gained energy minus the recyclable part I have SAVED oil and I have reduced the CO2 emission. An e-car that would be driven by renewable energies saves fossil fuels such as oil either way presuming their amount of 'oil' and other raw materials they would need for production remains the same. In this regard storage technologies need to be improved, though. Each amount of fossil fuel that will be replaced lowers the percentage of the fossil part. Oil consuming transport logistics can be replaced by moving places of manufacturing. And engines can use BIO gas there where replacement by e-trains and the like isn’t possible. If I need oil or the mentioned raw materials to produce the materials themselves such as man-made fibres doesn't matter for a proper energy balance. I'd still need them, electricity made from renewable energies or not but I would save the 'burning part'. When there is a time where the energy demand to produce solar panels and wind turbines is completely gained from solar energy and wind energy then I only would need the oil as raw material itself minus the recyclable part. Until then the demand of oil can temporarily increase but one has to consider the long term goal. You do not differentiate the manufacturing process from work process when such devices are doing their job. There is nothing cleaner ATM as sun energy or wind energy. Also the efficiency at solar panel production has been increased over the years due to improvement at manufacturing processes. There is of course more work to do to save even more materials and goods. There is no disadvantage compared to the manufacturing process of fuel burning devices. Production of both will stop if the raw materials are running out. Fossil fuel burning machines to gain energy are burning fuel, solar panels and wind turbines do not. Since both are shipped 'thousands of km' it doesn’t matter at energy balance. Humankind has already awareness of it, the 'force' is taking place already. It's about exploitation of nature and anybody that is moving to devices that are using sun to gain any form of energy leaves the equivalent of resources back on earth. Those are sad stories. Anyway I have a problem with justifying them as an argument against climate change agenda. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? To go for them to have a bigger chance that such sad events won’t happen any more? Aren't such capitalistic and ruthless big business actions the cause of your mentioned pollution of the soil and would changing awareness to environmental protective measures be a solution to ditch fracking for instance? Trump is against it because he wants the US economy running at the highest level of profit. Environmental protection costs money and lowers profit. He doesn’t care about any environmental protection and does not care if more basements would be spilled with toxic waste coming from crude oil. The US economy needs to boom.
@Yen: So many of us would rather see big business choke than get another penny from us. And here we are, been lied to by big business and it takes more than 20 years for them to pay for the damages they have done. So, what would make you think we'd believe them about something that's going to cost us more money?
It's not an extension of the biosphere because energy use from the sun is limited unless it can be captured and stored, and that requires material resources. In fact, when you think about it, oil is actually stored sunlight. You should never mistake what you see outside your window with what takes place in most parts of the world. For the latter, most people earn less than $10 a day and cannot afford one or more basic needs, including roofs, let alone solar panels or huge wind turbines. To meet the needs of most of the global population on a level similar to what you see around you, we will need several more earths. It's not so much not considering recycling as realizing that in capitalist systems recycling is not meant to conserve resources. The solar panels that you use were made using fossil fuels, among other things. They also have low energy returns and quantity. That's why in real situations even large solar farms cannot reach their nameplate power, and that's for sunny places like those in Spain. For countries like Germany, good luck if you can get as many hours of insolation. EVs require oil throughout the mining, manufacturing, and shipping process, not to mention petrochemicals. Worse, they cannot handle rough roads with steep inclines, and there are many of those plus a major lack of infrastructure worldwide. That means improving storage technologies is the tip of the iceberg. Not likely, as renewable energy has low returns and quantity, and the basic needs of the world population exceeds biocapacity. Bio gas also has low returns. Petrochemicals involve more than just man-made fibers. It is used for tens of thousands of applications and products. Not likely as oil is needed for mining, manufacturing, and even shipping. One can imagine a massive transition away from oil, but that will require incredible levels of coordination and cooperation among the world population. Good luck making that come true. Mining and shipping involves heavy equipment, and several processes for manufacturing require incredible levels of heat. The former will require diesel and bunker oil, while the latter will require coal, oil, or nuclear power. There is no need to differentiate anything in the manufacturing process: oil is needed. There is nothing clean about either unless you are referring to drying clothes under the sun or using sailing ships. The components for these types of energy require extensive supply chains involving container ships, mining equipment run on diesel, fresh water for the manufacturing process, petrochemicals, and more. Which is likely because what affects oil also affects copper, iron ore, etc. You need to burn fuel for mining, manufacturing, and shipping of solar panels and wind turbines, not to mention batteries, charge controllers, inverters, electric wires, much of electric grids, consumer goods that will be used to consume energy, cement and many other materials needed for grid infrastructure, and more. It matters a lot because they can only be shipped cheaply using container ships run on fossil fuels. That doesn't include the diesel trucks that can only be used for places with rough roads or steep inclines. In fact, most manufactured goods involve the same just-in-time system involve significant amounts of oil and other material resources. No, they're not. That's why energy and material resource use plus debt continues to rise worldwide.
@monkeylove: Please forgive my use of colloquial English. Many people believe that, just because certain organic chemical processes produce carbon wastes that they should immediately be dismantled. I believe that the processes need to be studied and refined further, being replaced if necessary or possible. But I don't feel that the public at large should be forced to shoulder the cost of this. (i.e. prices rising.) And that's exactly what big business tends to do. Legislation is weak. Enforcement is all but non-existent.
I don't think the businesses involved in such will be dismantled through governments as the latter depend on big business for tax revenues. Rather, they will be dismantled as limits to growth sets it, and that makes matter worse.
@monkeylove You've posted valid points. I like such threads to get different opinions and yours is appreciated although I am different with my general opinion about renewable energies. Well those who are going for solar and wind energy the so called renewable energies generally have a vision and I share it. I guess until there is no nuclear fusion tech to have a sun on earth so to say there is no alternative. Pessimistically seen we're running out of fuels and goods either way. From that aspect it doesn't matter if solar and wind energy can delay running out of fossil fuels or would even accelerate it. I travel a lot and of course it is utopian to think that everywhere will be wind turbines and solar panels and everyone will be happy. There will be nations who will realize that to a certain percentage, though. Others will follow others cannot. Whether the vision will fail or not depends on storage technologies. I live in a country that is going for it. Electricity costs have increased already to fund the change and some people are complaining. Some day they would be glad that there is somebody left who would sell them energy for their money at all. A vision is there to go for it. If it fails we learn...others are waiting of the 'force'...or say it's hopeless. But finally anything is ever this moment. And I rather keep my vision. Maybe I am crazy.