Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus

4.27.2005

The Solution

Good article. If I needed more to convince me of the viability of a nuclear hydrogen economy, this would do it.

Also, I'm somewhat surprised that there hasn't developed an effort to directly fund large-scale alternative energy at a grass roots level.

Whether it's windmills in North Dakota or photovoltaic super-cell arrays in Nevada, a system of trading investment for green energy should develop.

Here is what I'm thinking: I live in Boston, where it isn't sunny. Apparently, I'd need to spend $13K on roof-mounted solar panels to provide all the electricity I'd need. In a sunnier area, that amount could power 4 homes the same size. So how about rather than installing it on my roof, I give $13K to Company A, to add to their power station in the middle of an always-really-sunny area. Company A then pays my electricity bills (up to an amount), which it pays for by selling energy locally.

This kind of energy-credit system already exists I think, and our grid might even be efficient enough to transfer energy over long distances.

Anyway, I'm surprised no one has done this. If they have, do comment. If there is a good reason why not (like the lacking number of people who would buy energy credits), please comment.




UPDATE: From the horse's mouth, check out what my pop said in response to the above-linked article, in the comments. FYI, he's a petroleum engineer working in Zagreb, Croatia. --josko

3 Comments:

At 1:21 PM, Blogger joško said...

Dragi Josko;

The long comprehensive article is a very good review of the oil reserves and how it changes. The nuclear power is a MUST for an interim period, and I have no doubt that in 10 years there will be at least 20 nuclear power plants being built in a hurry. Today, it is too much "unfriendly energy" and thus unacceptable to the greens and politicians and stupid public reading media too much.

I do not worry about, as it is inevitable and I do not wish even to spend my time and energy telling people: - we need to build new nuclear power plants fast and NOW!!

Only, it could be a bit of a problem for the economy to adjust without too much fuss, as several nuclear power plants you can not build "overnight," and oil price crunch will happen rather at a rapid paste.

The current visit of Saudi king to Bush in Texas, where Saudis are asked to pump & sell more oil - is not even good as a band-aid type of help. It gives Bush media exposure: - I am doing something, for more oil to USA!

In Zagreb, people would say: - Kaj god!

Oil price will continue to grow over next several years. As the oil price becomes higher (in today's dollars) - the reserves will grow "on paper" -which is actually real. That aspect was not explained in the article.

Let me try to explain:

There is an absolute amount of oil down in the rock space; these are OOIP (Original Oil In Place) - for each oil field in the world. A given selling oil price (now at $50 per barrel) dictates what technology and to what extent could be applied - thus, current oil price dictates what could be recovered. The oil quantities that could be recovered are the OIL RESERVES, and these are about 30% of the OOIP.

Higher oil price (say $100 per barrel) could apply more expensive and more diligent methods, as it is justified to spend so much money on the fancy production technology - thus, higher recovery rate of say 40% of OOIP. Thus, "on paper" a higher oil reserves are "created", which of course is real - although, no new drilling was done (no new oil fields discovered).

So, in essence we really will never run out of oil - in 100 yrs from now oil will be used for a very small scope of application: - the least to be as in some form of fuel. There will be another form of energy in wider use: - first nuclear and the hydrogen (ref. fuel cell) and then who knows what (cold fussion!?).

I hope this provides some quick additional views in addition to this long article (I would write such long article only if I am paid by page!). And I do believe the article was not elaborate more on why and what meaning is to the oil reserves nad the oil price. And not elaborate enough about energy options, other then nuclear (forget wind power, solar power and such jokes good only for politicians to take pictures next to them and make "greens" happy!).

Voli te tatica

Josko

 
At 5:39 PM, Blogger joško said...

""Here is what I'm thinking: I live in Boston, where it isn't sunny. Apparently, I'd need to spend $13K on roof-mounted solar panels to provide all the electricity I'd need. In a sunnier area, that amount could power 4 homes the same size. So how about rather than installing it on my roof, I give $13K to Company A, to add to their power station in the middle of an always-really-sunny area. Company A then pays my electricity bills (up to an amount), which it pays for by selling energy locally."

..Don't the do this with wind power?

Also, who would blow $13kUSD for 'free' electricity provided by a surrogate company? Seems way too steep.

 
At 9:20 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

The idea wouldn't be to get free electricity, but to tap the market of those who would like to use alternative energy, but have no easy way.

You spend the money like an investment in the company. You could even make it like those campaigns to support children in the third world, and get pictures of the panels and letters from the operating technicians (all electronic of course).

I read this wired article in the current issue about people installing their own systems. They never mention efficiency, and act like subsidies from the government make it free. Nevermind that it could be 5 times more productive for the same cost by moving to the desert.

They say ~"It costed the Smiths $15K, but they only actually paid $3.5K, meaning it'll pay for itself in 6 years!" NO IT WON'T!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home