Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

The coming ICE Oil Implosion.

Mar 31, 2019 11:34AM PDT

Many won't see this coming. And it's rather sad that the current leaders (USA) seem intent on curbing or killing off our only EV car maker where China is backing theirs.

First, my first car to consider for an errand is our 2014 Leaf SV. Since I got that in 2016 I have filled up the tank on the van twice and it's still has half a tank or more. Mary has the 2016 Prius so the amount of petrol we buy has plummeted.

Here's the video about the ICE Oil Implosion. There are others if folk want to add more:


One of the reasons why the current oil industry wants to keep going is they think there is trillions of dollars of business to be done and they don't want to miss out. So any delay to renewables, EVcars, battery technology and more is money in their pockets. It has nothing to do with the environment to oil companies. It's about the money.

As to coal, that's a hard sell. It used to be that coal beat out wind and solar and maybe it does in some areas. Now the story has changed.

April 2014: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/24/solar-is-booming-but-will-never-replace-coal/

December 2018: https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Somewhat related. CO2 emissions are up for 2018.
Mar 31, 2019 12:47PM PDT
- Collapse -
I'd say the talk of "renewable energy" is full of ambiguity
Mar 31, 2019 12:54PM PDT

Firstly, there should be a complete list of what is considered to be renewable. Solar and wind are often mentioned. But, I also believe we should take into account the potential downsides of tapping into such sources that we believe to be free, plentiful and inexhaustible. If we think beyond today, we won't find that to be the case. One thing gets clean and another gets dirty. Moving air is important to the environment in many ways. Slow or take it away, and trouble will happen. We just don't know what trouble and how much. We also know solar power causes heating of the planet and that heating is also what causes air to move. Divert the energy of the sun and we may get less moving air. We won't know until or unless it happens and we feel the effects. Then we an curse the politicians who forced it upon us rather than blame our own selves.

- Collapse -
As to Solar
Mar 31, 2019 1:05PM PDT

The energy arrived and was used then ends up as heat usually on the same continent which is far less an impact then unlocking energy from hundreds of millions of years ago.

I've heard the argument that Solar power can change the environment and yes it can but compared to what happens with coal and oil extraction and use means Solar wins this round.

On top of that, the roof panels here go into my car or home which means the energy is collected and used in the same area within a week. Impact? Minimal. Impact to oil and gas companies? Yes.

- Collapse -
Ah...yes. Man is so smart
Mar 31, 2019 1:58PM PDT

He doesn't think that covering the ground with acres of solar panels will have any negative affects. He also didn't think that trapping beavers for their fur or as nuisances would have any negative affect on the water supply or waterfowl taken for food. Read about what happened in the Appalachians and why beaver populations were reintroduced. Man does have the problem of only being able to think in the moment of immediate want or need. Man's justification is that his own impact is minimal. He cannot see the cumulative affect of a great many people doing the same thing. We'll see.

- Collapse -
There are those
Mar 31, 2019 2:50PM PDT

That think we should do a Thanos and reduce the population by half or more. We are here, we'll have to do our best.

Unfortunately there's a lot of folk in the carbon industry that want to continue in that business. And they'll use methods like "If you can't show X causes Y, then it should be dismissed." Example at https://electrek.co/2019/03/29/epa-questions-air-pollution/

I've lived through the bad years of air pollution as well as experts that told us that tobacco wasn't all that harmful.

We have choices to make. Let's be sure we make the best we can and prepare for the future. Stop worrying about the decline of coal and other carbon industries as they will be around for a very long time.

EVcars scare them. We know why especially if you have solar panels on your home.

- Collapse -
Kool
Mar 31, 2019 6:16PM PDT
- Collapse -
One old slogan:
Apr 4, 2019 6:14AM PDT

"Not a cough in a carload."

- Collapse -
Unless we find a way to repeal the laws
Apr 1, 2019 2:28AM PDT

of thermodynamics, we're doing little more than buying time. It's my understanding that such laws imply that it's not possible to get more energy out of something than was put into it. Perhaps that's just folly. But, if not, our growing population may, itself, need to implode. I don't expect to be around to say "I told you so".

- Collapse -
Between here and California are some examples
Apr 1, 2019 4:54PM PDT

of 'covering the ground with panels'. Have you seen that ground? It's as dead and barren as you can imagine ...
EXCEPT that we know there is life there. Not human, but part of Jehovah's or evolution's master plan. Happy
Anyway, there is so much land that I can't imagine any deleterious effects on the world, the US, or even CA climate. As pointed out elsewhere, the panels shade the ground from the ubiquitous sunlight, but the heat generated is there, locally, anyway.
Unless there is a high upfront cost of solar- I mean some toxic or wasteful process- that seems better than wind turbines. They're said to be killing birds regular as clockwork.

- Collapse -
It's like...
Apr 1, 2019 5:42PM PDT

...free Chick-Fil-A, every day.

- Collapse -
I've seen both the death beams
Apr 1, 2019 5:53PM PDT

And the barren ground with solar panels.

The Ivanpah Solar Plant isn't all solar. They use nat gas to fire it up in the morning and to supplement its power output. The last few times I went by the plant I spotted more solar panels in the farm.

- Collapse -
Ethanol in gasoline
Mar 31, 2019 6:08PM PDT
"Since I got that in 2016 I have filled up the tank on the van twice and it's still has half a tank or more. "

Better use some Stabil in it.
- Collapse -
Thanks.
Mar 31, 2019 10:09PM PDT

I know about that and on top of that decided to leave the tank less than full. That way when I do have to use this I can hit the gas station for some fresh dinofuel.

Thanks for the Kool commercial. I was recently dismissed from jury duty which I think it was my comments about expert testimony. Here's the meme I made about that.

- Collapse -
Two problems, I think.
Apr 1, 2019 5:02PM PDT

One is water from condensation in the tank. It goes to the bottom, where the fuel pickup is. Most 'tank cleaners' are just ethanol, which mixes with water, while petro stays on top.
The other is deterioration of the complex fuel itself. You need something more complex for that. Sta-bil (I just checked) touts itself as opposing "damage" from added ethanol. Ethanol mixed with water, as above, does burn. When the water is used up the tank starts pumping gasoline. Not a big problem by the pint IMO.
Ethanol is popular out here at the pumps. We've never had a problem.

- Collapse -
They threw you out because of that messy hair,
Apr 1, 2019 5:04PM PDT

hippie!

- Collapse -
This just in.
Apr 2, 2019 1:14PM PDT
- Collapse -
Shell isn't just an oil+gas company.
Apr 2, 2019 2:15PM PDT

Post was last edited on April 3, 2019 2:52 AM PDT

- Collapse -
Just a comment
Apr 3, 2019 2:49AM PDT

When we talk "cost", money isn't the only thing we should consider. To produce all of the necessary hardware that provides solar and wind power, there was a "cost" in the loss of potential energy from a not so renewable resource...that being fossil fuels. A considerable part of their costs in money is that created by government regulation while alternative sources have been receiving plenty of support. All the money in the world won't buy a shuttle full of coal or barrel of crude if these resources are abandoned or disappear. I'd have to think that any mention of trying to support an increasing demand for energy isn't realistic. We should be doing more to decrease demand and that will take more of a lifestyle change than improvements to hardware.

- Collapse -
I've seen the reductions as well.
Apr 3, 2019 2:57AM PDT

A big change at home and office was to LED lighting. But as you can imagine there are folk that stocked up on 100W incandescent and nothing will change their mind.

Vote with your wallets.

About the cost to produce all the hardware for solar and wind, there are now studies that show that a coal power plant costs more than solar or wind power plants. Electric companies are catching on they don't have to buy fuel!

- Collapse -
I think you missed my point altogether about costs
Apr 3, 2019 4:58AM PDT

There is more than one cost. There is that that comes from one's wallet and that that comes from lack of ability to spend it on resources that have dried up. I consider those who only look at the money side to be short sighted.

Money wasn't always with. All money really does is allow us to trade our talents and abilities for our wants and needs. Come back with proof of savings (in energy...not money) when solar and wind powered plants are producing the following; Enough energy to provide for consumer needs, enough to mine and manufacture their own replacements, and enough to continue R&D for additional energy as population continues to increase and demand for more power follows that growth.

As for the old supply of incandescents and other less efficient products...If they've already been manufactured, should we just toss them wasting all of the energy used to make them? Asked rhetorically, of course.

- Collapse -
Let me tackle the incandescants.
Apr 3, 2019 9:36AM PDT

Yes, they are left unused. I have a box of them for use in very specific locations. One is the oven where it's low use and high temperature LED bulbs are not in wide supply. That's about it.

There are folk that want to argue this is waste to not keep using them but why should I pay out of my pocket to just use up that bulb? It does not make economic sense. My last move was in 2010 and I expunged all the old bulbs to the storage box then so in 2010 I went from 100 USD to 54 a month in the utility bill. That's 9 years of savings that far exceed the cost of the LED retrofit.

Now that rates are higher, the move has paid back even more. If others kept their incandescent lights then they made their choice and paid for it.

-> This relates nicely to the need for more energy. The LED is 10W (i usually use 8 or 9 Watt units) and the other is 60 Watts. That's a huge decrease in energy use and at close to a decade I've only had 2 out of dozens of bulbs fail where as the old bulbs were just flaming out.

As to R&D, if I've been using LED lighting for over 9 years R&D is whatever they want to explore.

- Collapse -
Never mind
Apr 3, 2019 12:16PM PDT

You seem to be primarily focused on your own $$$ when cost is mentioned. Other costs exist where money is not in the equation. Some of those costs may take a while to show up and we'll all be gone anyway. Not our problem unless we make it so.

- Collapse -
Is there a study on what I'm missing?
Apr 3, 2019 12:29PM PDT

We already are seeing studies about the cost of coal versus wind and solar. But that's on the web. Here I thought I'd just focus a little on LED and the savings. What future cost are you seeing here?

- Collapse -
It's not possible to quantify everything
Apr 3, 2019 1:54PM PDT

in terms of dollars but maybe we can use the analogy of investments. We invest money with the idea that we want it to produce more money so that we'll have enough to live on for the rest of our lives. What happens after that isn't our concern. We speak of investing in sustainable energy sources but, again, we're generally talking about money but, IMO, should also be talking about the expenditure of natural resources required to do the research and manufacture of energy producing products. What I've not seen is any reliable data that says a solar cell, windmill, or whatever, will produce more energy in its life than was required to make it as well as whatever replaces it. All of the money we save by "going green" won't be worth a dime when there's nothing to buy. We'd be well off to live with less use altogether, IMO. The explosion of tech toys is doing nothing to help matters. These turn over more quickly than light bulbs and require much more energy to make than do the bulbs. Conservation must be in the discussion but we live in an economy that thrives on waste. I've said enough.

- Collapse -
The energy to build a wind turbine versus its output?
Apr 3, 2019 2:30PM PDT

"An evidence review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010, which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It also found that the average "energy payback" of a turbine was 3-6 months."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy

Is that what you were looking for?

- Collapse -
a force unused
Apr 3, 2019 5:54PM PDT

Gravity. So far we've used it for such things as hydro power from dams, but gravity is everywhere and free, if it could be captured directly.

- Collapse -
Not sure how this will post.
Apr 3, 2019 6:13PM PDT

About Gravity. THERE ARE systems where "pumped hydro" is used to store power for later. So it's not like it's an unknown system.

But there are trillions of dollars of business to be done in natural gas, coal and other carbon energy so these systems while well known have to be battled for.

List of existing 1GW (GigaWatt) and up plants at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station is the world's largest with a maximum output of over 3GW.

Power is taken from almost any source so this is that magic battery some ask about. The efficiency of such storage is about 79%.

- Collapse -
Thanks
Apr 4, 2019 2:32PM PDT

I had no idea the efficiency was that good. Maybe in the future more companies will embrace this.

Rick

- Collapse -
To take advantage of gravity
Apr 4, 2019 2:38AM PDT

something must begin higher up than whatever captures it. To elevate something takes energy. Unless we can invent something that elevates itself without any expenditure of energy, this isn't going to work. Hydroelectric depends on water evaporation and condensation (rain) to deposit it above the dam. When you say gravity is free, I presume you're talking about money. My whole point here has been that cost isn't always about that.

- Collapse -
Also tidal capture.
Apr 4, 2019 6:20AM PDT

That works quite well, I'm told. High capital cost but little maintenance after.
One of the Scandinavian countries (Norway?) tried it by installing equipment in a fjord. Took about a year, I think, for wave action to destroy it. Win some ...