The usual silly argument that renewables are still small and therefore will remain so. We have not tried yet to make them big. To a large extent, renewables are still being developed against the common wisdom of the serious people and against ferocious lobbying by traditional sectors (both the coal and nuclear industry spend a lot of effort lobbying against wind) and prominent NIMBYs, and they have never been a priority of policy (there are policies in place, and they work, but they are still seen in Washington, Brussels and other capitals like London or Paris as something that you do to look green rather than because it makes sense). As I've argued many times, wind is cheap, understood, and able to provide a lot more of our energy than generally admitted, but that idea has yet to sink in, and Hayward's argument is typical of that.
...with this:
Be clear that there is no feasible replacement for oil. An end to world reliance on fossil fuel based energy in the form of renewable energy or other alternative energy sources is at best a supplement but more realistically a theoretical fantasy. In most cases, oil is required to develop these alternatives to oil. (17) For example, oil is required in the mining and extraction of the hard rock minerals required to develop solar power. (18) Moreover, recovering "oil" from oil shale also requires the use of crude oil to convert the oil shale into a usable product. (19) Additionally, the promise offered by fuel cells is questionable due to limited global reserves of platinum. (20) Thus, despite efforts to develop alternative energy resources, petroleum remains the world's primary source of energy. (21)
What do you say? Propaganda? Realism? I notice it doesn't mention energy from wind. "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
Whether the "best" and most versatile liquid fuel is Gasoline or Dimethyl Ether I'm not chemist enough to know. I do know that that it is possible to use copious amounts of energy to "fix" carbon dioxide and water back into hydrocarbon fuels in a similar way to the "fixing" of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.
I noticed the other day that there is a new process under development that may permit such a recombinant process for hydrocarbon fuels on an industrial scale.
This would effectively put a "ceiling" on the price of fossil fuels, of course. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Interested in the reference to MeOMe. A certain person on dKos is a big booster. I too can't assess his seemingly convincing arguments. Put the point is, we may not need fossil fuels to power other industries. We just need fuels, and will have to manufacture them, which means there'll be less available. But not necessarily none. We will need to be more selective about what we mine. More titanium, less gold and diamonds perhaps.
It was one or more US academics, and it came from a news item on the ET morning news round, as I recall. It all sounded quite reasonable.
A bit of googling should find it... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Sure, mining uses some oil. But it's so little that it doesn't matter. And much of it can be substituted for electricity. Same with oil shale, if we can ever extract oil from it.
Fuel cells I prefer calling "fool cells" because I'm absolutely sure they will never replace the internal combustion engine in transportation, for technical, materials, cost and infrastructure reasons. Batteries on the other hand might very well be the way forward. They are based on lithium which is very abundant.
Oil will be with us for a long time. But it will migrate from broad use into increasingly high value sectors, like agriculture and petrochemicals and to a degree transportation and away from power heating and industry. But to quote Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA:
But on the long run it has to be clear: if oil will be gone by 2030, or in 2040 or 2050 does not change much.
