will green energy be able to provide as much energy as oil?

Question

I've heard about how aweful solar and wind energy is compared to oil and coal. But when w reach peak oil is green energy going to be able to take the horns of where oil has gotten us to?

How many solar plants and wind farms are going to have to build to equal the power output oil has been able to give us?

And please don't go off about global warming. I just want to know about the power output of green energy compared to oil.

Answer 1

The transitions are probably going to be disruptive and difficult and painful. And energy isn't only exchanged  as electrical power. Much of it is converted to mechanical energy or just directly converted to heat for homes (gas and oil, for example.) The energy also breaks down into base load and peak load capacities, and there is a need to not just move energy around but to also store it for a while (batteries, moving water up and down, latent heat, etc.)



A lot can be done that isn't already done in terms of making better, smarter uses of the energy delivered locally (whether from sun, wind, or external power grid sources.) I haven't been very thoughtful about it, though. Just what you usually read, occasionally, about new home designs and old home modifications. Some of the low-hanging fruit (in the US, anyway) is changing out single-pane windows for double-pane, for example, or improving home insulation. There's probably a lot more that can be done with less expensive and difficult things like that. I'd defer ideas here to others.



As a matter from personal experience with the NRC and the full power operation permit for the Seabrook nuclear power facility circa 1990, the NRC's continued memorandum of agreement (MOA) with INPO, which is well-designed and well-used today to hide safety information from the public, and the continued Price-Anderson act, I do NOT at this time support an expansion of nuclear power in the US. More, I'd prefer to see our very old existing nuclear plants shut down. If and when these details change and openness about safety issues is a reality in the US and not just disingenuously mouthed words, I'd probably support nuclear power here. But not until then.



I like the idea of expanding research and practical implementations of geothermal power. We haven't done nearly enough with that. Solar power alternatives are improving. Etc. A problem with any substantial changes in the existing infrastructure include what to do with old facilities as they are retired. A problem with substantial new construction is just how much additional fossil fuel will have to be expended in designing, experimenting with, and finally building them. We have to be careful that we don't increase fossil fuel use as a byproduct of "going green." It makes a lie out of the whole endevour, if careful accounting isn't done first.



I suspect, in the longer run, that gasoline and diesel cannot actually be replaced in terms of their convenience, existing servicing infrastructure, safety knowledge and practices, etc. If you temporarily "forget" about where they currently come from (fossil fuel resources) and just consider them a safe, convenient form of energy storage, then they are quite remarkable. You simply cannot find a safer, denser by mass, denser by volume, or more convenient way of storing energy. For example, diesel provides a volumetric energy density of about 36 MJ ⁄ L. You can light a match and drop it into diesel without much risk; you can pour it between containers in open air; etc. It's safe and convenient and very dense. Hydrogen provides 2 MJ ⁄ L and 2.7 MJ ⁄ L at 3600 psi and 5000 psi, respectively. And neither of those pressures are particularly safe inside a vehicle or being transferred into one. Even cryogenically stored hydrogen provides only 8 MJ ⁄ L. And that assumes you CAN store it that way inside a vehicle, for example. Hydrogen leaks are far more dangerous than diesel fuel leaks. And I worry about car accidents should hydrogen cars ever be widely used.



Packing hydrogen onto longer chains of carbon is the safer way to store hydrogen. Which means gasoline and diesel and the like. But it does NOT have to come from fossil fuel resources. We can use renewable energies and, when not needed immediately, store it into this convenient form and use existing infrastructures for its delivery and use. Note that I'm not suggesting that gasoline and diesel continue to be pumped from fossil fuel resources. Quite the opposite. I just think they are probably a better means of saving excesses of renewable energies (should we ever have any such excesses) until they are needed.



All that said, I still think any transition is going to be very painful. And the temptations to use fossil fuels will continue to be almost impossible to ignore. Any country that chooses to cut itself off from fossil fuels will be cutting its own economic neck, if other countries continue to use them unabated. I'm not sure how cooperation here will ever be achieved. So I don't think we will go green until politicians and leaders get the message that there is no other viable political alternative for them.

Answer 2

There are already self-sustaining people that feed green energy back into the grid for tax credit, so yes, it is possible. We've also already made strides in the automobile industry.



What will probably happen is that oil use will continue, simply because we have such an infrastructure that it would not be possible to quit cold turkey. But, energy in many nations will be enhanced and slightly modified along the way with the addition of green focus.



These are things that have been going on for a long time, mostly buoyed by third world countries that need it the most.

Answer 3

Steven, the people who have told you how awful wind and solar power are have never laid a hand on a wind turbine or solar panel. Our home is completely powered by the wind and sun, yet my entire solar array fits in half the space on top of my garage roof, and the turbine is about twice the size of a ceiling fan. All the plants and animals that used to use the space where the turbine is now are still there, nothing has been "displaced" to make way for this equipment. Our home has a coffeemaker, laundry machines, deep freeze, refrigerator, microwave, TV, stereo, and so forth. We have not had to do without during this transition. It would be pretty simple to add enough solar panels to run an electric car, and we are planning on doing that as soon as a model is built that meets our needs, so that would cover the gas station on our end.



There is enough wind energy in North and South Dakota to completely power all of the United States, and there is enough solar energy in Arizona alone to do the same thing. It would be dumb to make all hte electricity in one place and ship it all over, but that is one of the great things about renewable energy, it is spread pretty evenly over the middle third of our globe, which just happens to be where all the people are. The only thing holding us back is economics. Natural gas has suddenly become very cheap in North America, and that is making coal even cheaper, so some of the mines are shutting down. This means jobs, but I would rather see people buiding solar panels than mining for coal, better for them, and better for the environment. On average we kill about 12 coal miners a year in the US. Nobody has died yet in a solar panel factory.



The only technical limitation is that airplanes and such don't run on electricity. They could run on hydrogen, and we cold easily produce hydrogen with wind and solar electricity, we just don't have the structure in place yet to store it and move it around. But as oil slowly gets harder and more expensive to find, these things will all start making more sense. This is why most countries are busy installing wind turbines today, the economics have suddenly swung in favor of them. It has nothing to do with wind being a waste of time, or a liberal hobby, or anthing else. Power companies aren't interested in all of that jazz, they just want to make money, and they can make more of it with a wind turbine that doesn't have to be fed coal or oil now. Take care Steven, Rudydoo

Answer 4

Rough figures: about 1-2% of the Sahara desert covered in solar panels would provide the world's power. That includes all coal, gas, oil, nuclear... everything we use.



Based on solar insolation maps, assume 20% efficient solar panels and 2012 global primary energy consumption.



The exact figure depends on efficiency of the solar panels and how you use the power. For example, if we all used electric cars, they are much more efficient than normal cars, so it would cut total energy demand for cars by 50-75%, so you'd need less solar power than you might think.



And obviously you wouldn't put all of them in the Sahara, it just shows that there is plenty of solar power.

Answer 5

if you think solar and wind are aweful try breathing in your cars exhaust for a few minutes and tell me how that goes for you. the sun is to oil fields and solar panels are to combustion engines. the byproduct of oil is much wors for your health than solar energy which pretty much has no byproduct at all. the key is to not try and make as much power as oil gives us, but to reduce how much power we need. you can do this by purchasing energy star appliances, buying LEED certified homes, and purchasing low flow water fixtures or WaterSense approved water fixtures. Also, instead of light bulbs, use natural light. And when it comes to sun down, the solar panels on your roof would have saved enough power for your home and might even end up making you some money at the end of the month.

Answer 6

Yes, but if we suddenly no longer had petroleum we would have to replace almost none of our electrical generating capacity. You may be mixing up energy use and electrical energy use. The EIA provides information on the use of energy and electricity in the US.



Using data from the YTD through November 2013. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf Oil provided less than 1% of the energy for electrical power plants. Natural gas often associated with oil gave us about 26.5% of our electricity, coal provided about 38.7%, nuclear energy provided about 20.1 % and the balance of about 14% are presently the renewables including hydroelectric, solar, geothermal and wind, and wood.



However about 70% of refined petroleum products are presently used for transportation with 20% used for direct heating and the balance used as a raw material for products.



Where these two major energy sectors meet is with the adoption of electric drive for transportation and this gets us to a comparison of the size of these two sectors. There are about 250 million vehicles in the US. If every one of them were converted to electric drive, our electrical use would rise by no more than 30% and probably less as the huge amount of electricity used by refineries and pumping gas would be reduced. Curiously 86% of this could be handled without building any new electrical production plants if electrical vehicles could be charged at night using otherwise unused off peak capacity.



But let's push this even further and ask what might only be implied in your question. What if we wanted to eliminate all fossil fuels including coal and natural gas which combined give us about 65% of our electrical power and also increase the size of our electrical capacity by 30% just to cover any increase due to electrical transportation. Is there even enough renewable energy out there?



Renewable energy tends to be diffuse, but there is a great deal of it. Here is a discussion of the resources: http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_energy.html



"Energy potential" has a number of different meanings from the amount of available energy to what is economical with present technology. Here is one chart of the potential: http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_energy.html And a discussion: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html



When we discuss renewable energy potential very often we see multiples of our present electrical usage. There is enough geothermal potential to equal our present electrical usage 4 times over. The same is true with the offshore wind potential. With solar energy a postage stamp size of the map could supply the entire country.... The resources are there in abundance we only need the will and the appropriate infrastructure.

Answer 7

Not to worry. Nuclear energy provides an essentially limitless source at competitive prices.