The third industrial revolution, (the solar electric age)?

If you allowed a worldwide democratic decision, it would be to have cheap energy and not to think too much where it comes from. Large corporations simply cater to the wants of the majority.

 

Like I said earlier: it's a shame stupidity isn't an energy source because if it was US politicians would be a national treasure.

 

Large corporations simply cater to the wants of their share holders and increasingly their executives.

 

Sometimes it seems corporations cater to the loud.

 

I recall the discussions and claims from the 1990's about how the internet was going to democratize information and fundamentally change the world "for the better". Well, the internet has changed the world, but not how some of the most vocal commenters of the 1990's dreamed that it would. It appears that fundamental human behavior is resistant to change.

 

Some guy came by the other day trying to convince me to ruin my roof with solar panels.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

Which isn't always bad. Consider that we've got us places like this forum where those with knowledge charitably share it with others who ask ... and some of those who ask even listen!

Generosity in what interest you is thankfully something that hasn't changed.

That isn't democracy but it ain't bad.

 

A few years ago I replaced a 13 HP Kabota diesel, and a 200 AMP Balmar alternator and smart regulator, it's through hull, hoses, exhaust system, 20 gallon tank, and the fuel necessary to run it 2 hours a day for a month at anchor, total weight 600 LBS, with four 100 watt flexible solar panels and MPPT controller ,total weight under 20 LBS. I now no longer have to ,listen to, smell or maintain the diesel, nor do I have to spend $150 on fuel, filters, oil, and belts a month ,get to a fuel dock, or transfer fuel from my main tank while I am at anchor.
Unfortunately, for a berth for the summer, my marina now charges for electricity and the slip in one inclusive bill, $3700, where previously the charges were separate, $2500 for the slip and $1200 for 30 AMPS. That's right I get dinged for $1200 for power I don't use.

I guess I should not feel so bad. Florida has legislated that houses that go off the grid must continue to pay for the grid they do not use. The utility companies pointed out that their customers bills would increase as fewer and fewer of them would bare the costs of maintaining the grid.

 

Historically, people don't change until they're literally on the precipice and are forced. This is true of industry, governments and societies too, though some modest adjustments to behaviour can be seen, major deviations require wholesale destruction or the imminent danger thereof, before real change comes about. Now the natural evolution of social values seems to take a long time.

In western societies, women and children are treated about the same as men, though eastern societies still consider them chattle. This has been thousands of years in the making.

While 25 million had to die in the great war, before the end of the empires could be realized, would be a typical example of societies on the brink.

The transition to non-fossil fuels will likely be fairly slow. The only things that will expedite this will be cost effectiveness and desperation. If Exxon for example, realizes that converting every refinery to PV and wind production, can net them a higher bottom line, it's not going to happen. On the other hand, if we have crossed the max production line (I think we have) and the next two decades sees a steady decline, in spite of alternatives, such as tar sands and fracking, these companies will start to diversify (most have started) into PV and wind. I see a slow ramp up across the next half century. By 2065 I'll bet 50% of energy production will be solar and wind.

 

I agree with the first part: the idealists and prognosticators of the
1990's didn't have much of an idea of how things would pan out once a
majority of people had access to high-speed access.

I'm not quite so sure about the sweeping generalization that
"fundamental human behaviour is resistant to change". One (cherry-
picked!) example that I think has huge implications for the present
topic is the desire to have large families. I'd argue that in the past
there was a "fundamental desire" by most people to have large families,
but that has been slowly eroded since the 1960's. It has really
accelerated in the last few years in many Western countries, Japan,
and others, where women have opted not to have more than one child.

I suspect that the greatest benefit of universal access to the internet
(namely, access to better education) will have a huge impact on human
behaviour, especially in rural areas where birth rates are highest.
Furthermore, universal access to the internet and its benefits has
only really taken off since about 2000. The girls born then have just
reached reproductive age, and those being born now will, hopefully,
have the benefit of good education from the time that they are born.
Of course, I'm happy to concede that there are a lot of other aspects
to human behaviour that are, and will continue to be, resistant to
change, but none of them will have the profound consequences on
energy use across the world as better education for women and the
consequent lower birth rate.

Finally, a comment on those trying to predict economic trends for the
next umpteen years and how it will affect specific renewables like PV
and wind.
The predictions of most economists were laughably bad in 2015.
Goldman Sachs said in a research note that US economic forecasters
basically got everything wrong. (I know, I know - Goldman and Sachs!)

I think that nobody has any sound idea of how oil prices will oscillate
over the next year, let alone the next 20 years, in response to
hundreds of global factors, most of which are completely unknown. Nor
can anyone say what scientific advances will change the world and
energy usage in the short-term or long-term.

And Happy New Year, David!

 

I don't know about all the oil companies but some are definitely 'Energy' companies and researching many options of future fuels ie fuel cell, photo voltaics etc etc. After all they can see the end of oil as king, as do the Saudis, who probably stand to lose most by other sources of energy. The oil companies still want to be big players in the energy industry as the oil age winds down.

You will note that even in the 90s' BP rebranded, as it started down this road. Whilst wind and PV get a lot of mention, there is still massive potential in tidal, and the French hydro scheme in the (River) Rance has a very good record and very low cost. In the UK we could probably get 30%+ from tidal IF the will was there. There will be future technologies too. I always smile when people in the UK moan at the modern windmills, forgetting there were many thousands of old ones at one time making a right old racket on a windy day/night, doing useful work...

 

I bet the old windmills didn't kill so many birds though. Oil and coal haters are haters period

 

Although I'm very much in favour of renewables, where appropriate, I find it
hard to be too enthused by Rance. It is in an excellent position with the
highest tides in France, but it only supplies a tiny (0.16%) fraction of France's
power.
Other tidal power facilities that don't have the large range at Rance will find it
very tough to be economically viable. They also have their own peculiar
difficulties, like silting up near the turbines that needs continual attention.

Is the claim that 30% of UK's power could come from tidal based on the total
potential around the whole island?
If so, it is a completely ridiculous estimate because it is not feasible to line
the coast with tidal power facilities.

There is an excellent talk given by physicist (and Department of Climate
Change Chief Scientific Advisor) David Mackay that shows how silly some of
the estimates are.
"How the Laws of Physics Constrain Our Sustainable Energy Options"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5bVbfWuq-Q

Of course, the cost analysis needs to be continually updated given the
changes in prices of other options, but the laws of physics won't change

 

Damming inlets will cause an environmental disaster. All the politically correct "green" plans have one thing in common: they promise that we can keep our lifestyle by using alternative energy sources. Sounds good, but it is nonsense.

 

I actually can envision a fairly green supply of energy, in the not terribly distant future. Current production is near max levels, with declining demand, which simply means reducing production to drive up costs isn't good business sense, as your revenue supply has decreased and your production is just able to keep up. This will be a continuing trend, as it has for the last 15 years. How many remember gas below $1 a gallon in the USA? A long time ago - nope, it was near the turn of the century and Clinton was in office. Guess why it dropped, yep; political concerns speculation and futures. China's and India's meteoric rise in the early 21st century drove cost up, but this wasn't expected and anything that wasn't predicted, with make costs jump. Well, things aren't as stable as they were and a more honest reckoning of China's requirements will be necessary, though given historic trends in this regard, we'll just have to continue guessing.

Though most energy companies are divesting a bit, less than 10% is all they're really doing, again because western demand is fairly stable, China's demand is not growing like it was, the southwestern Pacific rim has been in decline for years and production is near maxed, even with the new extraction methods. In the next two decades any and all of the naysayers, about having reached peak production, will be silenced and the ball will be rolling pretty good for considerably more divestiture and this will trigger a new race for monopolization of the energy industries.

I see a pretty picture of energy futures, if you know how to bet. The next few months will be telling, with the 1,400 year old Sunni/Shiite political rage gearing up for it's long overdue rearrangement. If the Saudi's hold the line, it could get interesting, but a few trillion here and a few trillion there, could get spanked around for a while, until it sorts out. The butt kicker will be if China suddenly has to get serious about real capital expenditures, which is looking more and more likely, if they expect to sustain their aging, increasingly insistent workforce.