Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

Void · 2025-08-10 11:47:16

I am very open minded per energy, except that it will have to stand on its own legs if it is to last.

Remember when this was a cell phone?

So, it seems to me that Carbon in structure is relatively a new thing in many energies related cases. We don't want to have 5-year plans and choose what looks good to us now and promote it, and throw everything else in the trash can.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=CNT%20Mot … orm=IPRV10
Quote:

CNT Motors in Electric Vehicles
The integration of carbon nanotube (CNT) motors in electric vehicles represents a significant advancement in lightweight engineering. These motors replace traditional copper coils with CNTs, offering a 133% improvement in electrical conductivity and a weight reduction of over 80%. This innovation is crucial for electric vehicles, drones, and aerospace applications, as it reduces energy consumptio

CNT in solar panels hints at lots of good things to come.

As for Solar Thermal this does not appear to be CNT, but involves Carbon Bricks with phase change metals inside of them: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE

I don't think we want to spank all the newborn ideas in the nursery, rather let them sort themselves out.

We either will get beyond Hydrocarbons or not.

I expect that we are going to have vastly excessive energy down the road from many technologies.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-10 11:56:01)

Calliban · 2025-08-10 12:13:06

World electricity consumption in 2022 was 24,398TWh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri … onsumption

According to the DOE, a PWR needs roughly 3 tons of copper for each TWh of electricity it produces over its life cycle.
https://www.energy.gov/quadrennial-tech … eview-2015

Replacing present electricity production with nuclear power, would require 73,194 tons of copper per year, assuming that we don't recycle. That is 0.37% of the present day copper production of 20 million tonnes per year.

In the 1970s, light water reactors were being constructed for $1000/kWe in modern money. How do we get back to that? Why is it that we cannot do now what we could do 50 years ago?

Void · 2025-08-10 12:31:22

I am in favor of Nuclear, but it has to stand on its two legs. If the only thing holding it back is some strange social phobia, then that has to be overcome. If it cannot be overcome, then we just have to deal with that fact.

But nuclear will certainly be desired in space.

Ending Pending

Calliban · 2025-08-10 14:57:55

Another option that has received surprisingly little attention, is that we escape our pointless addiction to electricity. I have said this many times before, I know. We don't anywhere near as much electricity as we use.

Both wind and solar thermal power systems can be used to provide direct mechanical power for many applications. That power doesn't have to be transmitted using electricity. Hydraulics, compressed air and mechanical power transmission would all work. Before the invention of the electric motor, line shafts were used to transfer power from a central waterwheel or steam engine, to multiple machines on a machine shop floor. There are still factories in the US that use this solution today. Hydraulics could do this even more efficiently. Wind turbines or solar thermal plants equipped with hydraulic pumps, can generate and transmit power without need for copper, cobalt or rare earths. Just steel, concrete and synthetic rubber.

Stationary mechanical power sources can also transport goods. This can be done by pumping water down a pipeline, carrying floating capsules. An old fashioned windmill could do that. In fact, the inland freight transport of entire nations could be done in this way. No need for electricity. Just mechanical wind pumps raising water through a head of a few metres.

The sun can also provide direct heat. This is useful for a huge range of things, from cooking, to iron reduction to brick making. Crude iron powder can be produced by heating a retort containing iron oxide to 800°C and passing hydrogen or methane through it. The reduced iron powder can then be seperated from silicate slag by crushing, followed by magnetic seperation. It can then be converted into steel using an electric arc furnace. A town could have a centralised oven that cooks food using solar heat. A laundrette could wash all of the clothing for a town using a mixture of mechanical wind energy to run machines and solar hot water.

To summarise, we don't need high tech solutions to build a society that works with far less consumption of fossil fuels. It is our slavish addiction to electricity that stands in the way of doing these things. Also, the fact that we don't seem to be able to conceive solutions that might require a different way of life. For example, using the town laundrette instead of a home washing machine. Using a public bathing faciluty instead of a home bathroom. Eating out at a town restaurant fitted with a large solar cooker with hot rock thermal storage. Changing energy sources means changing our way of life. There is surprisingly little thinking about this.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-08-10 15:14:01)

Calliban · 2025-08-10 15:26:41

Additional: A mechanical windmill could be used to produce heat, cold and mechanical power. It can do this by compressing air. As air compresses, it gets hot as internal energy is added to it. A single stage compressor could be used to generate compressed, hot air at say 200°C. The air could then pass through tubes in an oven, heating it. The still hot air could then pass through a counterflow heat exchanger, producing hot water. This would cool the air to roughly 20°C, but it would still be at pressure. The air would then expand through a turbine, generating mechanical power. The exhausted air from the turbine would be cold enough to freeze water. This cold air could be used to keep a large freezer cold. By combining outputs in this way, we can get far more out of a mechanical wind turbine.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-08-10 15:29:01)

Void · 2025-08-10 18:50:40

I think I understand your intentions Calliban, but the problem is we are dealing with the danger of the corruption of the male genetic lines because there are cultures where technology and industry are not honored. Instead, being Verbal and Violent is considered the best possible masculine traits.

I see the wilderness as being a treatment for that problem. The Verbal and Violent have a simplified mind, in my opinion and simply want to occupy high places in hierarchy, to practice Chad like behaviors. They do have some things that say they are worthy, but they are not the talents that a technological industrial society should honor. In fact, they will be the extinction of a technological industrial society.

I think that you can look on a map of the world, and you can see by GDP of a areas where Chad has done his dastardly works.

And I say OK fine if we cannot stop you then we will leave you behind to places where the idle breeder the instigators of Hypergamy cannot thrive. The wilderness of course. If you have to have a talent better than bedding lots of women, then you can stay on the Earth in the stink hole you and your fans made.

But ideally, we will not yield the west yet or the East Asians or the Hindu, and I hope not the others who have reasonable practices.

To do that we have to rev our engines, not put them to idle.

That is just my view. Up until now I have regarded the B. Empire/Alias Commonwealth as a mediator between the west and Chad, but now it seems like it is serving to leak Chad into the West.

I am not a fan.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-10 18:56:56)

kbd512 · 2025-08-11 00:06:27

We don't need an elaborate menu of energy and materials inputs, manufacturing steps, and recycling steps. Cold-rolled steel and concrete are a lot easier to source than Copper and Lithium.

Bt = Billion metric tons

Humanity acquires / processes / transports 2Bt of lumber, 2.6Bt of steel, and 4.2Bt of concrete per year. Only fresh water, food, and hydrocarbon fuels are consumed in greater tonnages per year. Everything else is "noise" by way of comparison. If we're going to harness sunlight and wind energy at a human civilization scale, then it's going to be done by using those materials because nothing else we produce is available in the required tonnages. This is ultimately a numbers game. Only big numbers truly matter. Small incremental changes are completely overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the problem, to the point that we cannot show measurable improvements.

Most of the energy consumed by industry, as well as commercial and residential buildings, is heat energy or mechanical energy. I've never read a truly compelling argument for why we need to go through multiple energy conversion steps, which are intrinsically inefficient and complex in operation. Complexity is where all of these grand plans for transformational energy technology applications go to die.

Whenever I look upon a photovoltaic electric wind turbine farm with battery banks, complete with thousands of sensors and electronics boxes, plus millions of lines of software, intended to deliver power to an even more absurdly complex EV, all I see a Rube Goldberg machine on a grand scale. It technically works, but nobody who wanted a maintainable and sustainable energy generating machine above all other considerations would ever design such a ridiculous thing. It smacks of "design by committee", rather than "design by imperative". All that pointless complexity couldn't provide grid stability to Spain under ideal generating conditions for their photovoltaics and wind turbines.

My assertion is that if your energy generating system, regardless of what that is, cannot be manufactured, operated, and maintained by people with 6th grade education levels, then it's probably a very brittle and overly-complex system that's unlikely to ever be stable enough to entrust with providing energy to large swaths of humanity. For a new system to have any hope of being implemented almost everywhere, it's going to adhere to that guiding design principle, or it won't work.

Spaniard · 2025-08-11 01:19:02

I already debated that, I see here nobody changes positions.

Still, it remains the same.

Insist in making linear projections of copper. But as offtherock commented (and I did in the past), copper usage per unit power is not fixed.

The Chatgpt estimation of Copper is based in institution projections. That projections are based on demand projections, which at the same time are based on certain consumption projections.

That's it, most projections are very moderated in renewable growth. They are probably wrong.

But that's the thing. If renewable grows more, it will generate more pressure on copper price, that it will generate more pressure on copper reduction/replacement, that at the same time allows the renewable support higher prices without too much problem.

If you are assuming that the reduction won't be enough, that's because you are seeing a projection based on different circumstances that you are considering. The more renewables we build, the more aggressive will be the reductions.

Aluminum wires are already available. Sometimes is just a matter of convenience. Carbon Nanotubes are an interesting promise, as they already work, but the problem is that we don't know how to make them cheap and good quality at the same time.

And about "renewables need fossil fuels". That's wrong. The right statement is, renewables needs storage. Fuel has advantages and disadvantages, as well as batteries.

Fuel generators are relatively cheap on power, the cost is the fuel. Doing synthetic fuel is fine for long term storage. While the efficiency is poor, the cost of storage and standby power is low. Acceptable for season storage. In short term storage, batteries are fine. Lot's of cycles per year.

No need to insist on "lithium limits". It's not need for fixed storage. In chemical batteries you have alternative compositions, like sodium-ion, potasium-ion, iron-ion.. etc.
Flow batteries like vanadium based, or quinona based.
CO2 batteries (it's not a chemical solution, but based on compress, decompress CO2).
Thermal batteries
...

There are plenty of options.

You are wrong when you are insisting in seeing the problem from the raw material perspective instead of the economic perspective.

We build things with the materials we have. Through the advancement, the technology changes and also change the demands of raw materials. At the same time, the exploitation of raw materials also change the techniques to access to them, like new deposits, recycling, etc.

You are Putting the cart before the horse. You are assuming a limit on a technology in a situation when the demand is not a problem and assuming it will turn into a problem in the future with a doubtful projection.

Today PV is significantly cheaper than thermal and nuclear, and if I'm in the right, it will continue in the future.
That's the way of thinking of the industry, and the reason the world is not dumb as you think they are.

Is it possible that I'm wrong and the industry won't be able to reduce the consumption as much as needed?
It's possible. Maybe I'm underestimating the difficulty of that changes.

Let's say I'm wrong. What's gonna happen? Just that copper will raise the price, and renewable, unable to reduce the usage (the assumption), it will make renewable less competitive. So other ways of generation it will take the lead.

And the copper? Just embedded in the renewable fields, mostly on wiring. When the field will be decommissioned, all the wiring will be recovered and it will enter the market again.

So, what's the problem?

Renewable reduce the fossil fuel usage today per $ more than nuclear. Invest on renewable today helps more on reduce our fossil fuel dependency than nuclear.
Yes, it's not so simple. Because the price depends on the mix. If 50% renewable cost X, 100% doesn't cost 2X. Costs more.
It requires storage and changes.

And that cost money and technologies that aren't competitive enough to make a full deployment today.
That's the reason we are working on them. Still not a big problem as fossil fuels still will be there for some time.

That's the reason we are invest on that. You can't ignore that we are living in a capitalist world and you invest based on current prices, not in far future projections based on changing variables.

Calliban · 2025-08-11 02:25:22

Positions don't change for two reasons. Either one of the positions is wrong, or the people holding them don't listen. Usually, both are true at once.

Spaniard wrote: 'And about "renewables need fossil fuels". That's wrong. The right statement is, renewables needs storage. Fuel has advantages and disadvantages, as well as batteries.'

Intermittent renewables have short term and long term variability. Batteries are expensive and have high embodied energy, meaning a lot of energy is needed to make them. What this means in practical terms, is that batteries can be used for smoothing short term variability. A battery big enough to power your house for weeks, would be as big as your house. And it would cost as much as your house. And most of the batteries would only be used a few times per year. What would that do to the marginal cost of storage? Would the system ever return the energy needed to build it?

This is why in real grids, batteries are used for frequency control. They are there to meet demand for as long as it takes to bring backup fossil power online. That is usually gas turbines burning LNG. LNG isn't cheap by historical standards. But it is a bulk commodity that can sit in an underground tank. The marginal cost of storage is very small. Do you understand what is being said here?

Spaniard wrote: 'Renewable reduce the fossil fuel usage today per $ more than nuclear. Invest on renewable today helps more on reduce our fossil fuel dependency than nuclear.'

That is unlikely. A renewable system feeding a grid needs a fossil fuel power station as backup. It will be very difficult and expensive to build enough storage to obviate the need for backup. And remember that 'storage' is really just another powerplant that sucks in electricity at one end and spits out less electricity as output. Backup means building two power plants and paying for the capital and operating costs of both. You also have to invest in additional transmission infrastructure and frequency control, because intermittent renewables have no inertia. Levelised cost of energy does not account for these things. At the end of that process, you achieve a modest reduction in fossil fuel consumption. But the added cost is huge. And all of that extra infrastructure has a lot of embodied energy, most of which comes from coal, natural gas and diesel.

The cost of new nuclear power depends primarily on build times. These have stretched from just a few years back in the 70s, to about two decades today. Part of this is due to regulatory burden and part is due to the loss of all scale economies and supporting industries over the past forty years. The French built nuclear powerplants cheaply, because they were able to build quickly and in large volume. They established a national industry that met all parts of the nuclear supply chain. No one has this now. But it was a policy choice to shut that down. It isn't an inherent problem. And we could, with political will, rebuild it.

Spaniard wrote: 'Insist in making linear projections of copper. But as offtherock commented (and I did in the past), copper usage per unit power is not fixed.'

Yes it is. The cross sectional area of a copper conductor is directly proportional to the power transmitted. That is basic physics. So the more power produced, the more copper needed. It is possible to use other conductors in particular situations. Aluminium alloys have always been used in high voltage transmission lines. We could use aluminium in more applications. But there will be penalties in terms of power density, corrosion protection and fatigue. Iron can be used to transmit DC power (though not AC). Here again, there are penalties in terms of power density, weight and the need for corrosion protection. As Void noted, carbon nanotube conductors may become practical at some point. But all alternatives come with cost or performance burdens at present technology sets. We would already be using them otherwise.

The other alternative for intermittent renewables, is to accept the fact that power will fluctuate and plan your activities around that. If that is possible, then the energy could indeed be quite cheap, because backup and storage are no longer needed. But how much of society could work that way? Could grids function with continuous rolling blackouts? I don't know. I would guess that an intermittent energy supply would burden society with a lot of other costs. But it is the only way I can see this working.

The old fashioned windmills did not try to store wind energy to cover periods when wind was not blowing. They just varied work rate to match supply. And they harnessed mechanical energy from the wind to drive mechanical processes with only basic, short range mechanical power transmission. Those were cheap and simple systems. But the people involved had to work with intermittent power. Can we adjust our society to do the same? Again, I think this is the only way this can work.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-08-11 03:16:08)

Spaniard · 2025-08-11 06:39:29

Calliban wrote:

Intermittent renewables have short term and long term variability. Batteries are expensive and have high embodied energy, meaning a lot of energy is needed to make them. What this means in practical terms, is that batteries can be used for smoothing short term variability. A battery big enough to power your house for weeks, would be as big as your house. And it would cost as much as your house. And most of the batteries would only be used a few times per year. What would that do to the marginal cost of storage? Would the system ever return the energy needed to build it?

All of this was already replied that time.

Each type of storage has an efficient point of implementation.
Depends on lot of variables, some futures, so it's difficult to say the exact optimal configuration or if I just a new tech not predicted makes all calculus obsolete.
But a kind of solution is like this.

Over X power (let's say for a country with 30 GW average power, 40 GW usage peak).

120 Gwh of peak batteries (4h of average), optimized for efficiency, almost everyday usage. LFP, maybe sodium-ion. 80-90% rountrip efficiency.
250 cycles per year. 4000 cycles. Amortization in 16 years
80 $/kwh 80/4000 = 20 $ per cycled kwh ... + renewable cost/0,85.

3000 Gwh of cheap batteries (100h of average), optimized for low cost per Gwh with medium efficiency. 50-70%. iron-ion. sodium-ion, CO2 battery, flow battery... Depends on advancements.
Numbers depends a lot in the technology.
60 cycles per year. In 40 years, 2400 cycles (almost every tech has higher cycles than that, let's use that as limit).
50 $/kwh. 50/2400 ~= 21 $ per cycled kwh ... + renewable cost/0,65.

A month of energy storage. Fuel. Multiple combinations are possible. Assuming hydrogen for an example.

It requires.

30 GW of thermal power reserve + 1 month energy

Price 1,5 millions per MW or 45.000 millions for whole system. A lifetime of 45 years. 1.000 per year.
30 Gw in a month generates 21600 Gwh or 21.600.000 Mwh

1.000.000.000 / 21.600.000 = 46 $ per Mwh in power reserve

Electrolizers
10 GW. 500 $/Kwh= 5000 millions for 10 G for 20 years. or 250 millions per year.

Assuming 50% efficiency for the 21.600.000 Mwh output
250.000.000 / 43.200.000 = 5,7 $ per Mwh in power generation

So, combined cost from power/generation of 51,7 $ /Mwh + cost of electricity/efficiency. Poor eficiency around 30%, but cheap source cost. Let's say cheap 25 $/Mwh / 0,3 ~=83,3Mwh in energy reserve

Other extra infrastructure costs (salt caves storage) around 20 $ per Mwh

Total cost on displaced season storage 46 + 5,7 + 83,3 + 20 = 155 $ per Mwh

That is more expensive than nuclear, BUT it's just a month of generation.

You have lots of hours around the year when during the day it's covered for wind+energy alone. Around 40-50 $/kwh
Lots of other that are solar+wind+peak battery (nights). 65-75 $ /Mwh
Others that solar+wind+cheap battery (bad weather). 75-85 $ /mwh
And finally, in winter you need to use your power reserve (around 720 hours per year) 155 $ per Mwh

That's the cost. Not necessarily the network needs to express the prices that way.

Something like, of 8760 hours per year...
3500 around 45 $/Mwh
4450 around 70 $/Mwh
720 around 155 $/Mwh

With an average around 65-70 $ Mwh

That's just quick and dirty calculations without a detail revision, but it doesn't matter too much, because real numbers depends on a lot of things that can change.

The idea about the "superpower" of Tony Seba is that we "overbuild" renewables and a lot of adaptable demand will appear in the network, which makes the deficit of non dispatchable demand reduced to almost nothing.
In that case, 720 could be a pessimistic assumption. Also the backup generation is assuming 0% renewable generation that it's false, so the numbers can be lower.

My guess also probably overbuild backup generation. Besides a real model will probably have hydro too. Most countries have.

Because not all should work from the production side, but also can become from the demand side, if the exchange for intermittency energy is cheap energy.

On other side, I only added direct costs but surely there are financial costs.
Besides, that costs I think are realistic, but assume a well oiled supply chain. You can't build that tomorrow, but slowly migrating from current model to a renewable model.
Some numbers could be deviated in some way while others on another. But I hope that help to understand that mixing models (like here, hydrogen + batteries) beats a only one tech model.
Hydrogen is expensive per unit, but it has a low cost for each unit of energy stored. Meanwhile batteries already have good price, but their amortization required hundred or thousand of cycles and that turns impossible when the cycle falls for one per year (the season storage).
So with a mix, it's possible to create a reasonable model.

So, please, stop about arguing about "overbuild storage" (assuming something like 100% lithium that requires too much batteries, or 100% hydrogen that it's clearly too expensive) because I don't propose that one tech model. I'm only pointing that if you get more cheap storage of one type, that numbers I wrote before changes. With extremely cheap sodium-ion, even have a month of storage in peak plant could be viable (although it has other challenges like limit the selfdischarge of that kind of battery).

And a model 100% renewable is possible.

That is unlikely. A renewable system feeding a grid needs a fossil fuel power station as backup.

Once thing is the present, other thing is the future.

In the future, the model could be like I said. In the present, the gas generators ALREADY EXISTS.
It's not more money. The invest is currently working.

It will be very difficult and expensive to build enough storage to obviate the need for backup. And remember that 'storage' is really just another powerplant that sucks in electricity at one end and spits out less electricity as output. Backup means building two power plants and paying for the capital and operating costs of both. You also have to invest in additional transmission infrastructure and frequency control, because intermittent renewables have no inertia. Levelised cost of energy does not account for these things.

I show you some numbers. You can play with them.
I considered using ship engines for backup by the way. Cheaper than open-cycle plants but more efficient. They aren't used because they aren't very good for frequency control. That change if you have batteries as they can work together to make medium-efficiency plants while frequency is guaranteed by the batteries.

At the end of that process, you achieve a modest reduction in fossil fuel consumption. But the added cost is huge. And all of that extra infrastructure has a lot of embodied energy, most of which comes from coal, natural gas and diesel.

That's the fallacy about the chicken-egg problem. A descarbonified society will produce infrastructure without embedded fossil fuels.
It's the same for every other energy model, because the replacement is done in current society which uses fossil fuels, so it has a lot of embodied energy as you said. That's not a real argument as the problem disappear by itself if we move away from fossil.
Of course, that requires MORE than just energy, also industries. We are on it.

The cost of new nuclear power depends primarily on build times. These have stretched from just a few years back in the 70s, to about two decades today. Part of this is due to regulatory burden and part is due to the loss of all scale economies and supporting industries over the past forty years. The French built nuclear powerplants cheaply, because they were able to build quickly and in large volume. They established a national industry that met all parts of the nuclear supply chain. No one has this now. But it was a policy choice to shut that down. It isn't an inherent problem. And we could, with political will, rebuild it.

Build time surely has a big impact on that.

But it's not only that. That's the reason why China, that doesn't have this problem (they install nuclear pretty fast), they still build renewable even faster.

I'm not against nuclear. I'm against EXPENSIVE nuclear and false information against renewables.
Even with a cheap nuclear, being realistic you won't get better than 60$/Mwh, and probably 80$/Mwh in the western world... if you remove the bottleneck in construction.

If you are able to do that, you will obtain that the best mix is NOT nuclear, but a combination that reduce part of the storage. The most expensive part.
For example in the previous model I calculated, 80 is more expensive than the solar+wind+peak, and around similar price for solar+wind+cheap battery&less efficiency while winter is very high cost.
If nuclear displace more cheap energy than expensive energy it will have a negative effect in cost. If nuclear displace energy more expensive, then the effect is positive.
The cheaper the nuclear energy, the easier is to displace energy more expensive than it.

Hinkly Point is over 100, probably over 120 $. And a cost compromised for 40 years minimum.
Do you really think it's a good idea? I think not.

It's different if you can bring nuclear at lower cost. But that remains as a challenge, not as a guaranteed path.

Spaniard wrote: 'Insist in making linear projections of copper. But as offtherock commented (and I did in the past), copper usage per unit power is not fixed.'
Yes it is.

No, it's not. Most copper used in FV installations are just wiring on the site, not in the panel. You can replace that wiring for aluminium TODAY if you want, just adding more mass if needed to compensate other factors.
Why is not doing it then? Because when you account all variables, WITH THE CURRENT COSTS, it isn't profitable.

That's it.

It's not physics. It's physics mixed with ECONOMICS.

If we were using the best conduction, we would use gold cables, not copper. We don't use gold because copper is the most economic in that context of variables.
Are you assuming that replace copper by aluminum generates some kind of energy problem?

It's not. You are always returning to your EROEI when I already pointed that it's obsoleted data mixed with dubious calculations.

Even embedded copper can also change with technologies as CNT. More speculative, but you can't just assume it won't happen.

Calliban wrote:

The other alternative for intermittent renewables, is to accept the fact that power will fluctuate and plan your activities around that. If that is possible, then the energy could indeed be quite cheap, because backup and storage are no longer needed. But how much of society could work that way? Could grids function with continuous rolling blackouts? I don't know. I would guess that an intermittent energy supply would burden society with a lot of other costs. But it is the only way I can see this working.

It's not a 100% one model or another, that's other mistake.

We will add a lot of renewable to make the electrification possible, like industry.
Industry can have lots of embedded thermal storage (that it's a lot cheaper), for example, and make some industries turn off on winter.

Lot's of electricity now goes for home usage. Most people forget that with the electrification, the home consumption, the more difficult energy to balance, it will loose weight in the network in the future.

Factories and transportation that it will have a lot more weight in the future, are a lot more manageable from the demand side than regular home consumption. Home is driven by human controlled events, while factories are mostly programmed and transport at a middle point.

That's a part usually omitted, about demand management. It doesn't require to be 100%. Intelligent appliances for example, can displace some charge.
There are a lot of possibilities in that.

Calliban wrote:

The old fashioned windmills did not try to store wind energy to cover periods when wind was not blowing. They just varied work rate to match supply. And they harnessed mechanical energy from the wind to drive mechanical processes with only basic, short range mechanical power transmission. Those were cheap and simple systems. But the people involved had to work with intermittent power. Can we adjust our society to do the same? Again, I think this is the only way this can work.

It's not a 100% model.

Some consumption can adapt, so they will do to have access to cheaper energy.
Some other consumption can't adapt, at least not in short term, so it will be the systems in the network which will provide the storage/generation management.

Calliban · 2025-08-11 15:15:20

Spaniard, It would take me hours to answer every detail in this ridiculous word salad. I don't have it to spare. It is a mixture of denial, wishful thinking and ignorance of physics and engineering.

Hall and Pietro estimated the EROI of Spain's solar PV industry to be 2.45:1. An EROI of 10:1 is about the minimum that an industrial society can work with. Without that level of surplus energy, there just isn't enough left over for an economy to function. It was only possible to build these plants in the first place because fossil fuels are available to manufacture, transport and install every part of it. And the wealth to pay for it is generated by a fossil fuel powered economy. Since Hall & Pietro published their work, most of the solar supply chain has shifted to the western provinces of China. This will push EROI down further. But the cheapness of coal and forced labour, have allowed modules to be produced and sold at attractive prices. It just isn't a practice that can continue for much longer. A low system EROI tells us that this energy source is not sustainable when cheap fossil fuels are removed from its manufacture.

You talk about using various different types of storage to manage the problem of intermittency. Energy storage has significant embodied energy of its own. There are also losses in storage. And adding storage means adding complexity. All of this degrades the EROI of the energy source, increases cost and adds vulnerability. Without a complete analysis, you really aren't in a position to be able to tell us that these problems can be overcome.

You mention hydrogen as an energy storage technology. In principle, it all sounds very simple. Use electrolysis when power is abundant and store hydrogen in a gasometer tank. A combined cycle gas turbine can then convert the hydrogen back into electric power at 60% efficiency. But electrolysis stacks are very expensive. Using them only intermittently results in a high marginal capital cost for each kWh stored in H2. And of course the cost of the hydrogen depends on the cost of electricity needed to produce it. Hydrogen has low density and a low energy density, unless it is either liquefied or compressed to very high pressures. Even with generous assumptions, less than half of the input electricity into such a system can be recovered. Collectively, these problems have resulted in most hydrogen projects being abandoned. It just isn't a good option for storing electrical energy to turn back into electrical energy.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-08-11 15:19:56)

Void · 2025-08-11 19:16:32

What if the future world involves Aluminum-Ion Batteries, Natural Hydrogen, Super-Critical Geothermal, Solar, Wind, and also methods to pull CO2 out of the air for Precision Fermentation?

In such a world it would still be ok to do some Hydrocarbon burning as the CO2 in the air is fertilizer for precision fermentation.

Both Natural Hydrogen and Geothermal can be base energy for renewables.

This is not all guaranteed, but exist as a possible future.

Ending Pending

kbd512 · 2025-08-11 21:14:04

The underlying theme to the entire line of argumentation regarding renewable energy is, "We'll figure this out as we go." That's not a proven successful management strategy for a complex project with such an expansive scope and scale as a complete transformation of how the majority of energy is generated and stored, how it's utilized, and which solutions work to the degree and scale necessary to achieve the desired end goal of a dramatic reduction of hydrocarbon fuel energy consumption.

We don't have enough of the required materials at the present time to build this Rube Goldberg techno-fantasy nonsense. That's why it hasn't already been built. If we had the materials and manufacturing capacity, then we would've built it already.

We produce 130X more Iron and 210X more concrete than Copper every single year. I know which materials I'm going to choose to build the world's largest machine (our energy grids) based upon that fact alone. I don't need to invoke the potential output of any new mines. I don't need to engage in an academic debate about the potential merits of future technology improvements. Business runs on labor, materials, and capital availability, not interesting options and debates.

Laying out a dozen different options doesn't dazzle someone like Calliban, or myself, with all the endless possibilities. It's a tacit admission that we don't have a currently actionable materials sourcing and manufacturing plan. If this idea requires so many different options to potentially work, then it's not a plan we can focus all available resources on implementing. Rank order ideas in terms of technological readiness level, materials or manufacturing capacity constraints, and capital costs. Which one come out on top?

How many trillions of dollars and how much irreplaceable time needs to be spent before "you need to spend more time and money" is no longer a valid response?

I happen to think that 10 trillion dollars spent over 25 years is more than enough "try harder". It's not a question of how hard we've tried. We're obviously "doing it wrong".

10 trillion (the amount of money we spent from 2000 to 2025 developing and deploying photovoltaics, wind turbines, batteries) was enough money to purchase 2,000 1GWe PWRs, at $5B USD per reactor, so 15,768TWh per year at 90% capacity factor. That's about 65% of all the world's electricity. China manages to build 1GWe PWRs for about $2.5B USD, so up to 4,000 reactors, possibly enough electricity to power all these BEVs and AI data centers that everyone wants to build. PWRs get replaced every 75 years, instead of every 25 years, and are not materials constrained.

Since we instead pursued all those potentially interesting options, we're now burning more coal and natural gas than ever and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future because the money which could've been spent much more effectively to halt the rise in CO2 emissions, using existing and thoroughly proven technology, was instead devoted to development of photovoltaics, wind turbines, and batteries. That was the true "missed opportunity cost".

After another 10 years and 10 trillion dollars have been squandered, our renewable energy evangelists will be ready with another round of excuses for the apparent lack of progress. Meanwhile, existing problems will get worse because that is the nature of real but unsolved problems. Until non-working ideas are abandoned in favor of pragmatism and proven solutions, humanity will continue to win stupid prizes.

Void · 2025-08-11 21:28:01

Well lets see if you might like this: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 72#p233472

The difference between myself and the greens is I am not likely to favor killing hydrocarbons or nuclear until the new tech can secure a place in the economic markets.

I do not drink green cool-aid.

Ending Pending

Spaniard · 2025-08-11 23:54:08

Calliban wrote:

Spaniard, It would take me hours to answer every detail in this ridiculous word salad. I don't have it to spare. It is a mixture of denial, wishful thinking and ignorance of physics and engineering.

No. It's a summary of a mix of technologies that are very real. Some are at the point of deployment, some require some time to refinement but the main configuration remains.

Only after understanding that each technologies has advantages and disadvantages you can understand that a mix works way better than a pretended 100% that energy model, and why the world is pushing towards that future.

It wasn't about precise calculations (I'm pretty sure that even if every calculus were right, that probably not, it's impossible that every number will met the real values in the future, but not necessarily on the bad side).
It was about try to understand how a model can be constructed.

Instead, you insist on old arguments based on old calculations, you reach false conclusions. Zero effort trying to understand that you usually extrapolate one energy source to 100% deployment to demonstrate it doesn't work when in the real world that won't be the configuration chosen and a mix change the numbers completely.

I did a significant effort to put some numbers. What kind of response I have obtained? A replay of old debated argument.

Well... Whatever. Just you know. You are gonna insist in your argument forever while the world install more and more renewable and other technologies needed for the renewable model to work.

Do you know why? Because you are fixed in arguments you won't challenge.

You won't try to check if it's real that EROEI 10:1 is needed, or even it has numeric sense.
Neither you will check if the 2.45 is true or fair ("Extended EROEI" what a joke), or if it has changed from the document until now.
You will insist in your argument forever, whatever the reality dismiss your statements or not.

So... because this transition will take decades anyway, old arguments will probably remain the same even after these forum become closed.

I hope my post could help someone. Otherwise it was just a completely waste of time.

At least I hope we will be here to see the fossil fuels peak. Coal peak could be almost here.

kbd512 · 2025-08-12 23:51:38

I think it's very telling that sufficient raw materials to build this proposed new energy generating and storage system do not as yet exist. The total global inventory of required materials is insufficient to proceed with a build-out of any of the proposed systems. Fast storage (super capacitors or electro-chemical batteries) to deal with the grid instability caused by intermittent energy is the most deficient category of all when it comes to materials availability. Following the total grid collapse in Spain, that much should be obvious.

1 hour of fast storage is likely to be the absolute bare minimum to avoid a total grid collapse as has already happened in Spain, or any grid which attempts to generate 70% of its power using photovoltaics and wind turbines. Globally, 2TWh to 3TWh of batteries will be required to provide that hour, presuming most industrialized nations attempt to use photovoltaics and/or wind turbines. Globally, somewhere between 200GWh and 300GWh of grid storage batteries presently exist. That means battery production will have to increase by 10X at some point in the next 10 to 25 years.

At current prices, 1 hour of fast storage is about $400B USD, enough money to purchase 80 to 160 1GWe fission reactors, which corresponds to 630.72TWh to 1,261.44TWh. 1,261TWh is about 1/20th of all the world's electricity generation. All storage, regardless of type (coal, gas, batteries, even Uranium), is a money sink. Batteries don't generate any revenue from electric power generation, they consume it, and then give it back when required to prevent grid crashes.

For dusk-to-dawn power on a grid that's 70% powered by photovoltaics and batteries, you need at least 12 hours of storage. If that storage is not provided by batteries, then it involves burning something. The total amount of money sunk into 12 hours of battery storage would pay for enough 1GWe PWRs to generate about 60% of all electric power consumption.

If the battery is made from Lithium, Aluminum, Cobalt, and/or Nickel, then cost is not likely to fall dramatically.

Lead-acid is $200K to $400K/MWh.
Lithium-ion is $150K to $300K/MWh, with installed cost ranging from $180K to $580K/MWh.
Nobody knows what an Aluminum battery will cost because as-yet there are no commercialized models in mass production.

This is what's being proposed for Aluminum redox batteries for seasonal energy storage:
Rechargeable aluminum: The cheap solution to seasonal energy storage?

?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F1e%2F2f%2F310ba1604d25abc6cce0df4bbe12%2Fscreen-shot-2022-08-24-at-4.53.01%20pm.png

This solution requires:
1. Industrial Aluminum Smelter
2. Grid Electricity to the Smelter
3. Photovoltaics
4. Household Batteries
5. Hydrogen PEMFCs
6. Heat Pumps
7. Thermal Energy Storage
8 Smart Grid Control to Direct Electricity

The company is claiming this Rube Goldberg machine can deliver stored energy for $0.09/kWh of storage. They're going to physically ship the Aluminum oxide pebbles back to an industrial Aluminum smelter after the battery is depleted each year, re-smelt the Aluminum oxide without generating CO2, re-mill the resultant Aluminum back into 1mm diameter balls, ship the Aluminum balls back to the grid storage battery site, and then reassemble the redox battery. They're asserting that all of that is going to cost less than a dime per kWh.

Frankly, it sounds like a great way to make electricity cost $1/kWh.

1kg of commercially pure Aluminum costs $1.60 to $2.70 before it's milled into 1mm diameter balls and combusting 1kg of pure Aluminum powder with pure O2 releases 8.6kWh of heat energy. This "charge / discharge process" is supposed to be 65% efficient, so 5,590Wh/kg.

$1.60 / 5,590Wh = $0.286/kWh

To that cost we must add transportation back-and-forth between the smelter and grid storage battery site, the capital cost of purchasing and maintaining all that other equipment, labor costs for fabrication / installation / transport / maintenance, and the fact that countries like Spain already pay $0.20 to $0.30/kWh. We get to use this battery once or twice per year, yet we must, because we need something. Smelting the Aluminum requires 12kWh/kg to 17kWh/kg of energy input, roughly double what the battery can actually discharge each year / season (winter). I would estimate 28 days of storage is the bare minimum, but 3 months is more akin to seasonal reality. In the summer when generating is good for photovoltaics, an extra 2 to 6 months of the EU's monthly electric generating capacity, above and beyond current electricity demand, must be captured in the form of smelted and milled Aluminum balls, plus whatever energy transportation requires.

EU's monthly electricity demand is about 224.75TWh using 2023 figures, so 40,205,724,508kg, at 5,590Wh/kg using this redox battery. That means every year the EU is going to re-smelt approximately 57% of the world's annual primary Aluminum production tonnage to deliver seasonal storage without burning something.

40,205,724,508kg * 12,000Wh/kg = 482,468,694,096,000Wh

482TWh of additional summer seasonal electric generating capacity is required from wind and solar to maintain winter grid reliability, absent hydrocarbon fuels or fission reactors.

At $0.25/kWh, that's $120,617,173,524 worth of electricity

That seems more than a little outlandish to me. It's easy to understand why Germany has gone right back to burning lignite. They're bankrupting themselves trying to implement this foolishness.

Calliban · 2025-08-13 04:10:03

Spaniard, I searched the internet and found a copy of Hall and Pietro's EROI analysis free to download here.
https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=136738520

Maybe you can find holes in their analysis?

Void · 2025-08-13 07:00:33

I want th say that my objective is to get the truth, not to showboat, or win debate points for an audience.

I notice two things that you could explain intentions about for me Calliban. The document you presented apparently indicates Spain as the location and 2013 as they year of the study. Although there may have been an update in 2022?

Spain: https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=22. … 7.691398,3
The map indicates that Spain is approximately as good for solar energy as Colorado, I think. So, not the best place for solar energy per available sunlight, but perhaps a convenient place to have it per need.

I checked on the Efficiency of Solar Panels in 2013, and got the number 13% Today, the number seems to be 20% to 23%. Was the study in 2013 for panels made in 2013 or were they even older panels?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_re … investment
Quote:

Photovoltaic
See also: Cadmium telluride photovoltaics
Global PV market by technology in 2013.[8]: 18, 19
multi-Si (54.9%)
mono-Si (36.0%)
CdTe (5.10%)
a-Si (2.00%)
CIGS (2.00%)
The issue is still the subject of numerous studies, prompting academic argument. That's mainly because the "energy invested" critically depends on technology, methodology, and system boundary assumptions, resulting in a range from a maximum of 2000 kWh/m2 of module area down to a minimum of 300 kWh/m2 with a median value of 585 kWh/m2 according to a meta-study from 2013.[9]
Regarding output, it obviously depends on the local insolation, not just the system itself, so assumptions have to be made.
Some studies (see below) include in their analysis that photovoltaic cells produce electricity, while the invested energy may be lower grade primary energy.
A 2015 review in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews assessed the energy payback time and EROI of a variety of PV module technologies. In this study, which uses an insolation of 1700 kWh/m2/yr and a system lifetime of 30 years, mean harmonised EROIs between 8.7 and 34.2 were found. Mean harmonised energy payback time varied from 1.0 to 4.1 years.[10][better source needed] In 2021, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems calculated an energy payback time of around 1 year for European PV installations (0.9 years for Catania in Southern Italy, 1.1 years for Brussels) with wafer-based silicon PERC cells.[11]

Last edited by Void (2025-08-13 07:16:25)

Spaniard · 2025-08-13 07:06:19

Calliban wrote:

Spaniard, I searched the internet and found a copy of Hall and Pietro's EROI analysis free to download here.
https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=136738520
Maybe you can find holes in their analysis?

I will reply quick and do it just once, because I already did it in the past.

There is no reason to say things like "You need a EROEI X:1" to support your civilization.

It's pure nonsense.

EROEI just means the ratio of Output vs Input

If you have a Energy source that produce 1 MW with near infinite EROEI it's the same that:
- 1.1 MW for 10:1 EROEI - 0.1 MW will be used to rebuild new energy input
- 2 MW for 2:1 EROEI - 1 MW will be used to rebuild new energy input
- 10 MW for 1.1:1 EROEI - 9 MW will be used to rebuild new energy input

So the EROEI graph they put is purely nonsense.

Second, while I understand the argument of...

"Well. Usually we aren't accounting all the energy in the input, so real EROEI is higher that current standard methodology EROEI..."

You can't mix them like nothing. Otherwise you are doing an unfair imbalance between energy sources. And that's exactly what it happens here. If you want to make a comparison, you need to standarize the methodology. Otherwise is just apple vs orange comparisons.

IF you read the own document, you will find this piece.

Pag 41

"Where possible it is desirable to measure the energy used directly (e.g., on site or in
centralized manufacturing facilities) in terms of physical units. In fact, there is considerable
information about how much energy it takes to make, e.g., a metric ton of steel
(about 21.3 GJ) or concrete (about 5.1 GJ) but less for e.g., transformers or instruments
or fi nancial services. When we are lucky, there are estimates of the total amount
of energy going into a solar PV factory to produce modules and how many units (e.g.,
square meters of PV devices coming out)."

What do you think would happen if you rebuild the calculus after a reduction of 90% on the price?

You need to understand the circumstance when the study was executed. It was nearly twenty years ago, when PV was installed with a >500% feed-in tariff. Of course that PV was non-competitive by then.

Second part of analysis. How to drop the numbers as much as they want.

"Mismatch of Modules" - "Losses Due to Dust" - ...

You have real data about the energy produced. That energy ALREADY SUFFERED ALL THAT FACTORS. Why they introduce the factors?
That's named double accounting.

You need to know where the data of injected energy is measured. If all the data is included in the measurement, you can't introduce that factors because they are already discounted in the generated energy.

You can, as much, introduce factors as loses in the network, as they are probably not included. Most of their factors are redundant.

More parts like pag 62, start to including the wages of the labor AS ENERGY, or other costs as well?

Do you understand how bogus is do that in EROEI?
They are saying that if you put a PV in Africa, where people have very low wages it consume less energy that if people in the developed world, with high wages put the panel.

Of course it impacts the cost. BUT NOT THE ENERGY. The energy produced by the energy source is used to feed people services including the people that put the panels. You could only claim that if having workforce where some kind of limitation in our society.
Again, double accounting.

That most economic to energy computations would have a similar background. Lots of double accounting.

Even if you agreed with their authors (I'm not. It's a cost, but not an energy that should be included in input), do you really believe that factor don't change with the scale?
It's the most simply factor that change. Put one panel and put four panels in the same roof or the same field doesn't scale linearly.

Lots of doubtful facts, like cost of access roads. Do you really believe that if PV grows (as it did) plants have the same size?
That roads to small farms scale to huge farms?

And besides... all of that is included in cost. Do you believe that these numbers remain the same AFTER all that feed-in tariffs were removed?

In Pag 64
When the field was able to build with eight times the current cost, doing things one way like regular roads impact less than that road means duplicate the cost. Of course that should have changed. I'm not gonna check their specific number only pointing how arbitrary they are.
If build a road with gravel is too costly, why don't just avoiding that and just dirt roads? Or build the fields nearer the existing roads?

There are multiples ways to build a solar field, and people is not dumb. They will plan the way that match the required price. Sometimes paving a road has sense, sometimes is not. The projection is clearly overinflated.

I'm just at the middle of the document and I'm already lost my patience.

I'm already met Pedro Prieto long before he did this document. I knew the conclusion of the document before I read it.
Because if he wasn't able to put solar in a bad spot, he wouldn't publish the document in first place.

He first did the money to energy conversion.
And later he played with variables until he was able to get an energy input that met his energy output to calculate the same EROEI so all seems a serious paper.

I'm pretty sure that's the way he did the paper.

The problem is that cost has dropped since then. By a lot.
So more than me pointing the errors of the document, you should ask yourself if you should have some reason to still refer to this document not just because you doubt of the methodology, but just if it's up to date.

Well. I said that I would do a quick replay. I instead lost lot of time replying.

Terraformer · 2025-08-14 04:25:14

Spaniard,

If energy use is roughly proportional to economic activity, having to use half your energy to rebuild your energy infrastructure means half your economic activity is dedicated to energy production. We haven't been in this situation since... the British Agricultural Revolution? If it's fully automated luxury gay space communism I guess that's manageable, since the robots are doing all the work. Though in the case of solar you're going to be taking up a lot of land if you need to devote most of it to making more solar panels.

Tbh, it doesn't seem unlikely that, with decent thermal storage and a focus on using power when it is generated, as well as a good wind power generation supply, biofuel would be enough to cover the small amount of mechanical/electrical power that needs to be generated on demand. A fair few energy intensive tasks can be made intermittent to run on wind, including I would expect grinding and crushing processes. Desalination, too. Britain has 5GW of nuclear still, and that would be enough for the domestic grid if we picked the low hanging fruit for intermittent power use (large tanks of hot water, including kettles; appliances that use the hot water supply instead of heating water with electricity; not running the tumble dryer if it's an expensive electricity day).

kbd512 · 2025-08-14 21:37:34

Suppose a farmer expends an average of 3,000 calories of energy per day to plant, tend to, and harvest the crops from his land. From all that he harvests from his land, he only receives an average of 2,500 calories per day. The farmer will either improve his "Calories Returned On Calories Invested" or his corpse will be the the next thing planted on his land. His brain might tell him that energy math doesn't matter and he'll make do, but his body knows better.

Terraformer · 2025-08-15 05:18:40

Well, in Spaniards example its more "suppose a farmer expends an average of 3000 calories to get 3300". Enough to survive, but he's living at subsistence level and survival is the only thing he can do.

offtherock · 2025-08-15 06:58:10

Do we have any type of consensus for what type of energy system the world should move towards?

I realize the impending copper shortage but solar still looks amazing.

Maybe a world super focused on solar but then sprinkle it with a bit of fission reactors in select hard for pv locations.
Like Scandinavia or such.

I have also never understood, why for instance, France, has so many nuclear plants.
Wouldn't it make sense to make as few and big as possible.
Each nuclear plant marginalizes a huge area around it.
And the area marginalized per MW produced should get less and less as the plant gets bigger.

I would think nuclear plant efficiency would grow pretty fast with size.

Wouldn't it make tons of sense to use the marginalized land around the nuclear plant for something like... solar panels.
In for instance, France at least.

Here's Chatgpt's take on this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/689f2fad-ea6c … 7c50b5bd3d

As for solar, once we get to space, solar immediately becomes many times more productive,
Due to no atmosphere, rain, clouds, darkness or weather of any type.
And quickly we will start looking into ways to nudge the panels closer to the sun.
With the efficiency growing to the second power as we approach it.
Their efficiency will be absolutely insane.

The space society will have no idea what an energy shortage is.
Not the way we know it.

And all the copper is there its just floating there in the asteroid belt.

Last edited by offtherock (2025-08-15 07:18:20)

Terraformer · 2025-08-15 09:28:40

Depends where you are. Cheapest is probably going to be solar (thermal) in deserts. Best for Britain, if not nuclear then wind, though possibly low temp solar thermal in summer for interseasonal storage.

There are a lot of energy intensive industries that could be located near deserts. Aluminum refining, for example. Glass making. Smelting with electrolysed hydrogen? Australia has a lot of the raw resources and a big desert for providing the power.

offtherock · 2025-08-15 11:05:03

Chatgpt says offshore wind uses 7t/MW of copper and onsore about 3t/MW.
So its a direct competitor with solar in that regard.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2025-08-10 11:47:16

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#77 2025-08-10 12:13:06

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#78 2025-08-10 12:31:22

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#79 2025-08-10 14:57:55

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#80 2025-08-10 15:26:41

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#81 2025-08-10 18:50:40

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#82 2025-08-11 00:06:27

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#83 2025-08-11 01:19:02

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#84 2025-08-11 02:25:22

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#85 2025-08-11 06:39:29

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#86 2025-08-11 15:15:20

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#87 2025-08-11 19:16:32

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#88 2025-08-11 21:14:04

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#89 2025-08-11 21:28:01

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#90 2025-08-11 23:54:08

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#91 2025-08-12 23:51:38

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#92 2025-08-13 04:10:03

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#93 2025-08-13 07:00:33

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#94 2025-08-13 07:06:19

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#95 2025-08-14 04:25:14

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#96 2025-08-14 21:37:34

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#97 2025-08-15 05:18:40

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#98 2025-08-15 06:58:10

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#99 2025-08-15 09:28:40

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#100 2025-08-15 11:05:03

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

Board footer