How badly would the alternative energy sector be hit by $60/barrel oil?

[NickB79]

I got into a discussion with a fellow DU'er a few days ago, and we came to an impasse. I thought that the alt. energy sector would slow down with falling natural gas and oil prices, while he/she thought that $60/barrel oil was more than sufficient to maintain the momentum. Of course, I don't want to just maintain momentum; I want to see the momentum increase rapidly, but that's a whole other debate.

Anyone have any wild guesses what we will see in the next few years in the energy sector?

[On the Road]

1. Wind Will Probably Continue to Make Progress

because it's immediate and profitable as those levels. At least, as I understand it.

Solar, being at least twice the cost, is going to continue to struggle and need government-sponsored research to bring the price down.

Other methods such as tidal, georthermal, hydrogen generation, thermal depolymerization, and others will continue to generate interest, but have difficulty getting corporate sponsorship and will need federal development dollars. Alternate energy may lose its status as a hot item, I think Obama looks longer term and will follow through.

The one no one is mentioning is fusion. I don't know why -- that's the only one which can fully supply all the needed energy.

[NNadir]

6. Oh please. People have been "mentioning" since the 1950's.

Even if it worked, and it doesn't, it would be entirely dependent on a fission infrastructure. It is very unlikely that it would ever prove as clean or as safe as fission.

Nothing yet invented has proved as safe or as clean as fission, nothing.

[On the Road]

7. What are You Yammering About Now?

I wasn't comparing fusion to fission. I wasn't ruling out a fission-based or any other method. I wasn't confining the discussion to things that have already been developed. You're just peeved I didn't focus on your pet technology.

[NNadir]

20. I'm sorry that I wasn't more impressed with you 117 word profound pronouncement concluding with the

august statement "The one no one is mentioning is fusion. I don't know why -- that's the only one which can fully supply all the needed energy."

Last I looked fusion wasn't supplying any energy.

Zero.

Zilch.

Nada.

Zippo.

Nothing.

...all being words that roughly approximate all the other stuff you mentioned.

No matter where I look on this http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html">table I fail to find the word "fusion," anywhere.

I note that there is no listing for space based microwave satellites beaming electricity from beyond the moon's orbit either.

Why?

Because we don't list the forms of energy that are hyped as being the only possible form of energy that will work that actually produce zero useful energy.

Therefore I have a rather jaunticed view of people who cite pipe dreams in the face of the world's most exigent disaster.

I couldn't care less if you dislike it, kiddie.

[jpak]

9. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!11111

More obsessive compulsive sociopathic nonsense.

Please...

Tell us how many "mega"watts of wind power capacity were installed in the US and world-wide this year...

vs.

"mega"watts of new nuclear capacity installed this year.

Tell us ALL about it...

again...

:rofl:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

14. The Polywell seems to work pretty well, at least in lab testing size.

They're still getting pretty good results from the WB-8, and waiting on news about more funding.

[NNadir]

19. As a person who has observed a brazillion energy "breakthroughs" on this website alone,

I don't actually believe any of them. The one consistent thing about these "breakthroughs", solar, wind, fusion etc, etc, etc, etc, is that they all fail to make a meaningful impact on the dangerous fossil fuel disaster. All of them combined continuously fail to produce as much energy as fission energy. Given the exigency of the current disaster, I don't think we have the resources to continuously reject that which is proved for that which we merely fancy. I mean exactly who many times here have we heard about grand solar breakthroughs that were going to make solar electricity competitive, going back almost to the founding of this website? I have been reading about fusion breakthroughs since I was a little boy, when Brezhnev still had Sakaharov under house arrest.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth: www.solarbuzz.com

I have heard so as to believe it that the US patent office will accept patents for devices claimed by their inventors to "overturn the second law of thermodynamics" if they are accompanied by a working model.

In fact, if one were able to get a fusion reactor that actually produced more <em>primary</em> energy than it consumed - not even counting the websites hyping it - one would still need an energy <em>conversion</em> device that produces electricity.

I fairly regularly peruse http://www.springerlink.com/content/tw983qr04278/?p=4302b6d313664a9a97ded048feec2274&pi=0">this journal not because I am a fusion aficionado but because I am interested in high temperature fluid systems, which frequently are discussed in the context of "thermal blankets" designed to capture putative high energy fusion neutrons to do something useful with them. I first found myself surprised to be opening this journal because of links and references from papers about the only industrial form of nuclear energy that has reached an exajoule scale, that being fission energy, already the cleanest and safest form of exajoule scale energy known.

Why does one find links to fusion journals when researching fission technology? Because it turns out that all these putative liquid blankets involve research into the fluid chemistry of actinides, beginning but by no means terminating with thorium. If one is interested in the solubility of thorium in molten lead, for instance, one will find all sorts of studies of the problem from fusion guys daydreaming about some far off time when they will actually have neutrons to play with.

Why?

Because the only way that there is to make these neutrons useful is to fission stuff.

I hate to rain on the parade, but the parade is frankly silly. I believe it's time to invoke the patent office requirement.

[DJ13]

2. It will hurt in the short term, but dont forget Obama wants massive gov...

.......spending in alternatives no matter what the price of oil is.

That should revitalize the industry after he's sworn in.

[phantom power]

3. I think the credit crash will do more damage than $60/barrel oil.

Another thing is that oil prices are dropping because the economy is so damned lousy. That's going to be bad for investment in any energy sector, wind being no exception. If we take an extended recession as a given, it puts more burden on government stimulus. I would hope that energy investment was a part of any major government economic stimulus package, as well as energy investment closely tied to domestic job stimulus.

[GliderGuider]

5. Thanks for saving me some typing...

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

16. This may or may not be an example

but it illustrates how the financial crisis impacts businesses throughout the alternative energy sector. A lot of these companies are less than established, have unproven track records and are proposing unorthodox schemes.

Think back to Amazon. How long did they rely on financing before turning a profit?

Electric car manufacturer hit by financial crisis

Over the past five years Tesla Motors has gained some high-profile fans including George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the founders of Google.

But the Californian company – which makes electric cars, including a £63,000 convertible which can reach speeds of 125mph – yesterday admitted it was losing money and said it would be cutting jobs and scaling back expansion.

The announcement came after the company said it had failed to attract a further $100m investment because of the worldwide financial crisis.

In a statement released on the Tesla website, the company said it was reshuffling its management team and making "modest" staff cutbacks. Elon Musk, the South African entrepreneur who was an early investor, will take control of day-to-day operations as the company's new chief executive.

"We have decided that the wise course of action is to focus on our two revenue producing business lines," Musk said in the statement. "Our goal as a company is to be cashflow positive within six to nine months."

Richard White, a clean technology analyst at research company Library House, said: "The investment Tesla are looking for is quite significant, and it doesn't surprise me that they are finding it tough.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/16/alternativeenergy-usa

[Greyskye]

4. Long term we're going to need that petroleum for plastics production, not energy production

And I think that enough people recognize that to keep the urgency up in the short term. That's what I hope, anyway.

The general population may not get that yet, I think that industry and governments do.

[Fledermaus]

8. Less than 2% of our electricity is produce from oil. n/t

[Throckmorton]

10. Yes, but he said energy

not electricty.

[Fledermaus]

18. Electricity is energy and it takes other forms of energy to produce it.

[Kolesar]

11. Electricity prices are going to keep rising and make renewable energy competitive

Renewables are affected by natural gas and electricity prices. Renewables wont be affected as much by petroleum prices, because petroleum is a transportation fuel.

[bananas]

12. Assuming we get serious about global warming,

alternative energy will continue to increase.

[bananas]

13. WSJ: Going Down: What Will Falling Oil Prices Do to Clean Energy?

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/16/going-down-what-will-falling-oil-prices-do-to-clean-energy/

October 16, 2008, 2:25 pm
Going Down: What Will Falling Oil Prices Do to Clean Energy?
Posted by Keith Johnson

Oil prices plummeted again Thursday, falling under $70 a barrel for the first time in more than a year.

That kicked OPEC into action—the oil cartel moved up its emergency meeting to October 24, where it will study a cut in oil production in a bid to halt crude’s slide. OPEC is trying to prop up oil at between $70 and $90 a barrel, Bloomberg reports, but fears that global demand will fall next year keep pushing crude prices lower.

So which is scarier for clean energy? The financial meltdown and the credit crunch, or oil in the $60s?

<snip>

When oil prices collapsed in the 1990s, renewable energy in the U.S. basically fell off a cliff. Nobody is predicting a return to $10 oil, but with $60 oil considered the “new cheap,” could it happen again?

[kristopher]

15. Jobs, jobs, jobs...

The green energy sector is one of the prime areas that can deliver millions of long lasting domestic jobs. Obama has already clearly stated that energy and health care are the two sectors that require attention if we are to have a hope of putting our economy back on track - and both areas relate to job formation in the small business sector.

That is the point that will carry the day with public support for spending on alternative energy. Also, this price reprieve is temporary and the public knows it. They will continue to support the move to alternatives based on growing global energy demand and guaranteed higher future energy prices.