At any level of technology. Where else in the solar system do you have that much highly reduced matter next to so much highly oxidized gas with a thin layer of rock between them, and something as simple as a drill and a furnace needed to extract the coal energy and a little fractional distillation to get at the oil? Everything else is more difficult.
“Unit of infrastructure” ~= amount of energy and effort and capital needed to get at it.
I am not going to believe that. Both because at the caveman level the fossil fuels are pretty much useless and because your imagination with respect to future technology seems severely limited.
“Unit of infrastructure” ~= amount of energy and effort and capital needed to get at it.
This entirely depends on the technology level. And how are you applying concepts like “energy-dense” to, say, sunlight or geothermal?
how are you applying concepts like “energy-dense” to, say, sunlight or geothermal?
Energy density refers only to fuels and energy storage media and doesn’t have much to do with grid-scale investment, although it’s important for things like transport where you have to move your power source along with you. (Short version: hydrocarbons beat everything else, although batteries are getting better.)
The usual framework for comparing things like solar or geothermal energy to fossil fuels, from a development or policy standpoint, is energy return on investment. (Short version: coal beats everything but hydroelectric, but nuclear and renewables are competitive with oil and gas. Also, ethanol and biodiesel suck.)
at the caveman level the fossil fuels are pretty much useless
Coal was used as fuel before theRoman empire. It didn’t lead to an industrial revolution until someone figured out a way to turn it into mechanical energy substituting for human labor instead of just a heat source in a society where that could be made profitable due to a scarcity of labor. That was the easiest, surface-exposed deposits, yes, but you hardly need any infrastructure at all to extract the energy, and even mechanical energy extraction just needs a boiler and some pistons and valves. This was also true of peat in what is now the Netherlands during the early second millennium.
your imagination with respect to future technology seems severely limited.
…
This entirely depends on the technology level.
What does ‘technology level’ even mean? There’s just things people have figured out how to do and things people haven’t. And technology is not energy and you cannot just substitute technology for easy energy, it is not a question of technology level but instead the energy gradients that can be fed into technology.
And how are you applying concepts like “energy-dense” to, say, sunlight or geothermal?
Mostly in terms of true costs and capital (not just dollars) needed to access it, combined with how much you can concentrate the energy at the point of extraction infrastructure. For coal or oil you can get fantastic wattages through small devices. For solar you can get high wattages per square meter in direct sunlight, which you don’t get on much of the earth’s surface for long and you never get for more than a few hours at a time. Incredibly useful, letting you run information technology and some lights at night and modest food refrigeration off a personal footprint, but not providing the constant torrent of cheap energy we have grown accustomed to. Geothermal energy flux is often high in particular areas where it makes great sense (imagine Iceland as a future industrial powerhouse due to all that cheap thermal energy gradient), over most of the earth not so much.
Sunlight is probably our best bet for large chunks the future of technological civilization over most of the earth’s surface. It is still not dense. It’s still damn useful.
but you hardly need any infrastructure at all to extract the energy
You don’t need ANY infrastructure to gather dry sticks in the forest and burn them. Guess that makes the energy density per unit of infrastructure infinite, then…
it is not a question of technology level but instead the energy gradients that can be fed into technology.
There are lots of energy gradients around. Imagine technology that allows you to sink a borehole into the mantle—that’s a nice energy gradient there, isn’t it? Tides provide the energy gradient of megatons of ocean water moving. Or, let’s say, technology provides a cheap and effective fusion reactor—what’s the energy gradient there?
You’ve been reading too much environmentalist propaganda which loves to extrapolate trends far into the future while making the hidden assumption that the level of technology will stay the same forever and ever.
You don’t need ANY infrastructure to gather dry sticks in the forest and burn them. Guess that makes the energy density per unit of infrastructure infinite, then...
Pretty much, until you need to invest in the societal costs to replant and regrow woods after you have cleared them, or you want more concentrated energy at which point you use a different source, or unless you value your time.
There are lots of energy gradients around
Yes. Some are easier to capture than others and some are denser than others. Fusion would be a great energy gradient if you can run it at rates massively exceeding those in stars, but everything I’ve seen suggests that the technology required for such a thing is either not forthcoming or if it is is so complicated that it’s probably not worth the effort.
the hidden assumption that the level of technology will stay the same forever and ever.
It won’t but there are some things that technology doesn’t change. To use the nuclear example, you always need to perform the same chemical and other steps to nuclear fuels which requires an extremely complicated underlying infrastructure and supply chain and concentrated capital for it. Technology isn’t a genetic term for things-that-make-everything-easier, some things can be done and some things can’t, and other things can be done but aren’t worth the effort, and we will see what some of those boundaries are over time. I hope to at least make it to 2060, so I bet I will get to see the outcome of some of the experiments being performed!
Huh? At which level of technology? And WTF is a “unit of infrastructure”?
At any level of technology. Where else in the solar system do you have that much highly reduced matter next to so much highly oxidized gas with a thin layer of rock between them, and something as simple as a drill and a furnace needed to extract the coal energy and a little fractional distillation to get at the oil? Everything else is more difficult.
“Unit of infrastructure” ~= amount of energy and effort and capital needed to get at it.
I am not going to believe that. Both because at the caveman level the fossil fuels are pretty much useless and because your imagination with respect to future technology seems severely limited.
This entirely depends on the technology level. And how are you applying concepts like “energy-dense” to, say, sunlight or geothermal?
Energy density refers only to fuels and energy storage media and doesn’t have much to do with grid-scale investment, although it’s important for things like transport where you have to move your power source along with you. (Short version: hydrocarbons beat everything else, although batteries are getting better.)
The usual framework for comparing things like solar or geothermal energy to fossil fuels, from a development or policy standpoint, is energy return on investment. (Short version: coal beats everything but hydroelectric, but nuclear and renewables are competitive with oil and gas. Also, ethanol and biodiesel suck.)
Coal was used as fuel before the Roman empire. It didn’t lead to an industrial revolution until someone figured out a way to turn it into mechanical energy substituting for human labor instead of just a heat source in a society where that could be made profitable due to a scarcity of labor. That was the easiest, surface-exposed deposits, yes, but you hardly need any infrastructure at all to extract the energy, and even mechanical energy extraction just needs a boiler and some pistons and valves. This was also true of peat in what is now the Netherlands during the early second millennium.
What does ‘technology level’ even mean? There’s just things people have figured out how to do and things people haven’t. And technology is not energy and you cannot just substitute technology for easy energy, it is not a question of technology level but instead the energy gradients that can be fed into technology.
Mostly in terms of true costs and capital (not just dollars) needed to access it, combined with how much you can concentrate the energy at the point of extraction infrastructure. For coal or oil you can get fantastic wattages through small devices. For solar you can get high wattages per square meter in direct sunlight, which you don’t get on much of the earth’s surface for long and you never get for more than a few hours at a time. Incredibly useful, letting you run information technology and some lights at night and modest food refrigeration off a personal footprint, but not providing the constant torrent of cheap energy we have grown accustomed to. Geothermal energy flux is often high in particular areas where it makes great sense (imagine Iceland as a future industrial powerhouse due to all that cheap thermal energy gradient), over most of the earth not so much.
Sunlight is probably our best bet for large chunks the future of technological civilization over most of the earth’s surface. It is still not dense. It’s still damn useful.
You don’t need ANY infrastructure to gather dry sticks in the forest and burn them. Guess that makes the energy density per unit of infrastructure infinite, then…
There are lots of energy gradients around. Imagine technology that allows you to sink a borehole into the mantle—that’s a nice energy gradient there, isn’t it? Tides provide the energy gradient of megatons of ocean water moving. Or, let’s say, technology provides a cheap and effective fusion reactor—what’s the energy gradient there?
You’ve been reading too much environmentalist propaganda which loves to extrapolate trends far into the future while making the hidden assumption that the level of technology will stay the same forever and ever.
Pretty much, until you need to invest in the societal costs to replant and regrow woods after you have cleared them, or you want more concentrated energy at which point you use a different source, or unless you value your time.
Yes. Some are easier to capture than others and some are denser than others. Fusion would be a great energy gradient if you can run it at rates massively exceeding those in stars, but everything I’ve seen suggests that the technology required for such a thing is either not forthcoming or if it is is so complicated that it’s probably not worth the effort.
It won’t but there are some things that technology doesn’t change. To use the nuclear example, you always need to perform the same chemical and other steps to nuclear fuels which requires an extremely complicated underlying infrastructure and supply chain and concentrated capital for it. Technology isn’t a genetic term for things-that-make-everything-easier, some things can be done and some things can’t, and other things can be done but aren’t worth the effort, and we will see what some of those boundaries are over time. I hope to at least make it to 2060, so I bet I will get to see the outcome of some of the experiments being performed!