Incorrect. Spurious. Almost asinine to conclude static progress in alternative energy AND alternative ENGINES. The internal combustion engine is ARCHAIC. The only reason this anachronistic device is still around is because of politics and the nature of wealth distribution. Fords manufactured 50 years ago had better gas mileage than many Fords sold today. It's in someones interest to keep the world sucking off oil. Those who have the money, dictate what the rest use and think. And much wealth is derived from oil. Many new technologies are simply bought off and moth balled. Your argument holds water only when we believe the world will continue to use the archaic internal combustion engine technology in perpetuity with progress in other forms of energy and engines remaining static.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[11] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year One would just need to capture 0.02% of solar radiation to be totally free of other sources.
Unfortunately oil has a better ROI. I read some calculations years ago that said for 1 barrel of used oil you can dig up 30 barrels of oil. While to get 1 barrel of wind-energy you needed to have 0.8 barrels of wind energy used. Then Oil has an ROI of 30 and wind energy an ROI of 1.2 The highest ROI of an energy source has the best efficiency. In the graph that was displayed only nuclear energy I believe came close, an ROI just below 10. All alternative energies had ROI below 5, some below 2. I don't know how much has changed since then but this is the sole reason oil is such a good energy source. Imagine one canister of oil, it has alot, and I mean ALOT of energy stored up in it. Combustion is indeed a wasteful process alot of energy is lost through wasteful heat transfer. If you could convert the energy 100% then our oil consumption could be reduced by as much as two-thirds.
My family owns a solar and wind company. Your numbers are very misrepresenting. Mostly probably because as you acknowledged, it was years ago. Take solar panels being produced right now. It takes about 18 months for one of those panels to produce enough energy to replicate itself. That sounds like a long time until you consider the life of them. Warranty on our panels is 20-25 years depending on manufacturer. Even old solar panels are lasting longer than 20 years. IOW, during its life, a single solar panel will produce enough usable energy to make about 20 more of itself. That really isn't that far behind oil. That also uses panels that are currently only 20% efficient and manufacturing processes that are still in development. There are panels that get to 40% efficient in converting sunlight to electricity, but they are usually cost prohibitive which will not be the case for very long. At 40% efficiency, the US would need to install 831 square miles of solar panels to provide for current electrical consumption. To put that in perspective, that would require every single-family-detached home in the US to put 15 of our standard size solar panels on their roof. Anyone who says it's crazy to think that solar could be the main source of energy, is simply misinformed. Solar has come a really long way during the past few years since oil started to skyrocket. Specifically the retail cost of solar panels has dropped 40% during the last 6 months. Yes, we got stung by the price drop as we had inventory on hand, but consumers are now approaching payback periods of only 6 years on their purchase. Needless to say, sales pick up pretty quickly when you can tell someone that they can roll it into their construction loan and pay less per month on the system than it is saving them in electrical bills each month.
Petrodollar recyling is another reason OIL will not be replaced until it is too late. The US benefits from oil being traded in dollars. Every solar transaction around the world does nothing for the US treasury market. But I wish your family and biz the best - I genuinely mean that.
Hey, I'm not suggesting that all the sudden tomorrow everyone will rush to buy solar. When each decent size system nets a profit of several thousand dollars, we don't have to capture much market share. Your petrodollar argument makes sense, but there is now, and will continue to be a natural transition. Oil recently dropped to $30 per barrel and solar only became cheaper and more viable. Like I said, on new construction the 30-y loan payment for the system is less than the monthly electrical savings. The only problem we are fighting right now is these old rumors about how expensive it is.
I mentioned Cantarell in the past. Here's a sobering article on Cantarell, Peak Oil, and ultimately, Mexico's future. Not good. From the article: "The proponents of peak oilâthe theory that the world is no longer finding enough new oil from conventional sources to keep up with increases in oil consumptionâcan rightfully point to Cantarell as confirmation for one part of their theory. Once a field goes into decline, peak oil proponents have argued, the decline in production is shockingly rapid. Cantarell is now Exhibit #1." http://jubakpicks.com/2009/09/10/me...duction-is-proving-peak-oil-proponents-right/ From The Oil Drum:
We already have plenty of fuels we can use for heating, electricity and car fuel. It's because of the stupid oil goons that we haven't actually exploited any of it properly yet, as far as I'm concerned the only reason they're trying to scare people like this is so that they can get money for selling the stuff.