What "Lower Consumption" Means
Posted by Nate Hagens on November 5, 2009 - 10:06am in The Oil Drum: Campfire
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: consumption [list all tags]
Note from the author (Dan Allen): As a high-school teacher, I wanted to give my thoroughly-industrial, suburban-NJ students a more detailed peek at their upcoming post-industrial future. I felt the need to challenge their prevailing mindsets regarding our resource-depletion predicament: the “shorter showers & change the light-bulbs” crowd, the “engineers will surely come to our rescue” folks, and the “problem? -- what problem?” people. This essay and the before/after comparison chart that follows are part of my ongoing (unsanctioned) attempts at doing so.
WHAT LOWER CONSUMPTION MEANS
by Dr. R. Daniel Allen
Most of the kids have a good laugh with the before/after comparison chart, and I laugh along with them. The contrasts between the present and (likely) future presented in the chart are striking to the point of unbelievability to them, and their reactions are honest and humorous: “So, Dr. Allen, where can I buy this mule I’ll need?”
But I also laugh with some sadness and a touch of fear; sadness that prudent suggestions to prepare for a difficult future are still regarded as a joke; and fear for a possibly much darker future I don’t think they yet comprehend -- a fear that we might not be able to pull this off.
Note that this is directed at high school kids as part of my ongoing series of “important side notes” to the regular Chemistry curriculum. Even though topics such as EROEI and the “net energy curve” are very relevant to this discussion, I have not introduced them yet in this essay for the sake of simplicity. For these topics, I highly recommend many related posts on www.theoildrum.com by Ugo Bardi, Charles Hall, and David Murphy, as well as the references contained therein.
Executive Summary: The fevered frenzy of Industrial Civilization’s resource consumption appears to have finally reached its apex and begun its decline in this, the first decade of the twenty-first century. A closer look at the physical realities of resource extraction reveals that the resource situation is, in fact, terminal for our high-consumin’ civilization. Resource depletion is a predicament requiring adaptation to an entirely new low-consumption paradigm, rather than a problem to be solved with technological or social solutions. As a country, we need to start the conversation about what a lower-consumption, resource-poor society would look like, and begin the appropriate preparations.
The Insatiable Hunger of Industrial Civilization
Over the past 150 years, the relentless combination of exponentially-increasing population and exponentially-increasing per-capita (i.e. per-person) consumption has significantly depleted a wide-range of resources necessary for the continuation of our modern Industrial Civilization. These include both non-renewable resources (ex: fossil fuels, metal ores, phosphate fertilizers, etc.) and theoretically-renewable resources that are being abused to such an extent that they are becoming essentially non-renewable on useful timescales (ex: fisheries, topsoil, freshwater, etc.).
Pick any of these key resources and the annual extraction rate data will likely show an exponential increase from the mid-1800’s to the present. Ask scientists about the resource and they will tell you the bad news: the annual extraction rate curve is near, at, or past the point of collapse. Ask conventional economists or politicians and they will tell you the good news: “Everything’s going to be OK; the market will take care of it; It always has.”
So who do we believe? Taking a quick look past the rhetoric, the situation becomes clear -- alarmingly so for those who wish the industrial party to continue, as well as for those who fear we are not properly prepared for what follows.
The Easy Stuff’s Gone
As modern Industrial Civilization built momentum, the easiest resources, the “lowest hanging fruit,” were logically picked first: the high purity coal, metal ores, and phosphate-bearing minerals at or near the surface; the light, sweet crude oil and gas that burst at great pressure from shallow wells; the huge, dense schools of protein-rich fish that practically jumped into the boats; the deep-rich top-soils that required minimal inputs to produce bountiful crop yields.
While the ease of extraction and high quality of these resources gave us a great confidence as a civilization, ever-increasing consumption rates actually became ingrained as a necessity for the continuation of our industrial economies. As this consumptive frenzy gained momentum, however, these once-easy resources became “high graded;” meaning that as the easiest stuff was skimmed off every year, the resources that remained were of increasingly lower quality.
What remains now, of course, at our currently-advanced stage of depletion, are resources that are much more expensive, of much lower quality, and much more difficult to extract. These are the low-purity metal ores thousands of feet underground; heavy crude oil and gas laced with toxins that must be coaxed with great effort from beneath thousands of feet of ocean, rock, and salt; sparse schools of lower-quality fish requiring monstrous nets and huge ships for their economical extraction; and the nutrient-depleted, thinned-out top-soil requiring significant inputs to obtain reasonable yields.
The Difficult Stuff’s Too Difficult
Let’s assume to a very rough (but not entirely unreasonable) approximation that half of all theoretically-extractable resources have been depleted as we begin the 21st century – fossil fuels, metal ores, phosphate fertilizer, fisheries, etc. The industrial consumers say, “Wow, that still leaves half remaining to be extracted. We still have another 150 years of fun. Party on!” There are, however, two key problems that will undermine their (understandable) exuberance.
First, due to much-increased population and per-capita consumption rates, we are burning through these resources at a significantly faster rate than at the start of the first 150 years. Even if the second half of the resources were easily obtained, they would be likely be gone in a matter of a few decades. Secondly, the first half of the resources was the cheap, easy half. What remains is so increasingly difficult to access that it would require actual extra-terrestrial energy inputs for their complete extraction – i.e. it’s not gonna happen. Not even close.
Here’s the dark irony of our resource predicament: The low-quality, difficult half of the resources that remain require an infrastructure for their extraction that can only exist in the presence of the high-quality, easy half of the resources -- the ones that no longer exist. Please read that again.
In other words, a relatively large percentage of the low-quality, difficult resources that remain will likely never be extracted. The age of cheap, easy, high-quality resources to power the current version of Industrial Civilization is over, and the age of expensive, difficult, low-quality resources to power a future version of Industrial Civilization will simply never occur.
Our beloved Industrial Civilization, this pinnacle of human ingenuity, this shining beacon of light in an otherwise backward Universe, (this destructive monster killing the biosphere) is just about out of fuel. It’s time to get out and start walking.
Lower Consumption Is the New Higher Consumption
So what does all this “bad” news mean for our everyday lives?
The short answer is that we can expect a rather drastic involuntary reduction in resource use in the not-too-distant future, gradually worsening, and extending into the distant future. This coming resource supply-reduction may well proceed in a stair-step fashion -- unexpected drop, period of stability, unexpected drop, period of stability…etc, giving repeated temporary illusions of “the bottom.” The steady erosion of the resource pipeline will not only utterly cripple our growth-requiring Industrial economy, it will send ripple effects through every facet of our formerly-industrial lives, changing them almost beyond belief.
We will not only have less and less of the “primary” extractable resources available to us every year -- less oil, less coal, natural gas, less phosphate fertilizer, less metals, etc; but we will also have less and less of the “secondary” resources that the primary resources make possible: less electricity, less nitrogen fertilizer, less water treatment, less transportation, less computers and electronic communication, etc.
Again, it’s important to state here that not only will this decline be involuntary, it will not be preventable by any combination of political, social, or technological solutions. It will simply occur, and we must simply respond to it.
How we respond, of course, will make a great deal of difference as to whether our predicament becomes disastrous or just very difficult. Moral guidance will be greatly needed throughout. The varied fields of Ecology, Biophysical Economics, Permaculture, and Natural Systems Agriculture (among others) have much to teach us about adapting to our changing resource situation, and we certainly should listen to them. (Note to Obama: Please contact the Post Carbon Institute. Invite Wendell Berry over for a beer. Heck, Derrick Jensen too.)
Also realize that there are many important facets of our lives which need not decline in the upcoming future – indeed, they may even increase: personal connections with our families, communities, and the natural world; block parties and potlucks; tag-football and pickup-basketball; joking around and shooting the breeze; love in our hearts, etc. In other words, it’s quite possible we just may find a lot more important and fulfilling things than we’re losing.
Much is still up to us.
What Lower Consumption Means
The following chart is meant to give a brief flavor of our coming lower-resource future. A quick read down the left column gives a pretty good overview of our current Industrial society, in all its fast-paced, consumptive glory.
I’ve been told by my students that the right column reads seems suspiciously Amish-like. That’s really not an accident -- the Amish generally lead a much less consumptive lives. Whatever you happen to think of their social structures, the physical lifestyles of the Amish will probably gradually become the lifestyles of a majority of the population.
Another accusation I get is that I’m predicting the 21st century will increasingly resemble the 18th century. I respond with this: if that’s what the Laws of Thermodynamics and the finite material limits of the Earth dictate, I don’t see how we have a choice.
Let’s try to make the best of it.
|
NONE/LESS OF… |
REPLACED WITH… |
|
Cars & trucks |
Bicycles, walking, electric scooters, horses, & mules |
|
Airplane travel (domestic & international) |
Infrequent long journeys by trains and boat |
|
Power boats, barges, ocean liners, cargo ships, & super tankers |
Sailboats, row-boats, canoes |
|
Supermarket food shopping |
Home gardens & local farmers markets |
|
Vacations (domestic & international) |
“Stay-cations” to local beaches, rivers, lakes, forests; Sunday’s at the creek |
|
Restaurant & fast food meals |
Cooking at home & family meals |
|
Electronic gadgetry (TVs, computers, ipods, cell phones, DVDs, etc.) |
Entertaining friends at home, block parties, visiting among neighbors, |
|
Hollywood movies & CDs/downloads of your favorite bands |
Community theater & neighborhood concerts by local artists & musicians |
|
Power tools |
Hand tools |
|
Electricity on demand |
Partial/multi-day electrical blackouts & limited-use electricity restrictions |
|
Electric light bulbs |
Candles & early bedtimes |
|
Universities & colleges |
Community colleges & trade apprenticing |
|
Large grade-schools & high-schools |
Small community schools & home-schooling |
|
Huge farms in California & Mid-west supplying our food |
Small farms everywhere (even in suburbs & cities) supplying our food |
|
Oil/gas/electric home-heating |
Wood stoves, passive solar, insulation, sweaters, blankets, & long underwear |
|
Air conditioning |
Shade trees, swimming holes, cool drinks, & sleeping on your porch |
|
Hot showers |
Cold showers, luke-warm baths & solar water heaters |
|
Running water |
Cisterns & hand pumps |
|
Swimming pools |
Swimming holes; local rivers, lakes, & oceans; dipping your head in a bucket |
|
Parking lots |
Bike racks & hitching posts |
|
Skyscrapers & huge office buildings |
Bat habitat & salvage projects |
|
Refrigerators & freezers |
Root cellars, smoke-houses, drying racks, ice-houses, & salt barrels |
|
Credit card, loans, & debt in general |
Cash, bartering of goods, trading work |
|
Skiing & snowboarding |
Sledding, snowball fights, ice-skating |
|
Budweiser, fine wines, & mixed drinks |
Home-made wine, beer, hard cider, & moonshine |
|
One-family households |
Extended-family or multi-family households (i.e. Grandma’s comin’ home…and so is Uncle Bob) |
|
Divorce & re-marriage |
Gritting it out (& hopefully working it out) with support of extended family |
|
Clothes shopping |
Hand-me-downs, mending, making |
|
Not knowing (or barely knowing) your neighbors & little interaction with them |
Intimately knowing your neighbors & relying on them for your survival |
|
Terrorist threats (i.e. trying to grow commerce in an increasingly hostile global political climate) |
Climate threats (i.e. trying to grow your food in an increasingly unpredictable physical climate) |
|
Overweight & obese people |
Malnutrition & “just enough”; lean & skinny people |
|
High-fructose corn syrup & table sugar |
Honey & fruit |
|
Putting out recycling & garbage |
Re-using everything & fixing stuff |
|
Police protection |
Neighborhood-watch groups |
Very nice. Well done and easy to understand.
Hi.
Thanks.
Someone deep below in the thread (Bert in RI) expressed concern that I was damaging my students' psyches. I responded to his comment & it's worth reading.
-- Dan
Unfortunately, this is all a little beside the point. We here at TOD are so wrapped up in oil depletion speculation that we've missed the main game. Listen to all these podcasts and then ask yourself if global warming is not the real endgame:
4o and Beyond : International Climate Conference
It's all over bar the shouting, I'd say.
Not really, this is TOD not www.realclimate.org, however I think to pick one issue such as climate change over the myriad of synergistically interconnected feedback loops that make up our support systems is, I believe, somewhat short sighted.
To be very clear climate change is a biggy but it can't be dealt with in isolation from everything else.
We need a more comprehensive systems analysis type of approach. Otherwise we end up like the blind men examining the elephant and saying it is like a snake, a tree or a wall, none of which are accurate or useful descriptions in and of themselves.
To be honest, I find the posters and commenters here at TOD to generally have a firmer grasp on the big picture than most other sites.
Good essay Dan! As a quick intro to the "predicament" it should stay in their memory.
A suggestion would be to add a few examples of the "infrastructure" you mention in the third section. Examples can bring ideas to life.
Oil isn't hard to replace. We can see that from how easy it is on a personal level:
If fuel prices double, why not just buy a Prius (which will reduce fuel consumption by 50%)? Or, if Priuses are suddenly back-ordered (because everyone else has the same idea), put in your order and carpool with one other person (which will reduce fuel consumption by 50%) until it comes??
If they double again, put in an order for a Volt (which will reduce fuel consumption by another 80%), and carpool in your old vehicle with 3 other people, or your Prius with one other person until it comes. If you want to eliminate fuel consumption entirely, put in an order for an EV, like Nissan's Leaf, and again, carpool till it gets here.
Carpooling - the horror.
So when oil prices double, meaning you have less cash, your solution is to... spend more cash?
If I can't afford to fill the fuel tank, how am I supposed to afford a new car?
Seems like, if fuel is too expensive, people will just stop burning it. And in fact we find that's what happens. Here in Melbourne when petrol went from $1/lt to $1.65 in a month, more people used trains, and walked or cycled from here to there. The people who had been taking international vacations took interstate ones, the people who had been taking interstate vacations took in-state ones.
Still not changes on the scale the authour is suggesting, but in the same direction.
So when oil prices double, meaning you have less cash, your solution is to... spend more cash?
Of course. You'll save money pretty quickly. Heck, in the long run PHEVs and EVs will be cheaper to run than ICE vehicles are today.
Nick
I do not think you understand what is being said here. The point is that there is not going to be enough resources to build the PHEV's and EV's and...
What is being said here is doomer nonsense. EVs are already in production.
Specifically which ones, how many, where are they sold, who is buying them and what do they cost?
We already have EVs here where I live. The bigger ones can squeeze two people in!
Obese or lean?
I have EV cars where I live too. They were converted by enthusiasts who spent $20k to turn 10 year old Dihatsu charede inot a ten year old EV (with new batteries). Nobody is rushing them with orders.
Yes, I understand. I disagree.
Very little oil is used in manufacturing, whether it's PHEVs and EVs, or wind turbines. We have plenty of electricity, steel, glass, etc.
What planet do you live on? It's not earth.
What you said is like saying the earth is flat, it's that far from reality.
We have virtually unlimited electricity resources in spent nuclear fuel, depleted uranium, and thorium. We have technologies to use these resources effectively, however blocked by regulating the nuclear energy to clinical death. It is reasonable to expect that these asinine regulations will be reformed or dropped, depending how much shit hits the fan, and how fast the fan blows.
Besides having large resources of iron ore, we can already recycle almost everything using plasma arc technologies. There is clearly plenty of sand around to make glass.
It seems that what you are saying is indeed a doomer nonsense, likely based on fear perhaps leveled to increase perceived scarcity and therefore related profits, not clear thinking. It is safe here: have a cookie :-)
What happens when you lose your job? I can't see too many unemployed people dashing out to buy a Prius.
I don't see too many unemployed people dashing out to buy any car.
Exactly. With half a million people losing their jobs every month, even before oil production is really declining in earnest, the "hybrids/EVs will save us" argument is a delusion. As Bill Clinton said famously, "it's the economy stupid."
We've had bank panics before, and we'll have them again.
The US's trade deficit in oil certainly contributed to our current recession, and it will certainly slow it down in the future. But an inexorable decline? No.
$12 trillion national debt (and growing), with $500 trillion in derivatives (among other ponzi schemes) left to unwind is hardly a temporary "bank panic". A more accurate term is "insolvent". Good luck with your Prius dude.
$12 trillion national debt
I think the generally accepted figure is about 2/3 of that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
That's in the same range as other countries such as Germany, and rather less than the category leader - Japan.
Nick wrote:
"But an inexorable decline? No."
This is called a 'bald pronouncement'. For a more in-depth discussion, check out "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg from your local library (or buy it, it's worth every penny).
To assess how our society can respond to these problems, we have to evaluate the various proposed solutions. The problem with Heinberg, Hanson, Kunstler, et al? They don't understand wind and solar, and haven't taken them seriously. They've just assumed that they aren't adequate. Look through their writings and you don't find an accurate, detailed analysis anywhere.
His treatment of wind and solar in "Powerdown" is relatively undetailed. "The Party's Over" is a bit more thorough, with 4 and half pages devoted to wind, but there's still no detailed, quantitative analysis. It has some numbers, but they're oddly uneven, and ultimately it's overall conclusions don't follow. For instance, on page 152 he says: " Current storage batteries are expensive, they are almost useless in very cold weather, and they need to be replaced after a few years of use. Currently, there are no batteries available that can effectively move heavy farm machinery or propel passenger carrying aircraft across the oceans."
Well, with the exception of the last bit about aircraft, none of this is accurate (which he would have discovered, had he looked at the numbers). See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/07/volt-battery-costs-part-3.html as well as http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html .
loiz
The doomers are motivated by profit at the expense of others is an argument commonly used by anti-doomer types. From my experience and a small research project I did in college, I would say that the vast majority of doomer types in no way benefit financially from their doomer believes. Most doomer types are highly educated and are far less money motivated than the norm.
Maybe this argument is a case of projection?
Ever try to fertilize a thousand acres using spent fuel rods? Make a list of things we use/need that don't require petroleum somehow. I did and it was REALLY short.
There are very few things that require oil. See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
A small quibble - fertilizer is produced from natural gas, not oil.
Regarding agriculture: I recently read McKibben's book Deep Economy: I like a lot of what he has to say. Oddly, I don't yet see any sign of a sharp choice between prosperity and, say, local and better food.
For instance, he says that low-input farming requires twice as much labor per acre, but then that it produces twice as much food per acre. That sounds like it requires no more labor per unit of food. What's not to like?
Well Nick If you care to jion me out in the creek bottom on a sunny August day and hoe some corn you will soon find out.You will need a physical and a note from your doctor and you will have to sign a release-unless you are young and lean-if which case some blisters and a few sore muscles are the only likely issues.
If it can possibly be avoided I will never dhoe corn again but I did it as a youngster.
I agree - farming is a very tough life.
Low input farming is a very tough life-farming using modern methods involves a lot of hours and some occasional hard physical work but except for the uncertainties of weather and markets it is really no harder than many other hands on businesses-it's just riskier.
And you ARE OUTSIDE a lot.;)
however blocked by regulating the nuclear energy to clinical death.
Given publicly documented sleeping guards at a fission plant - only documented after the failure of the internal management....how exactly do you arrive at your conclusion?
"Very little oil is used in manufacturing, whether it's PHEVs and EVs, or wind turbines. We have plenty of electricity, steel, glass, etc."
Rubbish. Most modern cars are full of petroleum derived plastics. Try building one, even an EV, without plastics and see far you get. Steel begins it's life as iron ore and coal, both of which are dug up and transported using diesel trucks and trains. Glass begins as silica sand transported on trucks and trains. Electricity infrastructure is built and maintained, oh yeah, with trucks. The last wind turbine I saw go up was made from steel, tranported on a truck, lifted in place with a diesel powered crane, and hooked up to the electricty lines that had just been installed by the diesel powered machinery. And thats before we even started drawing the plans for the EV factory let alone produce one.
Nick, you appear to know very little about manufacturing and engineering and what goes into building cars or anything else and your commentary on technology lacks any technical analysis or depth. You seem to be passionate about energy issues, but please take off the rose coloured glasses and try to provide some evidence for your assertions.
You mean ... you mean ... that Santa Claus does NOT bring all the toys to all the toy stores in all the malls via Fed-Reindeer Express every night so that we little bitty itty children can have things to play with the next day? No instant and free gratification?
Bwahh bwahh (sound of child crying)
Manufacturing oil consumption (including plastic and other parts) vs lifecycle oil consumption:
per the CMU study cited by ILEA ( http://web.archive.org/web/20080210034026/www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1... ), fuel and the fuel cycle is about 85% of the total. Only a small part of the manufacturing energy is petroleum.
----
Yes, diesel transportation is used for manufacturing. OTOH, roughly 50% of overall oil consumption is for personal transportation.
We're going to have enough oil for many decades for the minority of oil consumption that is most needed, and it will be gradually replaced.
See: http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
-----
This link has some data for the industry in US.
http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/energy/ch3-9.pdf
Electricity accounts for 40% of energy used,NG48% and gasoline and fuel oil 10%
The link states energy accounts for 1% of the total cost of vehicle production. If that's say $200 per vehicle and 10% is for oil that would be $20 worth of oil(<10gallons gasoline), or 1/4 barrel oil/vehicle.
--
"This report looks at motor vehicle manufacturing
operations—specifically facilities that assemble Major fuel sources: Electricity, natural gas finished automobiles and light duty vehicles from Current economic and energy consumption data are premanufactured automotive parts including the summarized in Table 48 on page 3-78. engine, chassis components, and wheels and
tires (NAICS 33611).249 The assembly process generally includes stamping, body welding, general assembly, and painting."
"The majority of sector energy demand is met by electricity, with natural gas and other purchased fuels meeting the remainder. Energy expenditures comprise approximately 1 percent of total vehicle production costs.254"
"From 1998 to 2004, electricity purchases have ranged between 50 to 60 percent of total energy costs for the industry.258"
"Energy Intensity in 2002: Energy Cost per Dollar of Value Added (share): 1.1%"
"Primary Fuel Inputs as Fraction of Total Energy Supply in 2002 (fuel use only)kkkk: Natural Gas Net Electricity Other
48% 41% 7%"
http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/energy/ch3-9.pdf
In other words, we could have 40 million extra barrels of oil per day and no place to put them.
You can sign up for a new EV here Termoil:
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/#/car/index
You can sign up for a new EV here
X Error: BadWindow (invalid Window parameter) 3
Major opcode: 20
Minor opcode: 0
Resource id: 0x261c408
[2] Illegal instruction (core dumped) konqueror
Not if it crashes the browser.
Your system doesn't like flash intros. Try the link from this CNBC report:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33137794
Seriously Nick you have been a member for +4 years on the Drum and you are still working with this? Have you been cutting class? Macro/Micro Resource depletion will most likely nix the easy progression you are hoping for. I really think you are under estimating the population, social and economic dynamics we are facing accentuated by the throbbing momentum of universal consumption. Stay engaged and thinking it will get you there eventually. I do agree with the carpooling comment grew up in the 60-70s and with a carpooling Dad and the party line phones, 1 TV home etc. Survived quite well and experienced the smaller world concept, worked well for me and certainly a necessary step to where we are most likely going. The faster we make that progression the longer we get to play even if its a bit muted. I think the whole program being suggested by this discussion is relevant maybe a bit beyond my expectations but truly within the scope of possibilities and would say well done and good luck.
Macro/Micro Resource depletion will most likely nix the easy progression you are hoping for.
What, specifically?
I really think you are under estimating the population...dynamics we are facing
Well, Population growth in the US is only about 1% per year.
I really think you are under estimating the...social and economic dynamics we are facing
Well, that's a different discussion - the Original Post is talking about physical limits. It's clear to me that technical solutions exist for PO and CC. On a personal level, that's especially clear: anyone who wants to buy a bike, or carpool, or buy a Prius (and then modify it into a PHEV pretty cheaply) can do so.
On a social and national economic level....that depends on a lot of things, including resistance to change from those who stand to lose careers and investments. That's tougher. My best guess is that oil importers like the US have a large risk of some years of economic stagnation (roughly on the order of Japan's recent experience) or reduced economic growth - definitely not BAU as defined by most people.
Where to start...Lithium for batteries, REE's for wind,solar that are required for your technical adaptation. Limited Phosphorus, Potassium for ferts., record low grain stocks and the decreasing capability of replacing them due to declining water and arable land resources.
The U.S. population growing at 1% how about the world growing at much higher rate 100's of plus millions per year. How about declining capital (credit) to squeeze out the last drops of resources to name several keys. The word is Overshoot we are there the question when does it fully slap us in the face. Seriously are you being sarcastic or what? The constraints the good Dr. outlines are not heresay. You're arguments imply the world ends at the borders of the U.S.
No physical limits are on a collison course with the Worlds demand for more western world lifestyles we can't make all that stuff whether it be Kobe beef, or Prius's without the raws. More and more want the stuff that will never be available due to the inability of the earth to provide for all those wants. The population increases exacerbate the diminishment of the resources. Cheap easy FF has allowed this to occur and their increasing scarcities will initiate and then accelerate our demise as our ability to access and consume will be terminally impaired.
Well said, Crude. "our ability to access and consume will be terminally impaired" is the best way to put it, me thinks. :)
Nick, using "%growth of population" doesn't indicate anything until you tie a real number of something being consumed. The problem is not about having more people - but about meeting their needs! The average american consumes 72 times what an average Bangladeshi consumes. Its all about the volumes. For the US, the problem is made worse by the _predicament_ of a life-style utterly dependent on heavy use of energy. US is the largest user of road transportation, not just the citizens but also their life support services. All of this is supported by an economy that relies on ever increasing consumptions to distribute "profits" to capital providers via a 'stock market'. As the consumption decreases due to Reality's limits, many businesses will go bankrupt. Some of these might be your very life support systems! To rub salt into an already bad looking wound, there is the problem of Suburbia.
We don't need to run out of oil. Mere onset of ripple effects are enough to introduce chaos. Have you considered what would be the impact of fuel shortages to the Police department or to Medical facilities?
We'll not only "go back" to the 18th century, we'll probably be worse off.
... or maybe we should optimistically look at this as an opportunity to get to a saner life-style. Like the "Talking Heads" song "Nothing but flowers" goes :)
Lithium for batteries
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/02/could-we-run-out-of-lithium-for-ev...
REE's for wind,solar that are required for your technical adaptation.
I presume you're discussing neodymium for permanent magnet motor/generators. As it happens, neodymium isn't that rare. OTOH, if there were a supply problem, permanent magnet motor/generators can be replaced with induction versions.
Limited Phosphorus
The following reference seems to answer the question, given that Florida provides 25% of world production:
How Long Will Florida Phosphate Mining Go On?
For decades, it has been said that the phosphate in Florida could be mined for about another 25 years. Technological advances and market changes, however, have continually lengthened the expected life of phosphate mining, allowing mining of rock that wouldn’t have been mined in previous years.
The Hawthorne Formation, which contains much of the Florida phosphate deposits, covers much of the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States. In the heart of the Central Florida phosphate district, the Bone Valley Formation overlays the Hawthorn Formation. The two are separated by a limestone layer of varying thickness. It is the Bone Valley Formation that has produced the majority of mining activity in central Florida to date. The Hawthorne Formation is being mined in North Florida. It is also the Hawthorne Formation that is being mined in the southern extension of the central Florida phosphate district.
Florida phosphate reserves alone contain about 10 billion tons of soluble phosphate rock. Based on the current mining rate in Florida, this would last more than 300 years if economic and technological conditions allow. This gives us quite a lot of time to set up recycling.
http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/PhosphatePrimer/0/D180A63B2294832985256F770...
More later, I hope...
Hey Nick, ever heard of this?
True Cost Economics
What Does True Cost Economics Mean?
An economic model that seeks to include the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and services. Supporters of this type of economic system feel products and activities that direct or indirectly cause harmful consequences to living beings and/or the environment should be accordingly taxed to reflect the somewhat hidden costs. Investopedia explains True Cost Economics
This school of thought is on the rise as a result of the perceived need for ethical consideration in neoclassical economic theory. However, the cost of many goods and services that are currently affordable, and often taken for granted, could see an extreme rise in costs if their "true costs" are accounted for.
For example, if one accounted for air, noise and other types of pollution caused by the manufacturing and the use of a new car, then the price of the new car would, by estimates, raise by over $40,000.
Hey Nick, ever heard of this? - True Cost Economics
Sure. It's a good idea - the sooner the better.
I think you may be assuming I'm saying things that I'm not.
The Original Post said that we're running into inexorable physical limits. That's what I'm disagreeing with.
OMG! Nick! Population growth of 1% per year doubles population in 60 years. How do you propose feeding the next 6.5Billion people? Using what, exactly, for fertilizer? Your BS?
Grow up and think about what is going on. I am considered an optimist by most of my family; I am realistic and see where things are headed. There is not enough time to build what it would take to replace our infrastructure with all nuke power [neglecting that we are at or near peak Uranium, and even depleted fuels are limited - having said that I agree we will need quite a bit of that, but it ain't the answer you think it is, my friend], supplemented by water, wind and solar.
The greatest problem we will have as oil slides is the excess population. We cannot continue to grow 1% a year - we cannot afford to limit decrease to 1% a year, but no one thinks we will try that. It will take a few decades of starvation, possibly resource wars, and eventually determination for the world, and that includes North America, to discover its limits. Past history shows that we will overshoot on the way down, and then come back a bit. My hope is that TOD people will have enough influence on decision makers to dampen the bad, so that what we have is not a 'doomer' world.
Population growth of 1% per year doubles population in 60 years.
The US fertility rate is roughly at replacement - growth is mostly coming from immigration.
The world's growth rate is leveling off: take a look at the UN projections.
Nick,
Being skeptical is good but try scratching a little bit below the surface. The U.S. is not the world and the worlds population is demanding an increasing amount of resources. Why should the U.S and the West continue to be the dominant consumers of the worlds goodies? Asia dwarfs the west'a population and they are wanting more of our lifestyles. Check out this presentation on the worlds food and phosphorus dilemna. Its not pretty and growing worse by the day. The U.S. is past peak in her P production and is now an importer. So what does it say if a major producer is now dependent? Page 10 addresses this but most of the presentation is worth the view. I happen to think that Legend is a good place to park a few shekels. (full disclosure I own some)
http://www.lgdi.net/
You seem to want to soft sell the scale required to supplant the current paradigm of energy consumption. Check some math out to see how the replacements will go. Then kindly inform me of the numbers for current replacement that the Nuke's, solar and wind under (and even planned) construction will help us cancel out. You didn't comment on Lithium maybe because its tough to find a life vest that makes the nums work for a car centric world
Like a lot of REE's and essential minerals you have to find a deposit that can be mined with a reasonable return on the energy and capital required to make it work. There is a pattern here that repeats itself across a lot of the resources that make the current and (your) envisioned world work at a managable pace. That pattern is deficit in its ability to uphold the current state much less the evolving one. You seem to be at the quest point here in trying to make this work out in your head. There is a lot of additional material you can look up, the Drum is hard to beat in a lot of ways but its also good to go for a big picture view. I suggest the biggest bang for your reading time is Overshoot by William Catton. Available on Amazon beyond that try Jarod Diamonds Collapse. These are by no means the bomb on the subject lots of other too. Catton was the great epiphany for me. Good Luck Grasshopper.
Catton has new book called Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse
I notice that oil is prominently featured on the book cover, so I presume PO is central.
His treatment of wind & solar in Overshoot is, of course, badly dated. I would hope that he's brought himself up to date.
So, what does he say about wind and solar power as a replacement for oil?
Phosphorus: see my other comment about Florida production. It looks like about a 300 year supply.
You seem to want to soft sell the scale required to supplant the current paradigm of energy consumption. Check some math out to see how the replacements will go.
Wind power would need about 50 GW per year in the US. That's only $100B per year. That's less than the manufacturing idled by reduced car production.
You didn't comment on Lithium
I did, in another comment. Lithium supplies don't look like a problem.
I looked at "Overshoot". It's treatment of wind and solar is out of date.
I really think you are under estimating the population...dynamics we are facing
Well, Population growth in the US is only about 1% per year.
Okay. This is what Bartlett means by his claim that people don't understand the exponential function.
1% doesn't sound like a lot. For example I pay 9% in sales tax on $100, I pay $9. Its easy to understand.
But take the population growth as an exponential function:
The current population size is 308,000,000. A growth rate of 1% per year means we add 3,080,000 people to the population per year.
That is the size of a very large US city. To determine that new population's environmental impact, you multiply the average impact per capita by 3.08 x 10^6. What you get is a huge number. Furthermore, that product, 3.08x10^6, is added to the total population, N, for calculating total population at year 2.
So in year 2 you are at 311,080,000 million people, and with a growth rate of 1% are adding 3,110,800 people in year 2. That is another large US city, or, for example, in those two years, are adding a city comparable in size to New York City to the cumulative environmental impact.
If you study this concept and begin to understand the exponential function, you begin to understand why some projections have the population of the United States reaching 1,000,000,000 (a billion) by the year 2100. If you would like to see the cumulative impact of 1 billion people in a population, take a look at India or China... and then ask yourself, where are all the cars going to come from? All the resources these people will need? The fresh water and energy?
Well, Population growth in the US is only about 1% per year. - Okay. This is what Bartlett means by his claim that people don't understand the exponential function.
Except..that population growth for both the US and the world isn't exponential - it's barely linear. That't the difference.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Now, people not understanding that exponential growth starts slow and ends fast is a classic example of Bartlett's claim. That's why people have such a hard time understanding why wind, solar and PHEV/EVs will take over.
Nick:
The problem with your scenario is the vehicle production and replacement cycle. If your old vehicle is a gas guzzler that has lost its resale value prematurely, you can't afford to buy a new car. If oil prices are high, used small cars hold their value, so you can't afford them either. We can only replace about 8% of the vehicle fleet per year (guessing here, and it's less now than last year), so if everybody tries to do this at the same time, there's a huge bottleneck. Also, the car companies may be unable to deliver a fuel-efficient car lineup in a timely manner if/when there is another gas crisis. Even if they could provide the car you want, the credit crunch will make it harder to buy once federal incentives run out(unless you have the cash in hand.) The current North American production lineup is still tilted towards large and/or overpowered cars and small trucks. These are the used cars of tomorrow. If you can't afford to put gas in them, then somebody has to walk.
As for car pooling, it only works if people who live beside each other work in the same place, on the same schedule. For this to be the cornerstone of an energy policy would work, but only because of the law of unintended consequences: the population would be drastically reduced by carpoolers shooting each other over continual lateness, bad hygiene, and not putting the seat far enough forward. As I have said before, the US is not a communist country, and more's the pity. I fully expect the path to energy efficiency (or Malthusian die-off) to be paved with the bodies of people who got in the way of someone's feeling of entitlement just a little too soon.
Yes, you've identified 2 problems:
1) premature obsolescence, which reduces the value of a car buyer's low-MPG tradein, and
2) capital expenditure lag, which delays the purchase.
Ok, these fight each other. If people can't afford to buy new vehicles, then a lack of supply isn't a problem, right? So, which is more important?
Supply: a significant portion of new cars are bought in cash. Another large % of buyers could afford to throw in enough cash to offset any loss of trade-in, if they had to. The primary problem will be a lack of supply.
So, what do people do while they're waiting? Carpool.
it only works if people who live beside each other work in the same place, on the same schedule.
Not at all. They only need to live and work somewhat near each other. Keep in mind that one only needs a 2-person carpool to cut costs by 50% - that's not hard to schedule. Also, keep in mind that the potential pool of partners is huge - just look around at how many people live within 2 miles of you: what % will work in the same direction as you do? Also, keep in mind the potential of online matching.
I find it absurd that people won't find a way to get to work, by bicycle, motorcycle, or carpool. The average commute is only about 16 miles...
3) A third problem
Not going to happen. Obama is too busy negotiating secret copyright treaties and shovelling gold into sacks for the master class he so well serves. As Jensen so nicely puts it, "hope" is something over which one has no control - and for most of us, the best we can do is "hope" the political classes do something useful. But they will not. Hoping that Obama et al will do something useful is suicide.
He is a lot smoother and thus scarier than George Jr.-he pushes stuff like this and a very high % of the public not only swallow it, they don't even want to know about it.
You are ignoring the fact that a ten year wait (the minimum time to completely replace the vehicle fleet) is a long time. There will be haves and have-nots in this game.
Those with money will avoid car-pooling as long as possible to maintain status. The aspirational will cut other corners to drive. The pool of poolers will be smaller than you think, and there will be stigma attached. It is about social re-organization and the threat of class war.
You sound like someone who has never done a long term carpool (I have.)
There are other benefits to a car besides getting where you're going- freedom to come and go from a remote location, privacy, status concerns, choice of the music on the radio. There are also time costs- waiting for others, driving out of your way to pick up or drop off a passenger, and they are all multiplied by each additional passenger in the car. They can add up to hours a week. There are also many other tasks we do in a car that are not work related. You can't car pool to your mother-in-law's, for instance. We gave up our second car about 5 years ago. I live in Toronto on a streetcar line (the stop is 50 feet away)so this has not been a problem. If my wife and I both commuted and worked at opposite ends of the city(which occurred in the late '90's), it would be a different story. Car culture has effects on labour market availability, job choice, and job retention. Carpooling is not an answer to fuel shortage. It is a sign of the apocalypse. Carpooling means that the low-hanging fruit (spare car, discretionary travel, short trips that could be walked or biked)has been picked. It is a sign that people are hurting. A society which depends on ad-hoc transportation solutions is a society that is either in a growth spurt (government can't keep up) or a decline (government can't be depended upon.)
You are ignoring the fact that a ten year wait (the minimum time to completely replace the vehicle fleet) is a long time. There will be haves and have-nots in this game.
When oil was $147, the wait was 6 months. Now, there's no wait (though sales have only dipped slightly, even in this recession). So, if you anticipate a 10 year wait...have you bought yours yet?
The pool of poolers will be smaller than you think, and there will be stigma attached.
Sure - most people don't like it.
There are other benefits to a car
Sure.
Carpooling is not an answer to fuel shortage. It is a sign of the apocalypse.
Perhaps. You're right - there are many other good strategies. I too commute via electric train, or telecommute. Much better. Still, carpooling would work if necessary.
A society which depends on ad-hoc transportation solutions is a society that is either in a growth spurt
Sure - that's what I'm talking about: a transitional strategy. Wasn't that clear in my very first comment that started all this?
The time stated is a minimum time to replace the whole vehicle fleet- the hundreds of millions of cars and trucks in the developed world. The industrial capacity to replace them before the end of their life cycle does not exist- we would need 10 times the # of car factories, assuming a 10 year replacement cycle (which is now more like a 15 year replacement cycle, and which would stretch even longer with higher gas prices or lower incomes.) Likewise, the factories that do exist are not tooled for small, or hybrid, or electric vehicle production (with the exception of Tesla, Prius and Volt lines, and a few other niche brands. All told, probably less than 2% of global production.) Converting to the production of highly efficient vehicles quickly would require the save kind of industrial miracle as World War II military production. And it would still take 5 years to completely change over the fleet. So if it was handled in a timely fashion by the government, and the money and energy were available, and the problem of the factories becoming obsolete almost as soon as you put them up is ignored(because once you've replaced the fleet, you're on a probable 20 year replacement cycle (if you build electrics to be driven short distances), so you need only half of the factories you had at the beginning(one quarter of the number you have at peak production)) you could do it. Not impossible, but unlikely.
A transitional strategy that takes 10 years and doesn't address the social upheaval it would cause is not very well thought out. Vehicles have a 10 to 15 year lifecycle. People have to consider that this purchase is going to follow them for a long time, and plan accordingly. Of course, they don't, or there wouldn't be a lineup to buy the new Camaro. Plain and simple, the transition has to happen before the crisis happens- it has to prevent the crisis. Because your transition strategy probably won't work.
As for me, I drive a 2001 Swift. 10 year old technology that is more efficient than anything in it's class (non-hybrid subcompacts) being produced today. The efficiency of subcompacts has dropped in the past 10 years. I'd like to replace it with a subcompact EV with a short range battery pack (say 40 miles). Where do I line up? Until someone can answer that question in an affordable fashion, I'll stick with the Swift.
The industrial capacity to replace them before the end of their life cycle does not exist- we would need 10 times the # of car factories
World car production capacity is probably about 70 million per year, and there are about 700M on the road. So, that's about 10 years.
See http://www.worldometers.info/cars/ and keep in mind that world car production capacity is badly underutilized.
I agree - replacing most vehicles with PHEV/EVs will take at least 20 years. Thing is, ASPO projects that liquid fuel production will have only dropped 11% in the next 20 years - we have time to transition. (page 40 of the presentation: http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/20090611%20Sydney4.pdf )
*Only* sixteen miles? Nick, you're reaching...
I took that thought from somebody who was advocating for bikes, and I probably took it too far.
OTOH, the point has some truth: people will find a way to get to work, and many people will be able to use bicycles, motorcycles, etc. Will it only be 25%? Well, that makes a difference - that's a lot of people who will be more able to wait for their PHEV/EV.
This is pretty basic stuff. The problem isn't paying for gas to fill up the car. The problem is having a job at all to which you will drive.
The Original Post disagrees:
"A closer look at the physical realities of resource extraction reveals that the resource situation is, in fact, terminal for our high-consumin’ civilization....this decline...will not be preventable by any combination of political, social, or technological solutions. "
He's talking about physical limits.
I really don't know if I should ROTFLMAO or bawl my eyes out. Even if we forget for the moment that we can't produce a Prius for everybody let alone fuel all the Priuses, how do you suggest the average unemployed American with his maxed out credit and upside down on his mortgage is going to be able to get the funds for this spur of the moment purchase?
What bothers me the most about this is that I'm sure there are millions of people out there who think like this.
Even if we forget for the moment that we can't produce a Prius for everybody
Why not? Priuses cost less than the average new car. It will take a little while, I'll grant you.
let alone fuel all the Priuses,
Well, it'll take only 40% as much as now. World liquid fuel production, adjusted for BTU's, is likely to only drop about 11% in the next 20 years.
how do you suggest the average unemployed American
The unemployed will have a harder time. Of course, the poorest 20% of americans tend not to have cars eve now.
Sam's best case is that the (2005) top five net oil exporters, accounting for about half of current world net oil exports, will be down to less than 5 mbpd of combined net oil exports in 20 years (versus about 24 mbpd in 2005), and their post-2005 cumulative net oil exports will be around 95% depleted.
Meanwhile, closer to home, combined net oil exports from Canada, Mexico & Venezuela--three of our four largest sources of imported oil--dropped by one-fifth in only four years, from 5.0 mbpd in 2004 to 4.0 mbpd in 2008.
OK, you're projecting that these 5 exporters comprise 50% of overall net exports, and that they will shrink by 80%. So, overall net exports will shrink by 40%?
How does that fit with Aleklett's projection?
Nick, Aleklett is writing about total liquids; westexas about oil.
More. Many small exporters have to import oil 'soon', making the situation worse.
Strictly speaking, Net Oil Exports is a Total Liquids number, but IMO, from the point of view of importing countries focusing on total production is like have a pleasant chat with your seatmate about your dinner plans as the aircraft you are on does a near vertical dive into the ground.
westexas, I suspect that Aleklett also counts CTL and GTL. And scaled up much.
Because ASPO has 'all liquids production' from under the ground down much more than 11% in 20 years.
Aleklett is president of ASPO International. Please, take a look at his assumptions: page 40 of the presentation: http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/20090611%20Sydney4.pdf
Nick, thanks for the link. I know Aleklett is head of ASPO.
Page 40 shows crude oil down to 55,1 mbd in their study. World oil supply (75,8 mbd) includes NGL which are carbon chains from C2-C6, so NGL substitutes oil only in a limited way. That 55,1 mbd is about half what 'the world' is expecting. Now, IIRC, crude oil-export is about 40 mbd. In the ASPO scenario, how much would that be in 2030 ?
NGL substitutes oil only in a limited way
It will work nicely as a feedstock for petrochemicals.
That 55,1 mbd is about half what 'the world' is expecting.
Well, that's according to the EIA, probably. We both know EIA projections aren't useful.
In the ASPO scenario, how much would that be in 2030 ?
That's what I was hoping Westexas could tell us.
Nick, the point is that most governments and industries are using that projections. That is why the transition is moving too slow.
He wrote that many times. I don't recall the exact numbers, but in the middle case scenario in 2030 there is not so much left to export. Even in the best case scenario it doesn't look good. I know that you consider westexas projections as too pessimistic. The problem is that a country past peak doesn't have many years left for a considerable amount to export. If production declines only a few percent, the export goes down like a rock.
When time goes on more and more countries have to look where to get 'their' oil from while less countries are able to export. Let's take Mexico: probably in a few years the U.S. cannot get oil from there, so the U.S will look f.i. in African countries where China also is trying to get as much oil as possible. So in the future there is many potential for conflicts, which could make the situation worse. Above ground factors allready don't look good in many countries.
most governments and industries are using that projections. That is why the transition is moving too slow.
True, that's a big problem. I think the larger problem is that big change to FF industries and the industries that use them, would cause a lot of change. That change is threatening to the career of anyone who works in them, or has invested in them.
He wrote that many times.
Could you help me find that? I've been reading his comments for a long time, and I've asked him explicitly lately, and he hasn't provided an overall net exports projection.
I know that you consider westexas projections as too pessimistic.
Also, too simplistic. The idea that KSA consumption will continue to increase in a linear fashion, when their per capita oil consumption is already at the level of the US, seems highly unrealistic. The projection that KSA production will fall dramatically is somewhat plausible, but speculative.
Aha, now I understand; an overall projection probably never. But the percentages for the past peak countries look very bad. Take into account that only 11 major oilproducing countries/regions are pre-peak. More than 50 are on plateau or past peak.
Nick, I agree. It won't continue in a linear fashion.
Actually, I'd say that ELM is far worse for the exporters than the importers. For the importers, it means freedom from an addiction to oil.
That freedom may be forced, painful and slow, but in the long-run most importing countries will be far better off.
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/09/would-we-have-been-better-of-witho...
Yes Nick, painful and slow. With a lot of people losing their job, social unrest, panic and maybe worse.
...and don't expect stock markets and banks to simply slowly decline. Larger investors will flee first, roiling the markets, and folding many (or most) of the banks just hanging on right now. What would that do to currency values?
Larger investors will flee first
Flee where? To Euros? Europe imports just as much oil per capita as the US.
Nick, I'm not interested in putting you down personally but responding to your arguments would be like trying to discuss the fine points of the GS84 coordinate system based on the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid with someone who believes it is as flat as a dinner plate.
Your perception of reality is profoundly flawed if you do not understand that we really *CAN'T* produce a Prius for everybody.
Nick does seem a bit starry eyed, but I think that we all did learn in the last price spike that gas usage is more elastic than many, myself included, had thought. -
It is certainly true, and should not be over looked, that car pooling is the fastest and least expensive way to cut back on transportation costs and fuel use. With current communications capacities, this could be much more flexible than in the past. We will also likely see a great increase in multi-use cabs and jeepneys (Pat Murphy has a whole chapter on these in his "Plan C").
And SOME people will continue to buy new cars. Of course, not everyone will have a Prius or Volt (I'm not sure that was part of Nick's claim, anyway), but if people car pool at a snug five-per-vehicle rate, that is only one in five that need a car, or a shared car...
For the record, I would prefer that the whole car culture be scrapped entirely, but I do think that many will desperately hold on to their habit of driving and riding in a car until it is absolutely impossible (or beside the point, since they have no where to go).
But certainly public transport, bikes and walking will be a larger and larger part of the mix as the post above notes.
I also agree with the post that there will be far fewer restaurants, but I wonder if they will disappear entirely. Certainly, there were inns and taverns that served food as well as other refreshments long before the ff age.
I'm always curious how people will respond when I object to this broad, unrealistic idea of Peak Oil-induced economic collapse.
There isn't really a good argument for it.
The most common appears to be circular: energy-shortages will cause economic collapse, economic collapse will cause energy shortages.
I'm surprised by this non-argument argument, though.
The traditional form of this argument is the skeptics: unusual claims require unusual proof. The odd thing is that this argument is usually used against claims that go against the broad consensus. In this case, the broad social consensus is what you might call BAU, not the concept of oil-induced economic collapse.
Really, the idea of PO-induced economic collapse is the one that needs unusual proof.
I think this kind of unusual proof has been provided on TOD for Peak Oil. It hasn't, for PO-induced economic collapse.
This isn't a very good characterization of the argument, esp. as made by Gail (the Actuary), but I see now why you think the way you do.
Don't worry about it Nick. Most people do not understand mutual causality and coevolution. You're just in a big boat with many others who like the idea of linear thinking. Extrapolation from the past helps them sleep at night. You know, like, "we've always had plenty of energy before so we will continue to have it in the future", or "this has never happened before so it can't happen now." Does that logic make you feel better?
Something similar happened before: Easter island. It is not only about energy what is going on.
Yes, and a truly wise species would have been able to learn from that. Diamond's book can be read by anyone. But all too few actually get it.
I'm not sure what your last sentence means to convey.
The Original Post said "A closer look at the physical realities of resource extraction reveals that the resource situation is, in fact, terminal for our high-consumin’ civilization. " IOW, that we're running into inexorable physical limits. That's what I'm disagreeing with.
Now, your reframing of the economic argument is plausible, but there are 2 problems:
1) That's not what this Post says, and
2) I've been reading TOD ever since it started: no one has provided evidence for the kind of complex argument you're suggesting. Usually it's on the order of: "when PO hits, utility worker's won't be able to get to work, so EV's won't work". That's really not convincing...
That's a very condescending reply that doesn't begin to prove your position.
Contrary data points: Countries in war operating on far less oil or other energy sources. Germany, Switzerland, the USSR during WWII all continued to function under far worse conditions. Factories produced goods.
The collapse argument has to explain far lower per capita energy economies that remained industrial and organized.
This isn't a very good characterization of the argument
Actually, it's not bad for being so short.
Most people do not understand mutual causality and coevolution.
And most people on TOD have no idea of the complexity of energy production & consumption, and the dynamics of the transition from one energy source to another.
linear thinking. Extrapolation from the past
Like "we've always used and depended on oil"? Something that, btw, hasn't really been true for very long.
I'd say that the assumption that we'll always depend on oil and FF is a very simplistic, linear thinking kind of thing.
I believe I see where you are struggling with the concept. Energy shortages will indeed create economic downturn, which in fact does not induce energy shortages, but means there will be less money to purchase energy, other commodities, and 'durable' goods.
This doesn't even get into the topic of the reliance of agriculture on cheap oil. Sure, we could reduce our other consumption to make sure all the agricultural production obtains what they need, but we don't even do that today, and it's no secret developing countries are struggling to feed their people.
As I said above, the Original Post said "A closer look at the physical realities of resource extraction reveals that the resource situation is, in fact, terminal for our high-consumin’ civilization. " IOW, that we're running into inexorable physical limits. That's what I'm disagreeing with.
Now, your reframing of the economic argument is plausible, but there are 2 problems:
1) That's not what this Post says, and
2) I've been reading TOD ever since it started: no one has made the kind of complex argument you're suggesting, let alone provided the kind of sophisticated support that it would need.
Regarding agriculture - you said "Sure, we could reduce our other consumption to make sure all the agricultural production obtains what they need". I think that disagrees with the Original Post.
"no one has made the kind of complex argument you're suggesting, let alone provided the kind of sophisticated support that it would need."
I've seen many discourses that provided the support you seek, though obviously you haven't read every post on here.
If you simply think "we'll just easily use less oil year after year, and alternatives will emerge that will take the place of oil and we'll keep consuming everything else at the current BAU levels", you obviously do not understand physical limits that have been discovered by societies throughout the history of civilization.
I've read many. They don't provide any evidence. Usually the discussion is on the order of "when PO hits, utility worker's won't be able to get to work, so EV's won't work". That's really not convincing. Now, some have gone into theoretical models of interdependency and resilience, but haven't connected them to the real world. LTG is probably the best known model, and it doesn't prove anything: it just shows how an economy might behave, if it were to hit hard, simple limits. It doesn't show that substitutes for FF, for instance, aren't possible.
If you simply think "we'll just easily use less oil year after year, and alternatives will emerge that will take the place of oil and we'll keep consuming everything else at the current BAU levels",
No, I don't think that. I don't think "alternatives will emerge" by magic, and I'm sure we'll run out of many things. The question is: will we see anything like the Original Post's scenario, in which the best substitute for a tractor is a mule???
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html for some of my thinking.
I see things at your website such as, "Trucking can be electrified ", which is clearly not going to happen for a majority of trucks for at least two decades. In order for that to happen, the economy needs to keep growing continuously. On top of that, you reference hybrid trucks, not EV trucks (which are infeasible for all but the lightest of lighweight cargo).
You are highly optimistic, and are trying to convince people that peak oil won't be so bad afterall. I'm sure there were people on Easter Island, Greenland, Anasazi, etc that felt the same way. Afterall, we are conditioned to think this way by watching movies, going to pep rallies, and seeing the historical growth created by fossil fuels. However, everytime you have a glass of wine or beer, think of the heady optimism of the yeast until they hit terminal resource limitations.
"Trucking can be electrified ", which is clearly not going to happen for a majority of trucks for at least two decades
1) review some of the comments on your last Original Post. You'll see that trucking can reduce it's diesel consumption very quickly with speed reduction and improved aerodynamics.
2) Inter-modal rail can replace trucks fairly quickly, and
3) Diesel will be around for decades for essential uses. Personal transportation will give up fuel for commercial transportation.
In order for that to happen, the economy needs to keep growing continuously.
Not at all. During the great depression, investment levels in new tech remained quite high - for many companies, it was their path to survival.
On top of that, you reference hybrid trucks, not EV trucks (which are infeasible for all but the lightest of lighweight cargo).
Not for short range. Electric drivetrains power freight trains, tanks, and enormous devices of all sorts. Actually, the larger the vehicle, the easier it is to carry batteries or backup generators.
You are highly optimistic, and are trying to convince people that peak oil won't be so bad afterall.
I took a slightly lighthearted tone, I'll admit. But..you're jumping to conclusions about what I think. I just think this Post is highly unrealistic, that's all. There's a great range in between this Post and BAU.
Nick, thanks for all the time you invested in this discussion. Your views are refreshing. Peak Oil will cause some major adjustments to the way we live, but there is no reason to assume a zombie apocalypse. Sure, some black swan might throw us back into the stone age... The original post successfully generates good discussion here on TOD, yet it is blinded by fear and will mainly turn people away from constructive discourse and awareness.
A) There will be reduced access to oil
B) Cavemen had little access to oil
C) We will be cavemen
(A & B) --> C
Rather
B) Business as usual
P) Living like primitives
~(~B --> P)
It is not the case that not BAU results in living like primitives.
I live in rural Mississippi, and we will not be riding mules 10 miles into town. There are plenty of trucks and SUVs around which can be used for scheduled "bus routes" with full loads and insanely high per person fuel efficiency.
Rather than abandoning televisions and computers, we will continue to turn to virtual "travel" and home entertainment as inexpensive alternatives to driving all over the place. My extended family heats and cools 4 houses on the old family land. If it comes to it, we can cool a single sitting room for the whole group to beat the summer heat; and that cuts the energy consumption for cooling down to 5% or less without even considering some intense new insulation for that room.
You actually may not be using computers or the internet. Most computers are obsolete and begin to physically fail in about 5 years. Hard drives crash, memory chips fail, CDs and DVDs delaminate in about a decade or sooner and flash memory drives could die in 25 years or sooner. That's a lot of plastic, rare metals and industrial high tech, meaning oil scarcity and/or metals scarcity will drive up prices. Then there's keeping the power grids up and sufficiently stable to host it all. And there's the negative wealth effects of deflation. I don't see a rosy high tech internet future for us or the PC. But hey, it's been fun!
Good thoughts.
It's amazing how easy it is to use a small fraction of the energy we're used to consuming, isn't it?
If we have to conserve for several years in order to get past an PO transition, we'll make it.
Is this JD in disguise?
1. Trucking is already down due to the contracted economy. Lowered speeds can help, and aerodynamics can help a little, but the oil production decline will continue past the point that these factors help; then what?
2. You don't understand long, medium, and short haul. True, freight trains can replace some long haul, though capacity would need to be significantly increased. Is that taking place right now on all (or most) freight lines?
3. Wishful thinking. Too many people will cling to their auto use through one flimsy justification or another.
You cannot replace a full fleet of a nation's trucks (at least not the developed countries) with a down economy, no matter how much you wish it to be so. New technology R&D is one thing, but recapitalization is something different. Have you had college-level economics yet?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hybrid-trucks
"Coca-Cola Enterprises is the most avid consumer of hybrid trucks in the U.S., deploying 327 hybrids out of a total fleet of 30,000." A tiny drop in the bucket.
So now you limit EV trucks to only short range.
Your other referenced vehicles are driven primarily by large diesel engines, not some little backup generator. If you really want to consider this as an alternative, calculate the required motive force to move a loaded 5 ton truck on its daily 100 mile rounds a) on flat land, and b) over mountains with at least 40 stops along the way. Then determine the amount of LiON batteries that will take. Then determine the cost of those LiON batteries. Hint: Fully 1/3 of the price of the Volt is wrapped up in the batteries, and that's for a lightweight passenger vehicle to go only 40 miles.
Do you have an engineering background to be able to do the calculations required to back up your claims?
It's easy to be optimistic. Ben Franklin once said, "Those who live on hope will starve." Tough times HAVE occurred in the past (e.g., Great Depression, World Wars) and we had cheap oil to bring us out of those times. Can we adapt without pain? I sincerely doubt it. What will adaptations look like 30 years from now? 50% of what Dan wrote may be exactly what transpires. Or 95%...
Is this JD in disguise?
No, some things are obvious to a lot of people - JD doesn't have a monopoly. I suppose I'm similar to him in that I'm willing to put energy into this kind of thing.
Trucking is already down due to the contracted economy. Lowered speeds can help, and aerodynamics can help a little, but the oil production decline will continue past the point that these factors help; then what?
Trucking will be replaced by rail; trucks will electrify; truckers will out-bid personal transportation for fuel.
capacity would need to be significantly increased. Is that taking place right now on all (or most) freight lines?
Yes, there's a pretty good level of investment going on. It's not for nothing that Warren Buffet is buying rail.
Too many people will cling to their auto use through one flimsy justification or another.
True - that's one of the reasons that more foresighted people will have less trouble buying HEV/PHEV/EVs.
You cannot replace a full fleet of a nation's trucks (at least not the developed countries) with a down economy, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Sure, you can. Investment in heavy equipment continued very strongly during the Great Depression. Wind and solar are growing strongly right now.
New technology R&D is one thing, but recapitalization is something different. Have you had college-level economics yet?
Sure - you're talking about permanent depression, which isn't in college-level economics, or indeed, any mainstream economics. See the Phil Fed article again.
"Coca-Cola Enterprises is the most avid consumer of hybrid trucks in the U.S., deploying 327 hybrids out of a total fleet of 30,000." A tiny drop in the bucket.
Sure. All of the big fleets are moving slowly. OTOH, they are moving. Don't forget - an exponential function starts slowly. Remember what Bartlett said about understanding exponential growth...
So now you limit EV trucks to only short range.
That's what I said all along. Not that long-range couldn't be done, with swappable batteries in trucking fleets. I just don't think that's the most likely thing.
Do you have an engineering background to be able to do the calculations required to back up your claims?
The calculations aren't hard. Trucks get about 6 miles per gallon, and there are about 40KWHs in a gallon of diesel - at 30% efficiency that's about 2KWH/mile. To go 100 miles would require 200 KWH. In 5 years 2nd gen li-ion will probably cost about $200/KWH, so that's $40K in batteries. Expensive, but doable.
Can we adapt without pain? I sincerely doubt it.
I agree - we're not moving fast enough/
What will adaptations look like 30 years from now? 50% of what Dan wrote may be exactly what transpires. Or 95%...
Only if we really screw up. Possible, but not likely IMHO.
More later...
"Really, the idea of PO-induced economic collapse is the one that needs unusual proof.
I think this kind of unusual proof has been provided on TOD for Peak Oil. It hasn't, for PO-induced economic collapse."
That's because peak oil as a concept is stunningly simple once you get it. The interactions between energy and the economy, on the other hand are enormously complex. I think that people HAVE in fact provided some pretty strong arguments that show that our economic system is premised on ever-increasing availability of energy. But these are harder concepts to follow than the idea that the rate of extraction of a limited quantity of a certain black viscous fluid will reach a maximum at some point that it will never again be able to recover thereafter.
I think that people HAVE in fact provided some pretty strong arguments that show that our economic system is premised on ever-increasing availability of energy.
1) they haven't. If you can find them, it would be interesting to review them.
2) first you have to show that wind, solar, nuclear, etc can't provide more energy.
All of this has been discussed exhaustively; you seem to be simply au contraire.
As far as 2) goes, this was well described by the Hirsch Report.
Robert Hirsch is perhaps the most visible advocate of this idea.
He has published several studies. The last one suggests that oil consumption is related to GDP in a 1:1 ratio - in other words, if oil consumption drops by 10%, GDP will as well. Here is what he said recently: "So then if one calculates a range of 2 to 5 percent, some people think the number may be larger, 2 to 5 percent per year increase in oil shortage, one comes up with a rather disastrous indication world GDP will decline by 2 to 5 percent a year in tandem with increasing oil shortages."
Is this realistic?
No. We can see this from economic history: in the US, oil consumption fell by 19% from 1978 to 1983, and yet GDP grew slightly. Similarly, world oil consumption has been flat for the last several years, but GDP growth has been (despite the current recession) quite strong, stronger than for the US (which itself has grown a net of 8% in the last 4 years, with 10% lower oil consumption, despite the current recession).
Hirsch seems to have looked at the relationship between oil and GDP over the last 20 years, noticed that the ratio of oil increase to GDP increase has dropped from the previous 1:1 to roughly 1:2.5 (an analysis which he attributes to the DeutcheBank, but which can be derived straightforwardly from IEA statistics). In other words, in previous decades as the economy grew, oil consumption grew as quickly, while lately less oil has been needed. Hirsch drew the very strange inference that GDP has become more dependent on oil, rather than less.
An important and relevant researcher here is Robert Ayers . We see that he showed that GDP is related to applied energy (exergy), and only very loosely linked to energy, let alone to oil consumption. The research indicates that BTU's only explain 14% of GDP,and that the source of those BTU's can change (coal to oil to wind, for instance). Both energy efficiency and energy intensity can change. Further, oil is only one source of BTU's. Oddly enough, many energy commentators seem to misunderstand Ayre's research, and think that it supports the idea of a strong causal connection between oil consumption and GDP.
US (and world) GDP would grow much more quickly than it's energy consumption (even including electricity). The best example of this is California, which has kept per capita electricity consumption flat over the last 25 years, while growing it's GDP relatively quickly.
Ayres used "exergy services", which are not "very close to BTU parity". Exergy services are work performed. So, for instance, a Prius performs the same work as a similar vehicle with half the MPG, but uses half the BTU's. Strictly speaking, a Prius can perform the same work as a Hummer (transporting people), and use 20% of the BTU's. An EV also does the same work as a Hummer, and uses about 1/3 of the BTU's as the Prius, and 1/15 of the Hummer's...and so on.
Another source for this argument is here: http://www.postpeakliving.com/downloads/Sill-MacroeconomicsOfOilShocks.pdf from the Philadelphia Fed. It concludes that a 10% decline in oil availability would reduce GDP, on a one-time basis, by about 2%. This means that GDP growth would be 2% lower than otherwise in roughly the year following the oil shock, then go back to it's historical growth rate. Interestingly, it finds no impact on inflation.
First, let me point out that I have agreed with you that many types of accommodations to PO oil, in the short run at least, and many on the thread have criticized particular predictions in the original post, particularly in the short term. There are indeed huge inefficiencies that can be taken advantage of to do the same work with much less energy input.
So I wonder if you would concede that an economy that has developed over the last two hundred years with overall increases of energy available to it every decade will need to make some quite basic adjustments as we head into a future where available energy, particularly from fossil fuels, decreases constantly and for ever?
The period between 1979-'83 was characterized by one-time shifts that cannot be repeated--shifting much production to electric from oil and off-shoring even more. With the Fed printing money like there's no tomorrow, one would have to be pretty myopic to think GDP numbers represent anything very real.
We can increase efficiency, but not indefinitely, and many efficiency measures take considerable up front costs. Same with renewables. Do you think we can increase the amount of available energy for ever?
I don't think you have to accept that everyone will be living with candles next year to see that the system will be challenged to its core in a world of ever lessening and ever more expensive energy from ff's.
Are you by any chance an economist? If so, what school of economics would you say you ascribe to?
There are indeed huge inefficiencies that can be taken advantage of to do the same work with much less energy input.
I agree. Surprisingly, others have disagreed with me most strongly on the idea that there are short-term accomodations that can deal with the declines in oil imports in the next 20 years.
So I wonder if you would concede that an economy that has developed over the last two hundred years with overall increases of energy available to it every decade will need to make some quite basic adjustments
Absolutely. It's going to a big, painful job. Actually, I think CC is a much bigger challenge than PO.
as we head into a future where available energy, particularly from fossil fuels, decreases constantly and for ever?
Unfortunately, we have a lot of coal, so we're not going to be running short of electricity anytime soon. I think we'll be able to ramp up wind & solar (and some nuclear) more than quickly enough.
The period between 1979-'83 was characterized by one-time shifts that cannot be repeated
Yes, electrical generation from oil was mostly eliminated (though there's still 5M bbl/day around the world being used that way), but there are other, very large low-hanging fruit. Personal transportation is the biggie. It accounts for 45% of oil consumption in the US, and just moving to Prius-like vehicles would reduce that portion by 60%. Moving to Volt-like vehicles would get rid of another 80% of the remainder of that portion, for a total reduction of about 40% of our overall oil consumption.
many efficiency measures take considerable up front costs. Same with renewables.
Well, a Prius is cheaper than the average US vehicle. PHEVs and EVs will only cost slightly more than ICE tech, with economies of scale. Wind power is certainly capital intensive, but the utility business is used to that. Wind will cost about the same as current ICE & FF tech over it's lifecycle.
Do you think we can increase the amount of available energy for ever?
It depends how you measure it. We'll have all the electricity we need, I'm reasonably confident. We don't normally count the primary energy in the wind, so wind power is automatically counted as only 1/3 the BTU's as FF electrical generation, and maybe 1/6 the BTU's of ICE fuel. So, if we account for energy in our traditional way, energy consumption will fall quite sharply.
Are you by any chance an economist?
No, though I use economics in my daily work. I've found that Jim Hamilton has been my best single source of economic analysis. You can find his blog on the TOD main page, or here: http://www.econbrowser.com/
"Do you think we can increase the amount of available energy for ever?
It depends how you measure it."
Did you mean "It depends whether you measure it"? Not measuring it is the only way to say energy (or anything else) can increase forever.
Thanks for the Hamilton link.
By the way, I, too, see CC as the greater challenge (or cause for despair).
OK, now I understand. A guy thing, perhaps.
Not measuring it is the only way to say energy (or anything else) can increase forever.
I'm not suggesting that it will increase forever. Really, no one is. It will flatten out. In fact, in the OECD it already has to a great extent.
1. You are misapplying Hirsch's statement; he was talking about oil shortages, such as the 1979 time frame. You have conflated 1980-1983 in, and need to go back to the drawing board. You'll see GDP did drop considerably in 1979, then as the North Sea and Alaska came on line, the tight oil market turned into an oil 'glut'.
2. Ayers: "The research indicates that BTU's only explain 14% of GDP,and that the source of those BTU's can change (coal to oil to wind, for instance)." Leave it to an economist to wave a magic wand and magically change infrastructure willy-nilly. He barely even mentions oil, so it's safe to say this is a theoretical exercise with little basis in real world energy dependencies.
3. "US (and world) GDP would grow much more quickly than it's energy consumption (even including electricity). The best example of this is California, which has kept per capita electricity consumption flat over the last 25 years, while growing it's GDP relatively quickly."
More low energy services (insurance, litigation, pharmaceuticals, etc) have been replacing heavy industry in the US, and the real estate bubble, derivatives, etc pumped up false 'earnings', so of course energy 'intensity' dropped, which shows that's a relatively meaningless metric, especially when so many goods are produced elsewhere.
Your Philadelphia Fed quote is also wrong; "The empirical evidence suggests that a 10 percent increase in the price of oil is associated with about a 1.4 percent drop in the level of U.S. real GDP". So according to your source, if oil went up 50% (e.g., from $2/gal to $3/gal), expect a 7% drop in GDP
You are misapplying Hirsch's statement; he was talking about oil shortages, such as the 1979 time frame. You have conflated 1980-1983 in, and need to go back to the drawing board. You'll see GDP did drop considerably in 1979, then as the North Sea and Alaska came on line, the tight oil market turned into an oil 'glut'.
Well, this was a complex period. Volcker had just raised interest rates to 18% to deal with inflation that was only partly caused by oil (much of it came from the Johnson-Nixon era - remember those price controls?),
North Sea and Alaska oil didn't arrive right away, esp Alaska.
Oil demand responses are typically delayed, as short and long-term elasticity of demand are very different, and there's capex involved.
I don't understand what you mean about Hirsch's statements: isn't this a general discussion of oil shortages?
*EDIT: Please note that high oil prices persisted until 1986.
I'm surprised you reject Ayres' work. He's very often quoted as an authority on TOD. In any case, his research is pretty thorough, and the periods he looks at start before those of oil's dominance, so it's not too surprising he doesn't assume that oil is somehow irreplaceable.
More low energy services (insurance, litigation, pharmaceuticals, etc) have been replacing heavy industry in the US, and the real estate bubble, derivatives, etc pumped up false 'earnings', so of course energy 'intensity' dropped, which shows that's a relatively meaningless metric, especially when so many goods are produced elsewhere.
You might want to quantify that. In fact, there's more US manufacturing than you think - remember all those Toyota and Nissan factories in the US South. The FIRE bubble has popped, and yet US GDP hasn't been affected nearly as much as that statement would suggest.
*EDIT: On oil vs GDP: Both your quote and mine are correct. Look closely at the paper: it's describing a cumulative temporary effect. So, if the economy is reduced by 7%, then we're talking about 3.5% for about two years, then a return to normal economic activity.
Now, I would argue that the paper exaggerates the short-term effect, due to an over-emphasis on the 1980 oil shock, and underestimates the long-term effect of a permanent price/supply change...but that's me.
.
I think it's reductionism again (my favorite topic). Nick thinks in a reductionist framework.
Nevertheless, he expresses a very common view, and other than the fact that repeated posts are really disrespectful of the general discussion, we do need to hear that viewpoint (once in a while). Nick is not convinced the case has been made that lack of affordable oil will lead to collapse. Most of the rest of us have been convinced of it.
I think he might be right that each problem, when viewed separately, has a solution, of course.
But what I am convinced of, is that here and there, some of the solutions that might have been will be found to be unavailable precisely because of the lack of oil. And that each of these situations will have a repercussion. This is because most of us work to provide others with "luxuries". What if most people (and businesses), faced with the unemployment rate they see, don't buy a hybrid? Loss of personal mobility will impact consumer spending, lead to further unemployment, and a (further) deflationary spiral.
And so our lives will be transformed radically, not because most of us can't adapt, but because enough of us will fail to adapt. I have become convinced that civilization as we know it is that fragile. Nick may think otherwise.
Paranoid
Sort of like needing 10 problems to be solved to have a successful outcome and all 10 have a 90% chance of happening. Looks good right... Wrong!
The chance of success is .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 = 35%
Little better that 1 in 3 chance.
Well said.
A misunderstanding of the basic nature of aggregate probability is often one of the "missing filters" in the minds of many otherwise functional folks.
The fellow who did the space-power post comes to mind.
If we spend enough time thinking of all the bad things that could happen to me tomorrow and conjuring probabilities, then we will quickly enter into the realm of 100%+ where I am doomed to tragedy. Aggregate probability works great when you are working with 52 cards.
Except, I don't see 10 critical problems. I see only two: species extinction and climate change.
These two are the really serious, dangerous ones. They're completely missed by the Original Post, and will show up in ways that are completely different from the scenarios in the Original Post.
----------------
You might ask, what about energy & mineral/metal supply problems?
Look at the model of multiple, parallel items in reverse: for every one of these problems, there are many tech solutions, each with a good % chance of success, adding up to very high chance of success at the system level.
Radically. Fundamental. At the root.
I think it's reductionism again (my favorite topic).
Not at all. I'd say that the assumption that we'll always depend on oil and FF is a very simplistic, linear thinking kind of thing.
Nick thinks in a reductionist framework.
You're starting to slip, just a little, into ad hominem thinking.
repeated posts are really disrespectful of the general discussion
I only wrote one comment on this Original Post - the rest have been replies to others.
How often does Westexas repeat the exact same comments? Have you objected to his comments?
I think he might be right that each problem, when viewed separately, has a solution, of course.
That's a complex idea that's completely missing from the Original Post.
, some of the solutions that might have been will be found to be unavailable precisely because of the lack of oil.
The economic feedback argument. An argument for which I haven't seen anything concrete beyond "utility workers won't get to work, and people won't buy PHEV/EVs".
The problem? There's little evidence for them. During the great depression, investment levels in new tech remained quite high - for many companies, it was their path to survival. Utility workers never had a problem in the US in 1979. Hybrid market share is still rising. Wind & solar installations are continuing. Sure, the latter two have stopped growing in absolute numbers due to the current recession, but they're still quite strong.
I have become convinced that civilization as we know it is that fragile
As suggested by "futurepundit" elsewhere: Countries in war operating on far less oil or other energy sources. Germany, Switzerland, the USSR during WWII all continued to function under far worse conditions. Factories produced goods.
The collapse argument has to explain far lower per capita energy economies that remained industrial and organized.
The evidence has been provided. Gail's post today of slides from her last ASPO talk is just one of many of them. There have been many other posts over the last year plus.
What you mean to say is you are not convinced by the evidence presented and you do not accept it. There is a big difference. The Pope didn't accept Copernicus.
I'm a simpleton and the case is obvious. Work is proportional to energy. [The more efficient the work, the more direct the link - so efficiency doesn't get around the case.] One can argue about the link between work and GDP in a world where derivatives dwarf real work - that's a material difference I'll suggest. [But still, information is the highest emergy - those bastards at Goldman Sachs are sucking the cream from everything and efficiency would suggest the guillotine and compost heap for all of them were they not toxic.]
What I can do with my own human energy is far less than what I can do with cheap fossil energy. Go dig a hole. Go cut down a tree. If you use fossil energy, you can do something else. If by hand, you will be the next week or so on the project - your annual productivity just fell to 10% of what it was with fossil energy.
If fossil energy is priced out of reach, stuff stops. I can tell that with a pencil in my brain.
If you use fossil energy, you can do something else. If fossil energy is priced out of reach, stuff stops.
Nah. Wind and solar can replace oil. See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
Sorry, but describing a feedback loop isn't the same as making a circular argument.
See my comment above.
(Which comment above? You have about 50 in this thread. None of them that I can see respond to what I said.)
I was not necessarily endorsing the reasonableness of the feedback loop argument regarding peak oil. I was simply pointing out your incorrect and rhetorically empty use of terminology. You might want to study a little logic theory and find out what a circular argument really is, before the next time you use it as an argumentative club.
I was talking about "An argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove." http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm
As best I can tell, analysts like Gail and Stoneleigh assume that energy problems will cause the economy to crash, and then assume that a crashing economy will cause energy problems*.
That seems to meet the definition. Now, I know that logicians are jealous of their categories of fallacy, so if goes under a different category please let me know.
-------------
*Certainly, this could be a sophisticated analysis of positive feedbacks...but I don't think it is. If it were, the analysis of positive feedbacks would be much more substantive - I haven't seen any good analysis to back that up. Much of it is on the order of "when PO hits, utility workers won't be able to get to work, so electricity won't be available, and EV's won't work". That's really not substantive. Another is the idea of Receding Horizons - even a superficial look at the wind and solar markets will make it clear that this is unrealistic.
For the record, I generally find Gail's opinions too pessimistic for my taste. (See the conversation between myself and her farther down in this thread.) BUT...
Those are two logically separate statements. (Specifically, they are the converse of each other, and thus neither entails the other.) There is no logical fallacy, circular or otherwise, in using them to form an argument that a feedback loop can occur, and you were just utterly wrong to say that there is, as you did above. What you are actually arguing, and should be honest about arguing, is that they are empirically false assertions.
You've now gone beyond what you originally said, and said that that the arguments (two of them) being made for these assertions are also circular. Frankly, and this is just my opinion, I think that given the amount that Gail and Stoneleigh have written on the subject, that it's grossly unfair of you to say that. I'm certainly not impressed or convinced by your saying it. Although I've hardly been convinced by all their reasoning, they've at least gone on at length in the past regarding the reasons why they believe what they believe.
For the record, I happen to think that the first assertion - that energy problems will cause the economy to crash - is almost certainly correct, and that the second - that a crashing economy will cause energy problems - is not necessarily so reasonable. (Is that substantive enough for you?)
From a logician's point of view - you're right: this isn't is a logical fallacy.
I'm suggesting that the logical error comes from an single incorrect intuition about the importance of oil. From my readings (which I think are sufficiently thorough), both Gail and Stoneleigh assume that oil is irreplaceable & therefore PO is catastrophic. I believe there is the same assumption behind their analysis of the feedbacks from economy to investment in renewable energy & electric transport.
I'll try to add more later...
Okay, fair enough...
I'm certain that if I were to look back through my comments here, I could find more than a couple cases where I've also criticized Gail for assuming that oil was irreplaceable for various specific activities. But specific cases are one thing. Substituting renewables for oil on a macro-scale is something else. Simply put, if renewables can't supply the same amounts of energy as oil, then not everyone will be able to make the substitution. In that larger picture, the "importance of oil" has been argued for on this site in reference to EROEI, and also oil's cheaper cost in today's economy, which seems to confirm the EROEI talk. Maybe Gail and Stoneleigh haven't presented those arguments themselves, but others have. If you're going to add more later, you should probably address those issues. (Spread it around to a wider audience though, as I don't expect I'll check this thread again...)
Substituting renewables for oil on a macro-scale is something else. Simply put, if renewables can't supply the same amounts of energy as oil, then not everyone will be able to make the substitution.
That's by far the easiest part of this argument. It's so basic that I forget that there are still questions about it.
The resource available is huge: 72TW for wind, and 100,000TW for solar. see http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-there-enough-wind-resource-to.html
Wind and solar have high E-ROI (wind's is very high, and solar is high enough), as is well established by people like Charles Hall.
Wind is just as affordable as FF, and can be installed quickly.
Nick, how quick, how much GW per year you think ?
Electricity is not the biggest challenge: when oil starts to run downhill, there follows economic downturn. Because of shortages or high oilprices. And there is the population increase issue. As explained in one of the comments, 1% a year doesn't seem a lot, but is only in the U.S. one big city/year. Which need a lot of extra energy, water and food. Until now it is mainly FF what supports this (grow).
how much GW per year
Well, the US in 2008 installed 8.5GW - that was about 40% of new generation. The US could easily ramp that up to 50GW per year - enough to provide all new generation, and start replacing coal.
when oil starts to run downhill, there follows economic downturn.
First of all, look at the whole world. Sometimes, oil importers are hurt a bit, and exporters are helped. From 2002 to 2008 world growth was uninterrupted and strong.
2nd, this is a short term effect. Look at the US in 1979-1982: despite high oil prices, and interest rates at 18% due in part to Nixon-era inflation, the US started growing again.
there is the population increase issue.
1st, this has been the case for 200 years. 2nd, it's slowing down - see the Demographic Transition.
50 GW per year for many years ? Optimistic, maybe possible.
Nick, from 2002-2005 oil production was rising. From 2005-2008 there was plateau production. When plateau becomes cliff 'everything' will change. Oil importers will be hurt more than a bit.
Yes, but it was the pre-worldoilpeak period and 20 years ago the world was very different with not so many industrialized countries. Now the U.S. depends f.i. on China. Because of globalisation it is a world trade, most countries depend on a lot of different other countries. Do you think that oilshortages will be divided nicely between the (coming) super-powers U.S., Japan, Europe, China, India without (regional) conflicts or worse ?
Coincidentally, the last 200 years there was the rise of coal, gas and oil.
It's slowing down: the increase is slowing down. Still rising with 200.000 per day. Each day adding a moderate big city.
50 GW per year for many years ? Optimistic, maybe possible.
That's only $100B per year. That's less than the manufacturing idled by reduced car production.
When plateau becomes cliff 'everything' will change.
Aleklett/ASPO projects an 11% reduction by 2030. Westexas projects a 40% reduction in net exports by then. That's not a cliff.
Oil importers will be hurt more than a bit.
Well, that's true by BAU standards, but by the standards of this post, we'll barely have our hair mussed.
Do you think that oilshortages will be divided nicely between the (coming) super-powers U.S., Japan, Europe, China, India without (regional) conflicts or worse ?
Probably. I have a little less confidence since we started one in Iraq, but I think such war is unlikely - everyone knows it would be counterproductive.
Coincidentally, the last 200 years there was the rise of coal, gas and oil.
And, unfortunately, we still have plenty of coal and gas. PO is going to be the least of our problems.
No Nick, that 40% was your question for westexas.
Look at what WT wrote:
Sam's best case is that the (2005) top five net oil exporters, accounting for about half of current world net oil exports, will be down to less than 5 mbpd of combined net oil exports in 20 years (versus about 24 mbpd in 2005), and their post-2005 cumulative net oil exports will be around 95% depleted.
And then what you answered:
OK, you're projecting that these 5 exporters comprise 50% of overall net exports, and that they will shrink by 80%. So, overall net exports will shrink by 40%?
Your expectation (presumption,hope) is that only the top-5 exporters go down considerably. If the top 5 is down to 5 mbd export in 20 years, how about the rest of exporters ? 40% less is about 24 mbd left to export, so the smaller exporters then have to export 24-5 = 19 mbd. That can never happen. Maybe all the smaller exporters could export another 5 mbd, that totals 10 mbd of export in 2030. Down from 40 to 10, not considering declining EROEI, that is an export cliff.
Nick, that 40% was your question for westexas.
Yes, and he didn't answer, so I'm using my math as a working assumption (it is pretty simple math).
If the top 5 is down to 5 mbd export in 20 years, how about the rest of exporters ?
Very good question. A 40% drop in overall net exports simply assumes that the rest of the exporters stay stable. Keep in mind that some exporters have rising exports.
Let me clarify the math: WT says that 24mbd is 50% of current net exports. That indicates that total net exports are 48mbd. He's projecting a decline of 19mbd from the largest 5 exporters, and not giving any information about the rest. If the rest stay flat, that's a 40% decline.
Now, Aleklett projects a decrease of maybe 9mbd per day of total liquids by 2030. That suggests that production is going to be pretty stable in most of the world, with some places (both exporters and importers) increasing their production to offset some of the declines that whill happen elsewhere.
That doesn't look like a cliff to me.
Yes, some. But as time goes on, less. And the expectation that Brazil ever will export considerable amounts: many doubt it.
No, I wrote that 24 mbd is the export if it would be 40% less.
I don't see the rest can stay flat. In 5 years more exporters are past peak and some countries that have now rising production will be on plateau. Also most of that countries will have rising consumption. Not lineair, but rising.
That means that a very limited number of countries will have to compensate for the big export-losses from other countries.
Could be that Aleklett is too optimistic. When one looks at the activities of KSA right now, that is very suspect. They probably don't come close to their claimed 264 Gb of reserves.
Then Aleklett don't look at declining EROEI and a lot of total liquids is NGL. It is true that NGL can be used for many things, but 55,1 mbd of crude oil production in 2030 is not too much, if only 10 mbd, or let's say 15 mbd, will be exported.
No, I wrote that 24 mbd is the export if it would be 40% less.
Well, Westexas wrote: "Sam's best case is that the (2005) top five net oil exporters, accounting for about half of current world net oil exports, will be down to less than 5 mbpd of combined net oil exports in 20 years (versus about 24 mbpd in 2005)"
If the top 5 account for about 24 mbpd in 2005, and that's about 50% of the total, then the total equals 48 mbpd.
most of that countries will have rising consumption.
Maybe. Countries like Venezuela & Iran are having enormous problems due to their price controls. China just eliminated their price controls. Many exporting countries showed a drop in consumption in 2008.
Could be that Aleklett is too optimistic.
I'd like to see a really good analysis of that. He seems like a pretty good source.
When one looks at the activities of KSA right now, that is very suspect.
I can't imagine that Aleklett isn't thoroughly familiar with KSA's reserve manipulation.
Then Aleklett don't look at declining EROEI
Are you sure? Surely the head of ASPO takes E-ROI into account.
55,1 mbd of crude oil production in 2030 is not too much, if only 10 mbd, or let's say 15 mbd, will be exported.if only 10 mbd, or let's say 15 mbd, will be exported.
48 mbpd to 10-15? Seems too large a drop.
Right, Nick. But the 48 mbd must be 'total liquids'. C+C is about 40 mbd.
OTOH, China and India have strong rising car sales. Some African oil producing countries show rising consumption. KSA and some other ME countries have still rising consumptions.
Indeed, he must know it. But the reserves there could be even more pessimistic than he thinks. Saudi-Aramco is planning a huge CO2-EOR project in Ghawar and is looking for oil in the Red sea, under saltlayers. That seems an act of desperation.
Ok, but in that case only 11% less in 2030 seems very optimistic, especially if peak gas follows in 5-10 years.
I took the C+C export of 40 mbd. If the total C+C production in 2030 is 55 mbd and 15 mbd is exported, it leaves the exporters with a consumption of 40 mbd. Yes, that must be too high, though some exporters are industrialising countries.
the 48 mbd must be 'total liquids'. C+C is about 40 mbd.
Isn't total liquids what consumers care about?
China and India have strong rising car sales.
Yes, but they're much more efficient than US vehicles, at 37MPG. Also, China is pursuing PHEV/EVs much faster than the US. See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-chinese-oil-demand-grow.html , http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-chinese-oil-demand-grow-part-... , and http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-chinese-fossil-fuel-consumpti... .
"Some African oil producing countries show rising consumption. KSA and some other ME countries have still rising consumptions."
KSA's consumption declined in 2008.
But the reserves there could be even more pessimistic than he thinks. ...in that case only 11% less in 2030 seems very optimistic
Unfortunately, we're guessing. I have to say, he seems like someone who'd know as much about this as we do. It would take some strong, specific evidence to make a strong case that his analysis isn't as comprehensive as anyone.
If the total C+C production in 2030 is 55 mbd and 15 mbd is exported, it leaves the exporters with a consumption of 40 mbd.
Well,
1) again, isn't total liquids more important? and,
2) some production comes from importers like the US.
Consumers in the first place are using gasoline, diesel and jetfuel. Oil export dropped from 46,3 mbd in 2005 to 44,8 mbd in 2007.
Are you sure ?
ASPO, Ireland is less optimistic. Yes, it's anyone's guess, but the optimistic scenario's expect a considerable amount of 'yet to find' oil. What Saudi-Aramco is doing in the Red sea looks like a pessimistic scenario for 2030 comes true. Not only is that kind of oil much more expensive, it has also a much lower EROEI. And ,in general, offshore projects show a (much) lower peak than the expectations (as published on Wikipedia's
megaprojects'). Also, with time more heavy oil and unconventional oil will come on the market
Consumers in the first place are using gasoline, diesel and jetfuel.
I'm not sure what you're thinking about here. Consumers include users of petrochemicals, propane, bunker fuel, asphalt, ethanol, etc.
KSA's consumption declined in 2008. - Are you sure ?
Well....I looked again, and that was wrong. It did grow. I think I might have been fooled by a big seasonal component.
ASPO, Ireland is less optimistic.
It would be interesting to see a comparison.
You call it circular, but it's just a direct simple relationship. Work is the product of force and distance. And work - production - is the economy (minus all the free stuff nature provides so really it's way worse than GDP indicates. Oil - the work is sucking it up through a straw. Wood - the work is cutting virgin trees.
The thing about humans is their wonderful ability to convince themselves - to deny - whatever it takes to justify their actions. We act first, then we justify. Nick, take your arguments and go tell them to a salmon bashing itself against a dam, or to a tree about to be felled. Hug a rock, because that's all that will be left by your standards: science and answering the wrong questions. My 16 year old son is in that state - where he is applying science but failing to ask questions that make any sort of sense. You know, like science, if we're running out of this planet, just get another. Yeesh.
cfm, the growlery, gray, me
Work is the product of force and distance. And work - production - is the economy (minus all the free stuff nature provides so really it's way worse than GDP indicates. Oil - the work is sucking it up through a straw.
Yes, we need energy. We don't need oil for that: see http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
The thing about humans is their wonderful ability to convince themselves - to deny - whatever it takes to justify their actions.
Oh, I'm not suggesting we don't have problems. I think species extinction and CC are much worse problems than commodity resource supply problems.
Don't forget - even if someone disagrees with you on something, 1) they might agree with you on other stuff, and 2) they might know something you don't.
Nick says:
Is that a relevant consideration? Is it even true?
The need for a hybrid will leave a majority of people car-free, I would guess. More likely, people will drive a lot less, or pay a lot more for any available gasoline and keep their car, with consequences (on their ability to be a "good" consumer) that need to be thought through.
Prius costs less than the average new car - Is that a relevant consideration?
Sure. It's a reply to the idea that hybrids are more expensive, and less affordable than existing cars.
Is it even true?
Sure. The average Prius in 2008 was roughly $24K.
The need for a hybrid will leave a majority of people car-free, I would guess.
Again - put in your order for a hybrid (Prius, Insight, Fusion, etc) and carpool until it arrives. Inconvenient, but perfectly workable.
My July, 2007 "Iron Triangle" essay:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2767
Electrification of transportation and HVAC, and replacement of FF with wind, solar, nuclear, etc, is definitely not the status quo.
It is, in fact, what these sectors are fighting.
I agree, they're doing a fair job of it.
But, that's not what this Post is about - it's about physical limits.
Nick,
I am amazed at your persistence. I am a bit new around here and was very surprised that you got almost no support during that long run even though your responses were almost always more sensible than your dialog partners. The orthodox assumptions around here seem to be that peak oil means the collapse of society. I fully agree with you that this implication is far from established. It doesn't take wishful thinking to realize that there are many other possibilities. None of them BAU, but not 18th century technology like the original post proclaims.
There is a fellow in Canada who has put together quite an elaborate Power Point show for explaining why the jig is up without oil.
If you are truly new to the concept of Peak Oil and what it implies, maybe a slow and thoughtful walk through Chapter 1 at the following site will help:
http://www.peakoilandhumanity.com/chapter_choice.htm
Chapter 1 doesn't help much. That is just a simple walk through the many ways we use oil. Those are going to change. Its is the certainty that the way they are going to change includes the collapse of society that is the unsubstantiated step. Some retrenchment sure, but the end of electricity requires a much more complete explanation.
I'm sorry you can't seem to "get it" despite the overwhelming evidence.
There is of course, the possibility that you interpret "society" in a completely different way than most of us do. By collapse, we mean TEOTWAWKI.
No doubt you answered me by letting your fingers tap on a keyboard full of "plastic" key caps, mounted over a printed circuit board whose bulk is composed of a "plastic" compound and which is populated by so-called integrated circuit chips (ICs) packaged in "plastic" encapsulations. Your signals traveled over plastic-coated wires mounted on large telephone poles and/or they lit their way through underground buried fiber optic cables. The entire infrastructure is kept going by field hands who use diesel vehicles to dig trenches, to re-right felled poles, to re-string snapped wires, to replace failed amplifiers, and so on and so on.
We've heard your kind of story many times about how society will be able to "muddle" through whatever hits it. If you have ever been in a major city when the traffic lights go out for even a few blocks, you would know that is BS. Everything comes to a grinding halt; and just because of a couple of lights. No. We're not going to "muddle" through it. We are going to sink into and freeze within the mud that will envelope us if we don't do something drastic now.
That's not what the Original Post said. He's not talking about complex systems, he's talking about really simple commodity supply problems:
"A closer look at the physical realities of resource extraction reveals that the resource situation is, in fact, terminal for our high-consumin’ civilization....this decline...will not be preventable by any combination of political, social, or technological solutions. "
"The orthodox assumptions around here seem to be that peak oil means the collapse of society."
That depends on what you mean by 'collapse' and 'society'. I think the general consensus here is that we will see a drop in earnings, vehicle miles travelled, higher prices for items that rely on cheap oil, and a generally lower standard of living. The money needed to transition to new energy forms has for the most part been thrown at propping up the BAU economy. All of this was discussed in Dan article above.
If we had started major changes 10 years ago, then things might be different. But just the opposite occurred in the US (e.g., Bush killing the PNGV program that would have brought 72-80 mpg family cars to the market), so now we are hamstrung as a nation by wasted time, wasted efforts, and no money to make the massive infrastructure changes. And still, some new road-building goes on...
"I think the general consensus here is that we will see a drop in earnings, vehicle miles travelled, higher prices for items that rely on cheap oil, and a generally lower standard of living."
I think you are assuming a bit more cool headed logic than is the norm around here. The original post implied the end of electric power for computers and power tools. That is a collapse far beyond what you describe. The links the doomers keep posting talk about moving to small towns that can be defended against invading city folk.
You are absolutely right that our national response to the environmental crisis has been shortsighted and destructive. But doomers who are unwilling to separate their fear based guesses from evidence based predictions make it much harder to implement rational responses.
Any time you are sliding down the spiral from (1) peak oil to (2) no oil available to (3) no energy available to (4) society collapses, take a few minutes and contemplate a few simple ideas. It only takes a factor or 2 in electricity prices to make wind power grow exponentially. Nuclear power would also see huge investments. Solar thermal and the newest photovoltaics are cost competitive with a price only a bit more than a factor of 2. The EROI on these are all above 5, and will probably be higher when energy shortages encourage conservation so it is simply false that they are energy sinks. So a reasonable model might be that in the long run we have adequate electrical energy at prices 2 or 3 times higher than what we currently pay. Some resources might become more expensive which would tend to raise these numbers, but in fact technological advancements have steadily lowered these numbers. There are interesting questions about the economics of getting from here to there, but anyone who tells you that consideration of physical constraints alone implies the end of electricity is not well grounded in reality.
One thing we have to keep in mind; most of our manufacturing depends upon a complex, unbelievably extensive web of interdependency, much of which is Just-in-time supply. A drop in oil availability means that economic disruption will result in many companies going out of business, an effect that will only grow with time. How are all the parts for wind turbines moved around right now? Materials and components for high voltage towers and lines? What powers planting, fertilizing, cultivating, harvesting, shipping to processors, shipping to warehouses, shipping to supermarkets? Where do plastics come from? Asphalt? Jet Fuel? Ok, let's really talk about how we are going to do without Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antihistamines, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Antiseptics, Aspirin, Auto Parts, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint pens, Bandages, Beach Umbrellas, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Battery Cases, Carpets, Caulking, Combs, Cortisones, Cosmetics, Crayons, Credit Cards, Curtains, Deodorants, Detergents, Dice, Disposable Diapers, Dolls, Dyes, Eye Glasses, Electrical Wiring Insulation, Faucet Washers, Fishing Rods, Fishing Line, Fishing Lures, Food Preservatives, Food Packaging, Garden Hose, Glue, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Hearing Aids, Heart Valves, Ink, Insect Repellant, Insecticides, Linoleum, Lip Stick, Milk Jugs, Nail Polish, Oil Filters, Panty Hose, Perfume, Petroleum Jelly, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Shampoo, Shaving Cream, Shoes, Toothpaste, Trash Bags, Upholstery, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Yarn...
It's easy to say, "we'll just tighten our belt, but live pretty much the same", but the scope and breadth of the change means that too many critical paths will become interrupted. As another poster pointed out, even if there were a 90% chance of success to maintain all the supplies necessary to make wind turbines, .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 only equals a .36 overall chance of success. Do that for solar PV, geothermal, etc.
Have you read the DoE report yet? Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management
Will the government step in and ration fuel to make sure it services critical infrastructure, or will such a move be attacked as 'socialism'? When will a crash switchover to a non-oil-based economy take place? What is required to realize that? The entire electrical infrastructure needs a complete overall. Where is all the lithium for the batteries going to come from? How many will truly be able to afford Chevy Volts in a contracted economy and with crushing personal and national debt?
Sure, when oil drops to 80% of it's peak output, we can tighten our belts, and expect our government to be broke as well. When it hits 50%, we'll have more belt flopping around free than actually around our waist, and even less government; note that road maintenance wasn't even completely funded before the crash and it is being pushed off far into the distance except for some stimulus projects. When it hits 30%, how are we going to maintain anything, such as the road system, electrical grid, international shipping, heavy manufacturing?
The Mayans went through a very long slide in the 8th and 9th centuries, where each successive generation saw (on average) a very slightly lower standard of living than their parents. The overall effect was collapse of their society from it's heights. The decline we will likely see will be much swifter, though a full discussion of what the word "collapse" means bears examination, and I'll refer you to;
- Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, (article, video presentation), and
- Joseph Tainter, Collapse of Complex Societies (TOD article)
Over the decades, how will we define 'failure' and how will that definition evolve? How will we define 'success'? Did the non-extinction of Eastern Islanders constitute success? If we make a shift to coal-to-liquids and disrupt the climate over decades to the serious detriment of global agriculture, is that a success or failure?
Nick.
Its.
Not.
About.
Price.
Its about supply.
Price is only an indicator. The point Dan is making is that supply reduces so all the things that were driven by that supply (including the ability to mine and process the steel, rare metals etc to make your Prius) reduces as well.
To make that Prius you will have to compete for resources with everyone else who wants to use them for something else. THAT's why Dan talks about the social side of this, unless you want a world that looks like Somalia there needs to be a mechanism for applying resources to the most important uses, not merely those determined by the people with the most money.
Imagine an America where there is all the money anyone wants but only half the oil. Half of every oil-using activity would have to stop, at the least. Since that would certainly collapse all the airlines who would then use zero % of their previous oil, it would release some for other purposes.
But the cost of that is all the jobs in airlines, plus most of the jobs in aircraft construction, travel agencies, hotels, resorts etc etc. Even if we find things to do that earn us money, they will be, necessarily, radically different things from what we do now and they will fit together is different ways.
It wont, probably, happen overnight, but in 5% or 10% steps and slides.
We have two choices, we can be forced along the path of least resistance - which may involve mass starvation BTW, the universe really doesn't give a damn about you and your family living through this, or we can use our brains and try to get there ahead of the game.
Me, I'm converting my urban property into a small, bio-intensive, farm. So far 150 sq metres of gardens, 5 compost heaps, 2 chickens and room for a 500 square metre orchard, coppice and herb garden. Plus fencelines in full production. My wife works full time, I build and garden and learn stuff from people like Dan.
Our aim is to be able to live here on about $200 a week - did I say we paid off our mortgage as item one? We are also adding space to the house (without increasing its footprint more than a few metres to make room for my daughter and son-in-law if they need it, my sister-in-law if she needs it and my elderly parents in law.
Rule number one, turn money into real stuff by paying off debt, then only into real stuff that has a multiplier.
Or just keep rubbishing people like Dan, at least the hot air will keep someone warm on a cold night, for a while.
Imagine an America where there is all the money anyone wants but only half the oil. Half of every oil-using activity would have to stop, at the least.
Not even close. We could easily run on 50% of our current oil consumption. Consider: personal transportation is 45% of oil consumption, and most of that's discretionary (remember carpooling?).
Trucks can reduce their fuel consumption per mile by 20% just by slowing down, another 20% with improved aerodynamics.
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html
very very good summary of our situation re energy. a lot for young men & women to take in.
i noticed u'r unsanctioned aspect of this work. cudos.
i think wendell would prefer a cider.
i do notice u avoid our economic predicament. perhaps a line like those thoughtful ones u give about our very energy production/delivery systems being dependent on the first half of the curve stuff, the cheap energy.
again nice thoughtful overview; wish my grandson had u.
Perhaps it has already been done. I see a need to create a real world model of this transformation. A group of several hundred volunteers/families who are willing to live together in a village and go through an accelerated resource decline, ending up at the right side of the column. Might want to make the initial group size even larger, I suspect the drop out rate might be high:) Perhaps a three year time frame would be adequate to run the experiment.
The project could prove or disprove some of the assumptions as to how people will adapt to diminishing resources. My guess is there will be substantial criminal, emotional and ethical problems amongst the people in the group. It is one thing to be born into an Amish family lifestyle. Falling into it, quite another. I saw the failures of communes in the late 60's and early 70's in Vermont, and they could choose the resources they used. A constant downward spiral in available resources is quite different.
I'll leave the details as to how this would be funded and who would want to do this to others to debate. My point is it would be infinitely more valuable than what has been portrayed by a couple of TV shows recently. Hmmm, maybe the TV rights to this experiment would take care of the funding?
PriorityX
Just a thought, maybe the failure of the 60's communes had more to do with the negative influence/pressures/restrictions from the greater society and if this is removed we might find that the basic communes system would work.
Hey. I resemble that remark. I spent about ten years living in various communes. They do indeed experience intense pressure along many dimensions from the larger society. However communes are definitely alive and well. Check out www.ic.org for an introduction to intentional communities.
Paul
But, in this scenario, not only do we lose outside pressure from society, more importantly, we lose the ability to draw any resources from society it as it no longer exists! Commune members got some dirty looks at the hardware store from the locals, but they had a hardware store! And I don't deny zoning and other regulations were used against them. Communes evolved over the last 40 years, consist of like minded people, and learned from the mistakes of those who failed before them. A downward spiral in resources will involve people who are not willing participants, and there will be no blueprint to follow.
Think about simple things like firewood replacing gas/oil/electric heat in the winter. Communities will not have the luxury of choosing optimum locations with the appropriate amount of farmland, woodlands, and water. What happens when you have to chose between burning your woodshed, outhouse and furniture in the wood stove or freezing because you have run out of firewood? How will limited renewable resources be managed to insure they are not depleted?
Will people come together and share resources evenly and responsibly? Or, will the community fracture into groups and individuals with opposing ideas of how things should be run? If there is a drought, how will the community hold together? Will lack of food lead to stealing? Will prosperous communities accept refugees from failed communities?
My biggest concern is will we see concentrated power develop in a small group of people who run the community through intimidation rather than consensus? How will our justice system survive and adapt?
I don't think we can look to history to predict how a resource decline will progress. Historically, we have gone from a lower standard of living to a higher standard of living, albeit with some setbacks. People had every reason to believe things would eventually get better. Going from a higher standard of living to a lower standard of living is a whole different animal. Knowing life is only going to get harder is a huge psychological hit and may bring out the worst in many people.
However, I would argue that once a steady state or bottom is reached, communities will adapt and what we call a "lower standard of living" will become a misnomer. Getting there is the hard part. That process of getting there is what I'd love to see tested.
But the upslope of civilization world wide was not a straight line. There are many examples of previous civilizations regressing or crashing because of resource depletion or environmental degradation. I dont think we can just dismiss what happened to them as not relevant to what we are about to go through.
Good point. Which past transitions would you say are the most useful to study?
Deforestation is a problem because its resource depletion and climate change rolled into one. It did a lot of them in including the Maya, Nasca and Easter Islanders.
Some civilizations got it right though. According to Diamond the Japanese re forested preventing a catastrophy and medieval Europe had a stable population for several hundred years between the black death and industrialisation.
I lived in Japan for a while. It was amazing to see foresting practices where individual trees are selected for harvested and ingenious devices were used to cut and remove the tree in the middle of a huge, near-vertical, heavily forested hillside.
My brother lived much of his adult life in China, much of it involved in conservation work. He tells me that in many areas of China there are centuries old practices and traditions of forest conservation. Where forests have been decimated, it is usually because the Red Army has come in and done the logging over the opposition of locals.
Science is beginning to take a serious look at traditional ecological knowledge unfortunatly politics is still not taking science seriously.
We did have a few contrived reality shows like Frontier House and 1900 House, but those were short-term, small scale experiments compared to what you're talking about.
PX,
Actually this was done on a small scale in the PBS "House" series some years ago (Colonial House, Frontier House, etc.) where families lived the life of that time for an extended period. I found it fascinating.
Todd
IIRC, survival was not guaranteed. Choose the wrong crop or livestock (sheep versus cow versus chickens) and you're dead.
I don't remember if it was Frontier House or another one, but I was really annoyed by the competing families, ala 'survivor', where jobs to be done were too hard for one family alone, (..fail! You're the weakest link!).. yet would have clearly been jobs shared by such neighbors to overcome burdensome obstacles.
Saw that. Some of its is rough viewing, especially the hungry boy crying.
I've no doubt this is monumentally difficult for kids to absorb. Adults have a monumentally difficult time absorbing it.
Looking at the list on the right, it almost reminds me of wartime.
Of course, it is 70 years since the UK experienced a war on their own soil and roughly 150 years since the USA experienced one.
Most of us have no idea what wartime conditions are like, and most of the folks who knew are gone.
One could liken the list to living during the Great Depression, also, but let's not forget that was temporary, as were the wars. People had a good idea that, at some point, they'd come out of it on the other side.
Our energy and resource predicament is going to be permanent - maybe that's why it's so hard to grasp.
I read a lot of commentary using the words "hunker down", "weather the storm", "lay in stocks" - all terminology relating to, essentially, a temporary situation, where we'll "come out on the other side".
Really, there isn't any coming out on the other side. We are in it, and will continue to be in it, permanently. Unless someone solves the problem of cold fusion, of course....
Unless someone solves the problem of cold fusion, of course
Lets say one can. Now what security issue would exist - how much energy could be how quickly released AKA a bomb. And what would that do to the idea of money?
Even if we did solve the energy problem, we'd still be past the peak of fish, water, phosphorus etc etc. I don't think cold fusion would really be any help at all, unless we could mine the moon for resources using it. It was just the sort of thought that pops up as a consequence of trying to deal with permanence.
+1
Unless you deal with capitalism, unlimited access to energy will not help, and expansion in a finite world is a must. Expand or die.
The last 2 humans on the planet would have one exploiting the other.
This is a common misconception. Energy consumption is not GDP growth. GDP growth is masked by expansion in monetary base, which is on the 10-15% p.a. level. Per capita energy consumption in capitalism levels out, and often tapers off with more progress.
This is an illusion caused by the exporting of energy intensive manufacturing to the developing world. If you take into account the embedded energy of ever expanding imports, there is not a nation on earth that increases GDP without increasing energy consumption. It is possible to increase GDP put unit energy by using the energy more efficiently (better engines, smaller cars etc) or by organising society to need less energy (but in practice we have been doing the reverse for the last century) or by bringing more human labour into the measured workforce (both parents working full time jobs, short holiday allowance, lots of over time). However, the all these options facing diminishing returns, and the last actually increases GDP at the expense of quality of life.
RalphW, you give a technical answer that one can dispute based on efficiency and the probably invention of Maxwell's Daemon. I use a simpler explanation: people want more GDP because it means more stuff; that's human. More stuff requires more resources - including energy. :-)
require actual extra-terrestrial energy inputs for their complete extraction – i.e. it’s not gonna happen.
The extra-terrestrial energy input is exactly how extraction will happen - photons from the Sun.
At some point the energy to extract minerals from the solvent of water (seawater, old mines) will be less energy than traditional mining.
And if humans still have a level of technology in the future, the prefered method will be to deploy robotic technology that can mine asteroids, refine the material, and send the refined back to Earth/man's efforts to leave this solar system.
Eric, if man could leave this solar system, where exactly would he/she go? To Alpha Centari? How many light years is that? Got any habitable planets? No no no, we are stuck in gravity wells and even with sub-light travel speeds (that need to be developed), space is a big place. But maybe you were thinking of quantum worm-hole space travel tricks?
Why do I keep thinking of that sinking ship at the end of "The Perfect Storm"? You know, the guys fight like hell to find an air pocket on a rapidly sinking ship. Saved, for now....
Our Earth is just a small dot next to the Sun.
Currently, we intercept just a tiny fraction of the energy output from our nearby fusion reactor.
There is no shortage of energy.
There is however an extreme drought of imagination.
True, but there is a major shortage of infrastructure that will enable us to harness this energy and this infrastructure will require more available energy and resources to build out than it appears we have available.
While it is true that an infrastructure upgrade is needed to move renewable electrical energy around, there are very easy starting points for non-electrical solutions that require virtually no infrastructure;
- http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5095
- http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/WaterHeating/water_heating.htm
- etc...
Beats the torrent of extreme optimistic chauvinism which is rapidly turning Big Blue into grey goo.
"There is no shortage of energy."
There is, on the contrary, far too much energy. The huge quantities of energy that we have already harnessed and used have allowed us to alter the planet in millions of permanent and harmful ways--think species extinction for only one large set of examples.
I see absolutely zero evidence that we would use any new source of energy any more wisely that we have used past energy resources.
We are four-year-olds playing with live chainsaws--using power far beyond our collective maturity level and at enormous damage to ourselves, our surroundings and our future.
Take the chainsaw away from the four-year-old, wait a few thousand or tens of thousands of years till he has grown up, then introduce much milder and more benign tools.
I am truly baffled that so many accept to blindly the assumption that humanity's primary problem is that it does not have enough power.
IF (that's a big if) mankind is going to continue maintaining a population this large, there will be a lot of sea water that has to get de-salinated, there will be a lot of nitrogen that will have to get pulled from the air and fixed to carbon, ... all that takes massive amounts of energy.
Sure our civilization is filled with insane profit-manic chainsaw users who are hell bent on cutting down every Amazon rain forest they can find ... but that is a different problem.
"IF (that's a big if) mankind is going to continue maintaining a population this large, there will be a lot of sea water that has to get de-salinated, there will be a lot of nitrogen that will have to get pulled from the air and fixed to carbon, ... all that takes massive amounts of energy."
And that will allow for...
presumably an even greater rise in human population with an even bigger negative impact on the systems that the future depends on and and even bigger eventual and inevitable die off.
The main thing we need to control is not the energy, water, and other resources to serve our endless needs and desires. The main thing we need to control is...
us
Our own needs and desires are 99.9% of what we should be focusing on controlling.
But self control is no way cool or neat. Great new technological gizmos ARE way cool, in no small part exactly because they hold out the promise of never having to face anything as terrifying as self control.
Take a couple volumes of Wendell Berry and call me in the morning.
I wouldn't have known what you're talking about except for the fact that by chance I heard the guy on public radio the other day (talking about the evils of big agri-business).
Sorry, I should have provided a link, as you kindly did. Thanks.
we are stuck in gravity wells
Yup.
That is a big problem. But 'solutions' have been shown - that is why the GPS network exists as an example.
Some of the unsolved problems are:
1) 'Smart enough' AI to run machine only mining in space.
2) material science to harden machines VS the radiation of space and VS the force needed to grind rock for processing. (its why rock processing eq has replaceable parts.)
Then you get to man:
For Man to leave this solar system, Man would have to figure out the egg/sperm -> birth process to be able to replicate it. Then master the raising of a child -> functional adult thus allowing just the genetic material to get to someplace and continue Man.
Considering Man has trouble raising others of the species of Man to functional adult - there is not even thus far a 'working model'.
Even if Man did not expand into space, solving the AI/Material handling/egg->baby/baby->adult problems could be a boon to Man.
Much of the chart assumes the end of electricity, or something close to it. (An article on Countercurrents arguing the same outcome has gotten some play in the last couple days as well.) I think this outcome is hardly a forgone conclusion, even in a post peak oil world.
First, it does seem that our energy sources for electricity are not going to peak in the same near term as our transportation fuel (i.e. oil). Problems with those source will be a latter stage of collapse, perhaps decades from now. Second, and more importantly in the long term, it's not clear yet that the EROEI of renewables isn't sufficient to sustain an electrical infrastructure on its own, once they were built out. We've debated the latter question in numerous threads here at TOD and in my opinion not reached any clears conclusions.
The chart really has us (by which I mean those of us "thoroughly-industrial and suburban") going backwards about 200 years in the near future. But just as it doesn't follow that because we used half of some set of resources in 150 years that we have another 150 years of BAU, it also doesn't follow that collapse involves losing everything that was invented since the industrial revolution. I'm not sure that in my lifetime (next 40-60 years) things like refrigerators, Budwieser, clothing shops, universities and divorce are going to disappear for most people, even if airline travel, credit cards, and hot showers do. To repeat, much depends on the particulars of what, if anything, renewable sources of electricity are sufficient for.
Finally, an non-argumentative suggestion. I think the chart could use an entry on communications and the future of the internet.
I think there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether electricity production can continue for any significant time after oil production drops off.
The way I look at things is that our economy is a highly networked system. Changes in one thing (such as higher oil prices) cause a change in other things (such as debt defaults), The debt defaults in turn cause other impacts (fewer loans) which affect businesses of many kinds.
I think that problems in one sector are likely to ripple through the system, primarily because of financial linkages. (In fact, we are already seeing this, with the current recession following peak oil.) One likely reason to lose electricity is because some of the companies involved in its production go bankrupt, and by that time, there is no real way of bailing out any more businesses. Another scenario is that we lose imports from overseas because of various financial issues. In a few years, we find ourselves unable to replace necessary parts from electrical power stations and electrical transmission because we cannot obtain the necessary imports, and we don't have the manufacturing capability here (or if we do have manufacturing capability here, we can't obtain some of the raw materials.)
Hi Gail,
It seems to me that a modest electrical supply is a critical element if we have any hope of a somewhat graceful "Powerdown". War and other catastrophe aside, I can imagine various "work arounds" (like in the chart) for transportation, food, shelter, clothing, etc. But, without some amount of semi-regular electricity, life will be dramatically different - for the worse.
JaggedBen commented:
I tend to agree with JaggedBen that we now have the benefit of many technologies that could be utilized in a post-FF world. It would seem that we would understand the value of electricity and make every effort to anticipate all the issues and impediments you raise (all very valid) and invest in solutions and work arounds before it is too late - I know - overly optimistic again.
When I worked in India, electricity was very unreliable - but it was there and it was a total game changer for India. I remember tripping over electrical cords spread all over office floors and UPS boxes everywhere - but it opened up vast new business opportunities. Without electricity India would simple not be on the world stage as they are today (for better or worse).
Personally, I truly dread the idea of losing of electricity. Pumping water from my 300' deep well will not be fun without electricity; nor running my saws; or using my computer; or not using the microwave; or wondering how my dentist will fix a tooth; or how my doctor could do surgery; on and on.
As a nation, if we have any sense, we will address your concerns as a highest priority to assure some level of sustainable electrical generation.
I agree with the general idea that things are networked. That's part of the reason I think this is so uncertain.
One should probably distinguish between "continue at all" and "continue, but only for those privileged enough."
I could be wrong, but it's my impression that US power plants are not currently very dependent on imported parts, materials, or knowledge. It seems to me, looking at the names of companies, that that's one thing Americans are still doing for themselves.
The experience of places like Iraq and Cuba under sanctions can be instructive here. I think if you look into those experiences carefully, you'll find that engineers managed to repair, refashion, and rehabilitate broken parts to a remarkable degree, keeping equipment running longer than anyone could reasonably expect. In the case of Iraq, engineers kept the electricity infrastructure at fairly stable levels for 12 years despite an almost complete blockade on parts and materials (far more complete than a country would experience just for financial reasons). But after the invasion in 2003 electricity production plummeted and recovered very slowly, despite parts and materials suddenly being available again, because engineers fled their jobs and insurgents attacked infrastructure. If nothing else I think that shows that the human factor is far more important than the availability of particular materials.
John Michael Greer has talked about industrial societies going through the phases of "scarcity industrialism", followed by "salvage industrialism." The first involves something like Iraq under sanctions. The second involves salvaging the embodied energy of our infrastructure to create new infrastructure at a lower level of technology, perhaps resembling earlier industrial eras. "Salvage industrialism" might still be capable of providing electric lights and power tools, but not, say, new working computers and televisions. I think all this describes plausible scenarios on a long descent stretching beyond this century. That is assuming that renewables don't at some point prove capable of stopping the decline and perhaps even reversing it.
Very nicely done! I'm sure that some could up with some niggles about what is and isn't included, but that would rather miss the point. It's really pretty upbeat, too (like, the alternative to fat people is thin people rather than cannibalism and mass famine). Probably a good thing I'm no longer a HS science teacher, eh...?
Now that's something I'd like to hear Obama say.
Failing that, it's good to hear a high school teacher say it.
TheOilDrum has a very high DROEI (Depression Returned over Enthusiasm Invested). Seriously, this must likely be the only website which is popular despite being very depressing.
www.theautomaticearth.blogspot.com
A++++++ would doom again!
http://desdemonadespair.blogspot.com/
http://www.malthusia.com/viewforum.php?f=1
http://peakoil.com/forum.html
http://www.kunstler.com/
Or just about any thing else on the blog roll.
But yes, in most main stream media, there is an unwritten (or maybe it is written somewhere?) rule that any problem presented includes a happy suggestion that there is a workable solution. This is not, of course, reality based journalism.
www.foxnews.com
Thanks Nate, now pass me the happy pills please ;-)
In a few years, you might mean this literally.
TheOilDrum still beats all these other sites because here, every piece of news which might give us some hope is exposited; criticized by highly trained geologists, engineers and numerates; expounded in greater detail and quantified; and finally rubbished as false hope.
The other sites are mostly hotbeds for pessimists, conspiracy theorists, survivalists and fear mongers.
Hope is merely the wish that something over which you have no control will turn out OK.
True despair - despair embraced - beats hope every time.
I can not accept that this might be true therefore it is not...
I am a old eco-hippie type that has been thinking about this stuff since the late 70's. What is amazing to me is how long it has taken to get to this point. Forced change might happen quick from here but...
Of the items on the chart one hits home. In spite of everything I know, I love to ski. This is one of the hard to accept items I would rather not face. I was thinking about how to justify that skiing does not really take all that much energy, but it does. Likely all of us have things of high energy intensity that we love to do. We need to learn to accept the limits of the world within which we live.
Then again I live within horseback riding range of a ski resort and will hike up the mountain and ski down on ungroomed natural snow... :)
The unreality to me is in not really knowing how things will play out. We can make a lot of guesses, and extrapolations based on prior experience, but we can't really *know*.
Some things may turn out better than expected, some worse.
My high-intensity activity was adventure travel. Oh well...I'm only a mile from the river - I can still paddle...
spring_tides
Not knowing, me too. If our human population numbers were at some reasonable level then a transition could at least theoretically be contemplated. Its how we get to reasonable population numbers that is so scary.
amen re the pop nos.
i was already starting the partial 'back to the land' when i learned of PO; so that part multiplied won't be easy but hardly foreign.
but now i've actually increased my footprint significantly as i fear we are too close to a million folks, & i am focused on having an alternative option or 2 if this area goes too far south.
having 'other options' meant buying a 3/4 ton truck, & hefty trailer. we also bought a very rundown house in a village on a river for 3 grand; but i have to now go there some; still tin blown off part of the roof, etc..
not the kind of life i had in mind at all.
Hi ryeguy, I recommend Lester Brown's Plan B - I recall he even does a cost analysis on the number of condums needed.
dave
thanks, I was wondering if anyone had put a number to the energy requirement of downhill skiing. It seems like if you keep everything simple, mass transit to the mountain, low key accommodations, depend more on natural snow, etc the energy/resource cost might not be so bad. If you compare it to snowmobiles, it likely looks down right green. Of course global warming will likely melt this option.
But the point is trying to get a handle on what is prudent based on the earths long term ecological limits.
I saw some numbers a few years back. Think about the lifts, the artificial snow, the groomers [let alone widening 50 miles of Rt 26 here in Maine]. And after all that work, what is the "output"? A heated ski lodge top of some mountain. A lot of emergy. Including the ATM machines, of course.
I loved downhill skiing. For me it was a sweaty zen abstraction. Top to bottom at Stowe as fast as the (AIG owned) high-speed chairlift ran. But it was immoral. Cross-country doesn't have the same level of sweaty zen abstraction - though for Bill McKibben, perhaps it did - freezing my balls to the lycra because it's that cold??? No, if I have less energy, I need to spend it digging in the garden in the winter under a hoop house set up for just that project.
I'm only a little further than that from the ocean and then less than a mile to a coral reef... you can be sure I'll be out there paddling as long as I can catch fish and lobsters.
BTW I'm going to see this movie tonight and meet the kayakers who took this trip.
http://www.dudesonmedia.com/PADDLE_TO_SEATTLE.html
FM
Wow - looks fantastic !
A few years back a group of us got together to help sponsor a couple of guys who were trying to circumnavigate Greenland. They didn't make it, unfortunately, but a grand adventure, nevertheless.
I can get to a wild life preserve in one direction, and Lake Michigan in the other. I think lake paddling will be great when we no longer have to dodge the power boats at the harbor entrance, and we aren't knocked about in the wake, deafened by the engines, or overcome by the fumes...
There's always a positive side....
I'm only a little further than that from the ocean and then less than a mile to a coral reef... you can be sure I'll be out there paddling as long as I can catch fish and lobsters.
BTW I'm going to see this movie tonight and meet the kayakers who took this trip.
http://www.dudesonmedia.com/PADDLE_TO_SEATTLE.html
Or you can try the Alaskan version of the trip, via packraft, by Erin and Hig:
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/WildCoast.php
It's OK, Rye. You will discover le faire de la randonee--backcountry randonee, telemark, skate skiing, classic skiing, kite skiing, iceboating, and others. Life doesn't end after downhill.
And downhill skiing might not end after PO. Jimminy Peak ski area in western MA installed a wind turbine that generates 1/2 the energy needed to run the lifts and snow making. If they add a 2nd, they have 100%, a third and they'll have enough energy to trade for spare parts and maintenance?
As an engineer, I just can't accept the idea that when oil is gone, all is lost and we might as well take the black pill. Oil is simply concentrated energy. The other sources are less concentrated and not as efficient but they're there. The Hudson river is not going to stop flowing, the wind is not going to stop blowing and the sun is not going to stop shining. We've simply got to get to work planning how to do with less. There is a huge amount of wasted energy in our current system(s) and we can probably go 5-10 years just on being more efficient, maybe longer.
Yes there will be problems. Probably a lot of discomfort, but as someone commented up above, there were restaurants and taverns long before Drake stuck a straw in the ground. I live in a downtown urban area in upstate NY and if we have to repel boarders I will be assisting at the remaining tavern(s) down the street from my house.
Maybe there will be mass chaos and destruction but that's not the universe I intend to live in.
Well, it looks like it's time to feed the dog and stroll down to the "field office" for a cold one.
So how exactly are you going to get to that alternate universe to avoid mass chaos here?
Moose , we need to hear from you more often.I get kinda lonely sometimes.
All may be lost-but its still an open question.
Mac, Thanks for the kind words.
As I may have mentioned previously I'm new to commenting but have been viewing the site for 2-3 years. I refrained from commenting as many others have far more knowledge of the PO issue(s) than I. However I feel more than confident in responding to the doomer/gloomer types on the far end of the spectrum. Some of the more outrageous possibilities they hypothesise make my head feel it's about to explode and I needed to post to relieve some of the pressure.
For example: "Electricity will be gone".
Will electrons cease to carry a negative charge because we run low on oil? Up next will be the reversal of gravity causing all loose earthly objects to be spun into the dark freezing void of interstellar space. While anything is POSSIBLE, it is the PROBABILITY of a certain scenario coming to pass that I hope to become informed on.
In 4 years I have gone from a sceptic of PO to a 90%+ adherent. I fully agree that there are to be negative consequences resulting from the transition from FF to other energy sources. However, I believe (hope/pray?) that we will use our brains to prevernt the more dire possibilities. I am constantly reading various other sites on alternative energy, Hybrid car research and other, some rather far-out, proposals that are being researched. Some say PHEV's and EV's are bunk because they cost too much and the batteries are too heavy and costly but then I read of researchers claiming to be close to zinc-air batteries with 4X the energy density at half the cost. If they get it right it could change the ecomomics dramatically. And there's lots more stuff they're working on. I took a gamble and invested in a company developing lithium-titanate batteries than can be recharged in 10 minutes. they are in the all electric PROTERRA concept bus that gets an alleged 17mpg equivalent. Really good, if true.
Plants make hydrocarbons, or whatever, out of air, water and CO2 why can't we? Folks are working on that. I could go on and on but you get the idea. In 5-15 years the people working on printing solar cells on fancy ink jet printers at 1/5 today's cost might just be successful. That would be pretty good, huh? Probably have a big change in probable outcomes too.
I might be way too optomistic but I bet, at the beginning of the auto age, when it became apparent that cars were taking over, the blacksmiths, livery stable owners, saddle makers, etc probably sounded a lot like PO Doomers. Some surely went out of business or even jumped in the river, but the adapters became auto mechanics, tire manufacturers, etc.
As someone said up above, some of the doomers actually WANT bad things and chaos because, like one well-known blogger, their hatred of things like