 | An Alternative National Energy Security Assessment for Australia | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Trouble With Energy - Part 2. |  |
The Trouble With Energy - Part 1.
Posted by aeldric on June 9, 2009 - 9:58am in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
This series of posts will be co-authored by phoenix, who is an Engineer heavily involved in the energy sector. It will be based on a submission we made recently to the Australian Government.
INTRODUCTION
Energy is a gateway resource.
Given abundant energy, minerals can be refined from seawater if necessary. But in the absence of energy even the richest mineral deposits are inaccessible.
Similarly, given sufficient energy, a valuable energy resource such as oil can be made synthetically from virtually any organic input. In theory (given the right infrastructure and energy production) the production rate of synthetic oil would be limited only by the availability of sufficient energy.
In this series of posts we will attempt to do 7 things:
- Discuss Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI). Show that a net-zero EROEI for a resource does not necessarily mean that the energy resource has no utility - it simply means that the energy resource has become an energy carrier, not an energy source. The burden of energy production must be moved to a different energy source. If reduced energy returns exist in our future (as they clearly do – this is happening already) then an infrastructure for this alternate energy source (or sources) must logically be built before the energy available from fossil fuels approaches zero.
- Discuss the lifespan of Australia’s endowment of fossil fuel (FF).
- Present an order-of magnitude estimate for the amount of time necessary to build an alternate energy infrastructure.
- Show that the lifespan of Australia’s current FF energy endowment is likely to be less than the time required to design and build an alternate energy infrastructure.
- Show that the energy required to build the infrastructure is likely to be a substantial fraction of all the energy that we have available, leading to an inevitable impact on GDP and living standards.
- Examine the same issues from a US/International perspective.
- Discuss solutions.
We do not intend to discuss the Hubbert Peak, declining supplies, or declining exports, since all of these matters are very familiar to TOD readers. However we will discuss Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) because this is a prerequisite for the discussion that follows.
EROEI
People visualize an oil well as being a hole in the ground with oil shooting out in a profligate geyser of energy-rich hydrocarbons. In fact, this has not been the case for decades. Modern oil wells rarely consist of a light drill rig making a hole out of which pressurised oil erupts. More commonly the oil is a tar-like substance which requires a complex technology to bring to the surface. Even more complex technologies are required to convert this viscous substance into what we would recognise as oil.
Refining Tar Sands. Not only does this process require immense energy inputs, it is also CO2 intensive.
The substance we describe as “oil” today is not what was described as “oil” in previous decades. The diminishing supply of “sweet light” crude oil simply does not meet today’s demand, forcing us to use toxic “heavy sour” oils, tar sands, and other sources of petro-chemicals that are only distantly related to conventional oil.
Similarly, acceptable grades of coal have broadened. Anthracite is being increasingly replaced by brown coals, which may be 60% or more water. Obviously, drying this coal before use consumes considerable energy and leads to decreasing energy returns from the coal.
In almost every form of mining similar stories are found. The easily accessed, highly concentrated ores have been mined, forcing us to consume more energy in extracting and refining the less-accessible, less-concentrated ore. The energy required to extract mineral resources is increasing for almost every mineral resource we mine.
When dealing with energy resources we see this problem in its purest form. We are looking at the energy required to produce energy. The concept of Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) is gaining increasing currency in thinking about this problem.
In the case of shale oil we are approaching the point at which, for some shales, the energy required to extract and refine the oil may exceed the amount of energy the oil will provide. This oil no longer provides our society with energy; it simply converts energy from cheap sources (such as nuclear power or natural gas) into a higher-value, convenient liquid fuel for powering our vehicles.
The utility of an energy-dense liquid fuel is immense, so this conversion has great value. However we must not lose sight of the fact that the energy must come from somewhere. If it is no longer coming from the oil, then it must be coming from renewable and alternate energy sources (in “alternate” I include nuclear and all other non-fossil energy sources).
Stephen Leeb in his book “Game Over” defines “Absolute Peak Oil” as that point where we invest more than a barrel’s worth of energy to pump, refine, and truck a barrel of oil to its point-of use. He discusses the plunging decline in energy return that has occurred recently and shows that the point in time at which oil’s energy return reaches zero is approaching.
In the next few decades we will need to expend a significant quantity of energy to simply extract and refine our fossil fuel. This will lead to an increased requirement for energy at a time when fossil fuels are yielding a decreased return.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PEAK IN ENERGY
Resource companies have consistently claimed that we have no shortage of resources. All that is required is a higher price. This is particularly true where fossil fuels are concerned. Companies have asserted that for the right price, reserves can be found.
This is undoubtedly true since, as observed above, products such as oil can be manufactured from almost any organic source, as long as energy is available. HOWEVER, the unspoken assumptions are:
- That alternate energy sources will be made available.
- This alternate energy can be produced in the quantities required.
| Upon examination, these unspoken assumptions imply that we will need a steadily increasing alternate energy infrastructure as a prerequisite for the continued supply of our resources. |
In general, the consequences of these assumptions have not been explored in depth by the responsible authorities.
This appears to be because the resource companies that make these unspoken assumptions are not responsible for planning and delivering an alternate energy infrastructure. The authorities that are responsible for planning and providing this infrastructure have not been fully briefed on the implications of the unspoken assumptions.
The next post attempts to address this issue. We will explore the time and energy required to build an alternate and renewable energy infrastructure in Australia. The estimated duration of Australia’s reserves of fossil fuel will then be compared to the time and energy required for this transition. The economic consequences will be explored.
|
The decline in quality and quantity of Fossil Fuels would not be an issue if adequate alternate energy sources can be made available. The clear conclusion is that renewable and alternate energy sources are no longer a “nice to have” or a “green solution” they are an absolutely critical requirement of any future resource calculus. Unfortunately, providing these facilities is not without issues. In subsequent posts we intend to explore the technical issues associated with the viability of this course of action. |
Part 2 is here.
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (11)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (6)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (10)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (16)
- February 2009 (16)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (15)
- November 2008 (23)
- October 2008 (25)
- September 2008 (24)
- August 2008 (30)
- July 2008 (44)
- June 2008 (38)
- May 2008 (48)
- April 2008 (43)
- March 2008 (29)
- February 2008 (32)
- January 2008 (30)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (11)
Nice start. Not many seem to explicitly recognize the need to put energy in to make liquid hydrocarbons because of the huge sunk (energy) cost of our liquid hydrocarbon based infrastructure.
> The Consequences of a Peak in Energy
This needs to be made into an <H2> or something.
Thanks. Done.
The 2009 Double-edged Sword
2009 Planetary Man has become so comfortable, avoirdupois, lazy, and arrogant that he believes artificial synthetic "Energy-Creation" is a viable possibility. While simultaneously being awash with emotional sanctimonious feelings of "Preserving the Planet".
Mother Nature by its very quiddity holds many secrets. The first appropriate disposition for a scientist to "unlock" those mysteries must acknowledge his own ignorance in the presence of them. The only reason fossil-fuels are even a part of civilized man's life is because of hundreds of millions of years of Mother Nature incubating and pressurizing that Fossil-fuel in preparation for man's ephemeral stint on earth. There is no problem with Mother Nature. The problem lies within ourselves and what we have become from our technological successes.
Josey Wales
June 3, 2009
I'm going to frame and put this on my wall.
My goodness! We've become a system of weights and measures!
Aeldric and Phoenix - I take it you've read SighRose Graham Turners comparison of the LTG scenarios with the actuals to date; and have seen how close the actuals track the Standard run otherwise known as the worst case scenario...
To explain why everything seems to turn to sh... manure as we approach peak - I contend that our system needs huge spare energy, that is high values for EROEI to generate sufficient capital to run and expand the material workings of the "system". I don't believe Ugo Bardi in his recent excellent article on peak capital is quite right when he contends that:-
"industrial capital follows the same curve of industrial production"
I beleive that recent events and our own experience of living amongst infrastructure that is under challenge shows that the capital curve precedes the industrial curve and its decline is the immediate cause of industrial decline and the antecedent cause is the lowering of EROEI.
This has important implications, for if I am correct, industrial society has already begun its inexorable decline, and unless we find a high eroei energy source - such as orbiting solar arrays and bring them in quickly - then our ability to do so in future will be very much questionable.
I did. I have no silver-bullet answers. (Actually I have one: 66% of Earth's population dies. Perhaps I should say that I have no palatable answers.)
All we really want to do is flag problems and start the process of navigating our way through the problems.
Only 66%? Cornucopian! ;-)
More seriously, comparisons of the LtG "standard run" to actuals to date don't prove anything (unfortunately), for two main reasons:
1. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between the early part of a sigmoid curve and an exponential. It's even harder when the actual data is noisy, and the coefficients of the curves are all unknown.
2. The LtG scenarios were just that: scenarios. As such they were highly simplified - they have no wars or irrational politicians, no business cycle (recessions), no significant droughts or volcanic eruptions to disrupt food supply, no epidemics, and no magic technologies, "mother lodes," or lgms (little green men). Any resemblance to reality should be approximate, at best. Well, except for the lack of magic, mother lodes, and lgms. That's accurate. But lots of people seem to believe in one or more of those.
For the same reasons, one can't "disprove" the LtG scenarios by comparing them to reality. And the burden of proof is on the person who says there are no limits to growth.
Gregvp,
Do you really believe orbiting solar arrays are a feasible alternative energy source or are you being stoically sarcastic?
A 66% reduction population seems much more feasible (and likely). Go bird flu & H1N1!
Carl
Orbiting Solar Arrays come under the heading of "magic technologies". - Although there is an element of "little green men from Mars" in there too ;-)
So no, I don't. And my comment "Cornucopian! ;-)" was intended to convey that I thought that aeldric's estimate (of a 66% reduction being sufficient for survival of the species) was optimistic. I don't know what's feasible, but I think that a greater reduction is needed, and likely. Not that I'm looking forward to it.
If you believe that the death of millions is a good thing, then show the courage of your convictions, and begin with yourself.
Otherwise, keep your genocidal wishes to yourself.
Seconded.
Try and have some imagination - population isn't the problem - our energy and manufacturing systems are - both can be completely changed to enable 9+ billion people live happily.
Really?
Vaclav Smil would also argue we can feed 10 Billion people too. see http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/pdf_reviews/EBSCOhost2.pdf
So, do we have a plan on what to do once we get to that so-called 10 billion mark?
While I agree that it is not the whole picture it is certainly rather disingenuous to say it isn't a problem.
Care to come up with a concrete plan that we can start implementing, one that is palatable to the all 9+ billion happy monkeys. My lack of imagination doesn't see 6.5 billion currently happy monkeys yet you honestly believe we are going to come up with something?
Kiashu,
If a doctor tells you you may have a terminal disease do you also assume he is trying to kill you and that he wishes you were dead? Or do you prefer to be told some platitude that everything is just fine. I really don't think anyone here is genocidal or takes pleasure in contemplating realistic scenarios. BTW how much of your life style are you changing now so that the currently starving millions can have a better life?
Oh really? I think this:
... is exactly what Gav is talking about. And I would like to third it. I wish this sort of thinking would just go away from here (or, as others have said, these people are free to go first). I think lots of people on this site, not the article writers, but certainly many of the commentors, DO have sadistic fantasies of "deserved" human suffering, a vindication of sorts. Too bad that it will be the people who least deserve it who will suffer the most.
If my doctor told me I had cancer by saying, "Go malignant carcinoma! Only a few more inches down to the bone marrow!" I would certainly fire, if not murder, him.
This juvenile sadism is part of what turns people off to the TOD message. It is really a shame.
While I personally am not hoping disease, famine, pestilence and
naturalhuman caused disasters will decimate the population, I'm also a realist and find it highly plausible that some combination of the above will do just that. I also fall into the camp of those who do not see the viability of maintaining 6.5 billion humans on this planet let alone 9+ billion. The only reason we have so many is because of our access to cheap easy energy, which we no longer have. I won't won't even get into our current ecological crisis.As for the comment "Go bird flu & H1N1!... and your counter comment "This juvenile sadism is part of what turns people off to the TOD message. It is really a shame."...
I find the first to be heavy with sarcasm but along the lines of "wake up people" and the second to be of the "Let's not talk about the unpleasant realities" sort. Neither of which may be very helpful in this discussion. However I'd much rather deal with realists who traffic in dark sarcasm as opposed to the ostriches with their heads in the sand.
Genocide, BTW, has a very specific definition and unless a virus were deliberately unleashed upon an unsuspecting group of people it falls under the "Natural Phenomena" category.
I find alluding to it to in this case to be both off the mark and a rather pathetic ad hominem.
Not to say, that based on the history of our race, that our current crisis will not lead to true genocide, BUT!
So to conclude my point, let's all get real!
Probably a population drop, however it came about (ideally by people choosing not to have kids), could be much less than 60% if it came from the top consumers in the world who gobble up the lion's share of resources.
On the main post, I particularly appreciate the first point, that I have been long making in the face of much incomprehension. We extract all sorts of things that have negative EROEI. Oil will continue to be extracted long after its EROEI has gone below 1.
Decimate would be a positive outcome(reduced by 1/10th).
Seriously.............I think that we are all wrapped around the axel on this stuff and I don't believe that anyone wants to see a mass indiscriminate die-off.
I think frustration is talking sometimes.
Come on you guys, we are all on the same team in the end.
Fourthed.
"Mad Max" fantasizing adds nothing productive, and neither does the 900th time someone mindlessly types out some supposed magical "correct" number of humans. If a person has a quantitative and evidence-based analysis to share, they're highly encouraged to do so, but nobody cares about their apocalyptic fantasies.
When it comes to "omg teh die0ff!1!", please give us either evidence or absence.
Ok here is some data to look at.
http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/
You're like arguing with a Vulcan. Fantasizing of any type is a useful activity in and of itself. The estimates of die-off numbers have been posted many times. Quantitative analysis and evidence is difficult if not impossible for our first time through a complex global experience, but which can, in fact, be replaced with rigorous discussion.
And your framing of estimates as "apocalyptic" is, itself, an emotional plea.
When it comes to heavy-handed insistence on expectations as unrealistic as those you criticize, please give us a break.
LOL! That's probably the wrong analogy since Vulcans are supposed to be devoid of emotion, do not traffic in fantasy and base their decisions on pure logic. I get the impression you don't believe I possess any of those qualities.
Yes it can and it is being done, there are scientists all over the world studying and researching ecosystems biodiversity and how humans are impacting and interacting with these systems and while our knowledge is still spotty in many places we have defined the outlines and are able to see the big picture. I recommend E O Wilson as a starting place for a lay person's understanding of the complexity we face. He has many great lectures and books. here's one http://www.ted.com/talks/e_o_wilson_on_saving_life_on_earth.html
The conclusion is straightforward, based on empirical data and logical analysis, we are destroying our life support systems and this is not an emotional plea, it is hard scientific fact. Though I'll be the first to admit it is easy to get side tracked and come across as being emotional about these issues. In the same way as one might scream fire in the crowded theater when there actually are billowing flames and smoke already pouring from the balcony. But you can look to the back of the theater and see the flames for yourself. The movie at this point is over.
If you can provide concrete information that shows we are not sitting on a branch and sawing it off between ourselves and the trunk, if you can pick any single place on this planet today, on land or at sea and show me even one single ecosystem that is not in the process of being degraded, then I will give you and everyone else a break.
Did you and I get some signals crossed? My comment was directed at Pitt. I see the biological decline becoming prevalent, and the branch will soon be in freefall. It appears you and I are on the same page.
Gav didn't say it wasn't a problem, he said it wasn't the problem.
These little words can be important.
As Andrew in Texas pointed out, there's a difference between telling you you've a problem, and cheering that problem on.
See blog. I'm endeavouring to take no more than my fair share of the world's resources. It's hard to ensure they get to those who need them - but if they're not getting them, it's not because I've taken too much and there's not enough. As Thoreau said,
I don't save other people, present or future generations, from the stinking swamp of misery and poverty. But I don't sit on their shoulders and push them into it, either. This is the theory behind fair share international.
How about you?
I mean, I'm happy to keep things abstract, but if you want to talk about our personal efforts, I'm happy to do that, too. I can educate others by my example, and the many others who do better than me, I can learn from them and improve, too. So how about you?
OK, Fair question. I'm not interested in singing my own praises but I too try to lead by example and lifestyle. Perhaps we are not all that far apart in this regard. I am always trying to lessen my own footprint.
I'm active in a few organizations and my personal focus is marine reef ecosystems in my own back yard. In the past I have posted more specific things that I have done and continue to do. For starters I'm the president of www.kayuba.org and I support Reef Rescue. I'm also a father of a 14 year old with Aspergers who I am trying to raise in a world that I find to be in a state of transition and find the path forward to be very unclear.
Not to pat myself on the back too much but I think in the big picture I'm just trying to do the best that I can. I often say what I think, I try to base what I say on some factual knowledge. Sometimes I find that after the dust has settled I need to reassess my position.
All in all I have lived a full 56 years so far with a very eclectic international experience.
I have held positions of leadership, responsibility, been a teacher, instructor in diverse fields.
I try to maintain an open mind and remain flexible but I do accept and acknowledge my limitations and am cognizant of my foibles and idiosyncracies. Though I try to do things with humor I'm also a cynic and a natural skeptic and sometimes come across a bit on the harsh side. If given the chance I prefer to talk things out over a beer.
I most certainly believe from having been around the world an having had the opportunity to see the reality of the human condition and personally followed ecosystem destruction in places such as the Amazon and coral reefs that we need to change course sooner rather than later. I already have seen the miserable poor dying of starvation before my own eyes. I will need an awful lot of convincing to accept that we can achieve sustainabilty for 9+ billion people.
It sounds like you do a lot of good in your life, far more than me. I admire you! I am too lazy and selfish, for me it's enough to not do (much) harm, rather than do good. But if everyone did that then there wouldn't need to be so much good done, things would naturally be alright :)
There's no question that we can feed 9-10 billion people. We could feed them with the food we produce today. But when you say "sustainability" I assume you mean more than that.
And those really are the questions: what sort of lifestyle do we want? And for who?
What I see here in this thread and elsewhere is a burning desire to keep on truckin', living exactly as we do in the West without any change whatsoever, more happy motoring out to the suburbs for the Sunday barbeque, and couldn't those poor dark-skinned foreign people just quietly die and then we wouldn't have to change anything, right?
That's not the sort of world I want to see. I'd like to see an ecotechnic society. I've mentioned that in TOD articles and on my blog a few times, and sketched out some ideas about it, so I won't go into it in detail here.
I think a better world is possible, one where we have many aspects of modern technology available, but with much less waste and with much less pollution. Is that possible for 9-10 billion people? I don't know. But I'm certain it's possible for more than the 1 billion people of the West.
That is, the wasteful industrial society we have has given 1 billion people good lives, and miserable poverty to the other 5.7 billion. An ecotechnic society can't do worse than that, surely. Exactly what it'd look like and how many people it could support is hard to say. But it's gotta be better than this.
How?
Hows ?
Well - I've been working on a post describing this for some time, but it may take a while to finish (not because I still need to work it out, but because I'm flat out at work and my personal life has undergone its own collapse this year which I'm still trying to sort out).
But these 3 links should give you the basic idea :
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/limits-to-scenario-planning.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/06/validating-viridian-vision.html
http://ourcleanenergyfuture.blogspot.com
Thanks for the links Gav.
I have read them this morning and don't intend to provide a point by point critique.
However having worked in manufacturing for twenty years and been involved in supplying parts for electrified transport, my experience tells me that road transport is a critical component in manufacturing as hundreds, if not thousands of parts, come together in factory to rollout a rail car. Rail cars are but one component of an electrified transport system. There are signal boxes, overhead catenaries, ballast to be quarried etc. Yes we have built rail in the distant past without petroleum but it was heavy rail that was limited in both its frequency of service and the duty it performed. But it still needed road transport to function. Todays high level of manufacturing capacity is critically dependent on cheap heavy road transport as the glue that links up the outputs of one factory to the inputs of the next.
I am also now involved in the sale of industrial and commercial property, much of which is already built and fixed to a particualr spot. You can't move the factories closer together to reduce the transport links and you can't just move machinery either. Specialisation of parts manufacture is the system that has enabled the manufacture of elaborately engineered products. One facotry that makes do-dads in Germany may supply the complete world supply to thousands of other manufacturers, including the electrifeid transport industry in Australia. Just the capital investment in machniery required to make that part may mean a break even point of thousands of units, when the whole Asutralian market may only require 50. So the transport links are critical and road transport palys a vital link at either end of the distribution chain. Now multiply that scenario by many thousands and you can start to see the problems facing BAU.
So when I see simplistic statements like:
I need to ask how? How do you maintain the very fine grain transport relationships that make modern high tech manufacturing possible? How do you get the workers of these factories to and from work each day when the current suburban mode means all of them driving a car? How do you move the armies of engineering contractors that constantly move around several differnt sites each day with all their tools and equipment? What about the sale reps who service the factories? The stationery deliveries? The smoko vans? Some of this could be moved to electric commuter vehicles but the problem is the 40 tonne semi-trailers that deliver the inputs and outputs from these factories. Overcoming the steep rise in costs of semi-trailer transport in the face of peak oil is the thing you need to solve first if you want to maintain the high level of manufacturing required to build out renewables and electric commuter and urban transport for the masses. Long haul can be replaced by trains but not the short haul door to door stuff. You need to be able to demonstrate a feasible technical solution to moving around all the goods around rather than just pointing to net energy calcualtions from renewables versus FF.
Look - decline in oil production will be slow and there are various temporary bandaids we can apply to ease the pain somewhat (biofuels, CTL, GTL, CNG etc) while we start the conversion process.
Consumers will be end of the queue and will be the first to cut back - food production and manufacturing the components for the new economy will automatically win out over random commuters due to a combination of market forces and government mandates.
The average person will have to drive less - that is how we will deal with less oil while transitioning to an oil-free economy.
I disagree. Population is the core problem. If we didn't have 6 billion people on the planet, we wouldn't 'need' such massive energy extraction and distribution infrastructure.
I'm not sure which would be 'less bad'; fast crash or slow crash (fast would probably end up killing less people, but it'd be impossable to plan for and would likely cause some violent demagogs/psycopaths/sociopaths to appear), but neither stikes me as a good thing for those involved. In my darker moments I reckon we're going to end up with one or the other, though, as TPTB aren't interested in anything apart from keeping the status quo rolling.
I think feeding 3 billion from locally-produced foods is doable, if we really go at it, even in a Decline World, but 6 billion isn't achievable.
In a world of declining liquid fuels, supply will probably be allocated to transport and Primary Industry, but an unforseen side effect may be a lot of angry, poor(er), unemployed people in the cities and suburbs. :eek:
People often call me an optimist IRL, but I can't see too many lights on the horizon from here. :(
Well...
About 1 billion people use about half the energy. The other 5.7 billion use the other half.
So, to reduce energy use by half, we could get rid of the 1 billion rich people, or the 5.7 billion poor people (let's leave aside the fact that it'd be hard for the 1 billion to be rich without being able to sit on the backs of the 5.7 billion poor).
So which population is the problem, exactly? The 1 billion rich, or the 5.7 billion poor?
Or here's another one: Australia, the US and NZ together have 5% of the world's population, yet cause 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. And the IPCC 2007 told us we need to get down to 15% of year 2000 emissions by 2050, or we face catastrophic climate change.
5% of the world's population could cause catastrophic climate change all by itself. 95% of the world's population could ascend into Heaven on a cloud borne by angels overnight, and the remaining 5% would still be in trouble.
So is the problem really population, or wasteful consumption?
Amazingly, people in the developed West, living lives of wasteful consumption, are pretty well unanimous in saying that consumption is okay, it's just population we have to worry about. Funny that. Al Gore lectures widely on the dangers of excessive energy use, but doesn't see the need to change his own lifestyle, either.
Let's get beyond this puerile self-interest and laziness. We can do better than that.
Kiashu--You assume that geting rid of the richer I billion would not have a negative impact on the poorer 5.7bn. But do you have any actual evidence on that? Or is it just you've been reading too many Marx books about "exploitation". Currently many of the 5.7bn benefit in major ways from the inventions which originated among the "rich", not least from natives of the uk.
And one might further argue that it is the poorer countries' own fault, because they have seen enormous population increases far greater than the "rich" in recent decades.
And furthermore is there any basis beyond emotional kneejerk for saying that all people's lives must be considered of equal value? Certainly I myself am not getting paid enough to start a family; where's the equal valuation there please?!
Ironically I suspect it is the "rich" sector which is at greatest risk of die-off from their dependence on the globalised system. Few people round here have even the slighest clue how to source food from their locality. They know none of the names of the life-giving plants and care even less what they could do for them.
Definitely it's true that the poorer people's lives would be different without the richer, and vice versa. Better or worse? Who can say.
But that wasn't the point. The point is that if we say, "population is the problem ruining the environment!" then we should decide which population is more of a problem: the 1 billion rich causing half the problem, or the 5.7 billion poor causing half the problem? Each I think would say it's the other.
All people's lives are of equal value: infinite value, each one. You may call this "emotional kneejerk"; I would call it "civilisation". The most barbaric and vile societies are those which place a dollar value on human life - slave societies - or which say that these lives here are worthless, and those lives there are valuable.
Most people who prefer barbarism don't imagine they'd be at the bottom of the new social order. It's a bit like how in the medieval re-enactment societies people play nobles, not peasants.
Kiashu--One minute you are scolding Carl for a flippant five words about swine virus, probably just trying to stay sane about a frightening subject. And next minute you are seriously advocating the extermination of I billion of the population of which there is negligible evidence that they are in any way less morally worthy. Indeed they include most of the people who have a clue about overpopulation, planetary crises etc, and are trying to do something about them.
How about we consider that the 20% who are illiterate use far less energy than the literate. So let's "get rid of" the literate lot? And those who don't speak English would also use less, so best "get rid of" the English speakers. Yes?
I'm not advocating the extermination of anyone. I'm posing a hypothetical in response to the assertion that "population is the problem."
If population were the problem then if everyone except Aussies, Americans and Kiwis died, the world would be okay environmentally with no other changes. And in fact we'd still be in a lot of trouble. That's because that 5% of the population causes 25% of the emissions.
We take more than our fair share. That's wrong. We should take less of the pie, and try to make the pie bigger overall.
That's how you respond to people's arguments, sometimes. "Well, if what you say is true, then that leads to so-and-so; since so-and-so is something which is absurd or we don't like, probably you should change what you say."
The thing is that these arguments about population are really just a First Worlder's way of saying, "I don't want to do anything." Because if consumption is the main problem, then we all have to consume less. But if population is the main problem, we can just say, "well I'll have no more kids, easy."
It's the lazy person's excuse for doing nothing. Hey, I understand laziness. I'm getting thoroughly sick of accounting my carbon impact, and trying to reduce it. I'd rather just chuck it in. But just come out and say, "I am too lazy to change", don't hide behind elaborate rationalisations about population or "they'll think of something" or "the market will sort it out" or any bollocks like that.
Both. Not necessarily in equal amounts, but still both. The 1 billion 'rich' are probably more at risk, because of their disconnect with the land.
Again, it's both, imo.
I don't advocate a genocide or anything like that. Natural deaths from old age, accidents, Flu, etc will take care of the problem all by itself, so long as we (voluntarily) reduce the number of children per woman. The existing Meme of 'breed breed breed' (exemplified by our own Baby Bonus - have one for the country, girs!) can't continue, or we'll blow straight through any upper population limit we wish to name, and we're no better off. I suspect Peak Resources will get us before we voluntarily reduce our numbers, though. The cognitive dissonance, self-belief, and blind faith in 'them' and 'technology' is just too great. The odd few who are getting back to the land, reducing their resource use, 'downsizing' etc doesn't seem to me like it's going to be enough (the propogation of ideas/actions through the population takes time, and there's plenty to obstruct them).
Wasteful consumption also has to stop. Building items which are only designed to last a year or two (at most), or are designed to promote yet more wasteful consumption (highway upgrades etc) is of no real benefit to anyone. Give me quality/longevity over price almost any day of the week.
I nearly fell over last week when I found out how much electricity this house uses, but, despite my subtle hints and not-so-subtle suggestions, more energy-hogging appliances enter the house each year. And we just threw away a perfectly good kettle because 'it tastes like ants' (ants got into it and were boiled alive. I can't taste anything different about the water). It's not my house, and not my stuff, so I can hardly go making an unilateral changes, however. :(
And the Land Whales I see walking (waddling?) around town! If there's a clearer example of excessive consumption, I don't know what it is. :P
I think the planet could actually feed many more people than that. Maybe even up to 20 billion. The question really has to be framed in the context of what sort and how much food each person gets each day. If we define that as the minimum amount to provide adequate nutrition sustain a healthy human performing normal manual labour, we would probably find that more than enough food could be grown around the world to achieve this.
The biggest obstacle to getting there from where we are today is in the distribution channels that actively distort markets and tip the balance in favour of industrial farming at the expense of local production. The vast distribution of factory farm produce from the big food producing countries is carried almost entirely on the back of cheap oil. Peak Oil will disrupt this model and there may be a period of desperate famine in some parts of the world as a result. The upside may be that local markets are re-established for small scale farmers which eventually result in a net increase in food reserves (or growing capacity) with the distribution now much more localised.
Population levels will necessarily need to stabilise around the local food growing capacity either through mass migration away from the low capacity areas to high capacity areas. Of course migration of large groups of people is a huge political problem for the leaders of both the outgoing and the recieving nations and has been the cause of many wars in the past. I have no reason to believe that such mass movement of people from South Asia and Africa would be frictionless in the future. But there would be enough food and drinking water to ensure bare survival for all.
However as Maslow teaches us, bare survival is only the first step on the hierarchy of needs on the road to self actualisation. It is the distinction we make between our human lives as an ethereal experience, supported by our living bodies, that separates us from all other species. Once the needs of the living body are met, it is realistic to expect that the people involved will look about their environment and ask themselves "So what should we do next?"
Whatever the answer it invariably involves harvesting more energy and physical resources to build and make things and generally strive to make life as cushy and comfortable as you can. This is the real poulation problem. It's not feeding the multitude that is hard. It's delivering everything else that comes after hunger is satisfied that will destroy the planet. Unless we as a species can use our higher brain functions to come up with a way to both feed everyone and make the lives thus created worth living, we are going to be in some very deep conflicts, squabbling over the remaining yet dwindling supplies.
Big Gav = bad math and Kiashu has a twitchy knee.
We are doing a lousy job of providing a decent living standard for the 7 billion we already have, how many of the worlds population live in poverty and/or repression.
We don't need more people, we need less. Die-off would be great from a planetary management point of view. Sad but fairly obvious, and I would rather a plague did it than a very short person with an atom bomb or mobs of dispossesed with clubs. Having said that, H1N1 looks like a fizzer.
"If you believe that the death of millions is a good thing, then show the courage of your convictions, and begin with yourself.
Otherwise, keep your genocidal wishes to yourself."
Can people please stop with this lame, ridiculous response when someone suggests we need less people raping the planet!
Population IS a major problem, and encouraging a lower population does not mean one wants genocide. Is that the extent of your imagination?
Agreed NZ is a major problem. It is a major problem to all the species we displace but more important to us it is a problem to ourselves. People get sarcastic when others say it isn't a problem as logic fails to get their attention. We live on a fixed size ball with fixed resources and once we are fully using those resources (most arable land is now farmed) we can only add humans by reducing how much each human gets. Since 1 billion humans live on 1 dollar a day and another 1 billion live on 2 dollars a day and survive I guess we can keep expanding our population until no one gets more than 2 dollars a day to live on. EXCEPT that that would overwhelm our ecosystem and yes we would see a die off. Since even China's 1 child policy has not stopped their population growth and no one is proposing that for the world we will just have to wait until nature does it or initiate wars. Since overpopulation will put stresses on many necessary resources (arable land, water) and highly desired resources no doubt we humans may accomplish die off without nature's help.
Most people would rather human population control be voluntary but at this point in the game that looks unlikely
"Agreed NZ is a major problem"
I assume there is a word or two missing from that sentence, but it is funny just the way it is! :)
I too would like population control to be voluntary, but even if all countries had a one child policy per couple, population would continue to increase for a while, stabilize briefly, and then begin falling once the young people of today started dying of old age. So it is not an immediate fix. I see involuntary population reduction ahead – but perhaps less so if we also try voluntary reduction now.
Nonlinear dynamics will also end up "surprising" people who advocate fixing BAU or some lite version, instead of overhauling our entire social system. Complexity will bite us in the ass as long as we continue to ignore the interconnectedness of things. Guaranteed.
I think population is a problem in the nearterm (in the longterm, I expect it to stabalize). But for a while it will be a huge problem for many parts of the world. That does not mean I want billions to die. I would prefer to think away around that. Even though I do think many will starve, as many are now and always have, I certainly don't intend to toast it.
Encouraging lower population is neither good nor bad in itself. What matters is how we get there. There are two basic ways population can drop.
The first is by raising the education, political power and prosperity of women - doing it with men doesn't do much, unfortunately. Even a little bit makes a big difference. This is why Japanese women have few babies, and Afghan women have lots, and why Ghanan women are having fewer as time goes on.
The second is by mass death and destruction, disease and wars.
Interestingly, when people here speak of the importance of lowering population, they don't speak about improving the education, political power and prosperity of women, but do speak about disease and war. And they speak with glee about it.
I have a problem with that, as should any civilised person. Wanting large portions of the world's population to die so that we don't have to change our lifestyle at all - that's a genocidal impulse.
As I said, wanting lower population isn't wrong or right in itself. What's wrong or right about it is how you want to get there. I want to get there with people's lives improving, other people want to get there with mass death and misery.
Even theocratic Iran has more than halved it's post-war birthrate. Through the use of advertising, top-down encouragement, and publicly-funded Family Planning services, the change has been nothing less than extremely impressive.
Much of the West looks at Iran with disdain, but frankly, they've got some good ideas worth implementing.
Enjoyed your comment, NZ.
I've been quietly waving my "Go Swine-H1N1" flags for some weeks now. ;)
I see Sunrise (Channel 7, Australia) finally all but admitted that the media has blown Swine Flu way out of proportion, but added the caveat that they "were just reporting what they're told".
Comment deleted by author
carl--I've not seen your deleted post here, but I thought all that great fuss about just 5 words you typed in the previous (and what it may or may not have implied) was really unnecessary. I'd recommend the whole sequence from Kiashu onwards be dumped. That's not to say the five words were ok, just we should not jump to conclusions and make such a mountain of it.
Why would you wish it purged ?
Its an important discussion to have, especially seeing that there are so many people who totally misunderstand the problem.
As I said, population isn't the problem - current models show it will level out around 9.5 billion people. We can (sustainably) provide adequate energy and food to that many people if we choose to.
Its as simple as that.
Oh really?
It 'feels' like we are literally at a planetary maximum (at 6.9 billion people) this very moment. Even non-Peak Oil people I've talked with sense this.
I am genuinely curious how your claim can possibly be true.
Name one expert (besides the Vatican ) who agrees that 9.5 billion people is sustainable or that there is adequate energy and food for 9.5 billion people(Paul Ehrlich say 2-3 billion is sustainable)?
Please make your case(no sarcasm intended). Or maybe kiashu can make the case( without resorting to a Marxist utopia of redistribution)?
Well - how about Stewart Brand ? He was a student of Ehrlich's and has been rather influential in this debate over the years...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14406&ch=biztech
Or how about The Limits To Growth - scenario 9 shows population levelling off at over 8 billion people with a standard of living higher than today.
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3572
I made some notes about the food side of this issue at the link below a while back.
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/10/fat-man-population-bomb-and-green...
I think kiashu has also analysed the food production issue a little more empirically than I have (hopefully he can dig up the link).
I've seen some experts argue that we could have a lot more than 9 billion people on the planet. I'm not sure I agree with them, but the point is moot if the population does level off at 9 odd billion people as the models suggest anyway.
If you rule out redistribution, then yes 9.5 billion people can't all be fed, clothed, housed and transported decently.
But then neither can 6.7 billion, 3 billion, 1 billion or 300 million. People starved and froze in the days of the Roman empire with 300 million people.
Nobody has ever starved or been ill-clothed or sheltered because there wasn't enough food, cloth or housing in the world as a whole. Nor do I expect this to be so in the future. That is, people have always starved because someone chose for them to starve, not because there wasn't enough food.
I don't expect this to change in the future.
Redistribution isn't Marxist. It's very much capitalist. If everyone acting in the market has all the information they need, if they act independently rather than in anti-market cartels, then no-one need starve. If three European margarine companies get together and say to Ghana, "okay, now that you've turned 40% of your cropland into peanut farms, we're offering you $100 a tonne less," that's not free market capitalism anymore than Stalin's collective farms were. If Mexico abolishes subsidies for corn farmers while the US keeps them, that also is not free market capitalism. If coltan is mined by slaves at gunpoint in the eastern Congo, giving the West cheap mobile phones and computers, that is not free market capitalism anymore than black enslaved cotton pickers were in the US in 1850.
In a real free market, goods would be distributed more equitably. Not entirely equal, just more equitably than today. The problem is that some are playing by the rules, and some aren't. The Third World trying to compete with the First World is like a boxer out in a fight following the Queensbury rules while his opponent happily punches him in the nuts and kicks him in head when he's taking a count. Who's gonna win? Gee I wonder.
It's okay if we have cartels and subsidies and tariffs and everyone else has them, too. If both boxers can do nutpunches and kicks, that's alright, it's even. But our subsidies and regulations and treaties and so on are not equitable.
People will be well-fed and clothed and housed in a world of 9.5 billion if we choose for them to be so. And they will starve and freeze in a world of 9,500 if we choose for them to be so. The world has 800 million hungry people, and 1,000 million obese people. These numbers are not a coincidence. Suggesting that we need to grow more food and only then will the hungry be fed is like suggesting that if only Bill Gates (continuing the lack of competition, monopoly theme) could get another $50 billion there'd be no more poor people in the US.
Upon further reflection its not that the capital curve lags behind the industrial, but more of the capital is fed back into energy production as the EROEI decreases. Therefore energy production gets more capital intensive and the other stuff we have built like the POWER GRID, THE ROAD NETWORK AND THE COPPER WIRE PHONE NETWORK, just don't get kept up to date.
What is interesting if material goods have an an average life span of say 20 years the production of which took half of the available energy with the other half being used at the discretion of the population - lighting, vehicle use, travel generally etc; with most of the big stuff being built when EROEI was much higher - therefore more energy available to build it; when EROEI falls and the discretionary use remains the same or grows then we face an inability to replace large capital items due to lack of available energy...
If we had a war and all our bridges and power grid for instance were destroyed, then we would not be able to rebuild them - of course the efflux of time will do the same job....
BTW if we with to absent 66% of the population the most moral way to do it would be to nuke all human settlements over 100,000 persons - then the surviving 50% of the global population will soon shrink to 34% of the pre-holocaust population as the less fit die off due to their dependence on the roles cities have proffered. In this way we get over the moral problem of wanting to kill off competitors for scarce resources - ie greed being the motive.
Wake up everyone we just need to use a huge lot less - and become more mentally and physically healthy in the process.
It's not clear that EROEI will decrease, wind and solar energy seem to have a high EROEI, and wind the payback is less than one year.
We also have considerable sunken infrastructure that can be use ( road, factories, steel mills) without additional energy inputs until they wear out.
Also only a small part of our economy is investing in capital goods, most is in consumption, so that give a lot of flexibility in reducing energy use without reducing new investment.
Based on the time series analyses that I and others have put forth, EROEI is declining for oil and natural gas, and has been for sometime now. I know of estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that say that wind is about 18:1 on average across numerous turbine sizes. When you say that "payback is less than one year" are you referring to energy payback or monetary payback, and do you have a reference for me?
David, could you add a link to your studies? Thanks.
I'm a fan (no pun intended) of wind, but won't EROEI for much wind go down in the future as the best locations are taken up and we are left with the less optimum sites to develop? Will technological advances here be able to keep up with the drop in ideal spots in particular areas?
According to this article from Cnet, yes.
Small wind turbine works at low wind speeds
Of course, this could be hype meant to dupe potential investors since, they do not address the issue of turbulence which affects turbines in the locations they are targeting.
Alan from the islands
A lot of the innovative designs are trying to deal with the issue of turbulence and low wind speed. Their idea to put the magnets and coils on the periphery is potentially brilliant and explains at least some of the low wind speed performance: they're moving faster than your typical turbine's magnets because of their placement. I'd like to see one of the engineers here do a quick calculation on the increase from that alone to see if it is significant.
Such a simple idea!
I think the reason some home-made, DIY windmills can deliver "sufficient" energy (besides living on a very low energy budget) is the lack of gearbox. When you've only got magnets whizzing past coils, you're cutting down on a lot of friction.
Cheers
Except its the magnetic "friction" that generates the electricity. The shaft still needs to rotate on some sort of bearing. I can see this might be a useful design for small scale wind generators but won't be able to scale up to multi megwatt generators.
I was under the impression that most small scale wind applications don't pan out when you consider total EROEI of building the generator...
If this new device puts small wind firmly on the positive (or rather greater than one) side of EROEI, that sounds like a major improvement.
Still reduction in energy use is the main thing we have to go for.
The recent report claims that for the world new power plants construction, a bit more than 50% of new name plate capacity is "renewable". Well, capacity factor for renewable isn't the same as for FF plants, but it is a start. Some combination of aggressive conservation (i.e. pursuit of efficiency and elimination of waste) and aggressive buildout of renewables ought to be just about able to fill the gap (although with a somewhat time variable supply). The trick is to get us to be appropriately aggressive on both fronts. That seems to be the tough part.
One of the future posts in this series addresses this exact issue. Unfortunately the numbers don't fall out the way we all hope.
It's worth noting that capacity factor for wind is often higher than for natural gas, and that natural gas represents the bulk of fossil fuel capacity added in recent years in the West.
In the US, for example, wind added in 2008 was not only higher than any other power source in terms of nameplate, but also in terms of expected annual generation.
Pitt
The reason for this statistic is that there is no distinction usually drawn between open cycle gas turbines and combined cycle plant.
There has been a very large uptake of open cycle plant over the last 10 years because this plant is require for peaking. Peaking plant normally operates for around 500 hours per year or less than 7%. As a little ironic twist, the significant increase in adoption of wind generation has also increased the requirement for open cycle gas turbines in order to guarantee the system.
If you were able to identify only the combined cycle gas plant you would find capacity factors up around 70% or more.
the significant increase in adoption of wind generation has also increased the requirement for open cycle gas turbines in order to guarantee the system.
Not really. While the addition of wind capacity may not increase the amount of peaking capacity by as much as other kinds of plant, it doesn't decrease the amount of peaking capacity.
There may be limited instances in which taking advantage of wind production, especially during night time base-load conditions, creates more production variance and makes System Operators prefer a switch from less flexible plant (like coal) to more flexible plant (like Nat Gas). On the one hand, 1) as NG is much cleaner, this is a good thing, and 2) this doesn't require more plant, just increase the utilization of existing plant. On the other, Demand Side Management can do the same thing, at very low costs. Switching to NG generation is the old-fashioned response.
It's well known that wind blows as hard or harder at night. This is arguably a bigger problem for wind than variance, and it's a problem it shares with nuclear.
Picture 220M EV's providing night time demand and soaking up all that variance. They're not here yet, but they'll ramp up pretty much in parallel with wind.
If you were able to identify only the combined cycle gas plant you would find capacity factors up around 70% or more.
Do we have any rough estimates of the market share of CC vs OC gas plant?
# 1 item in the article above is exactly what I have been saying. We need to use available resources to make as much renewable as possible, keeping in mind that post peak will make it much more difficult and expensive. As resources deplete the likelihood of replacing fossil fuels with renewable becomes less and less. We must act now while we can, so we can reach a point where the energy generated from renewables can be used to construct more renewables. We are no where near that point, but there is still fossil fuel energy available at reasonable pricing.
I agree with this.
I want to add though, that it seems that post-Peak conditions will continue to destroy uses of FFs until one of the most important uses of them becomes creating more energy. The only things that will always be more important and inflexible are basic neccesities: nationalized grain production (gardening and raising animals can do the rest of food production), very minimal heating in cold climates, securing water suppply, etc... We are a LONG way from not being able to do this.
In (overly) simplified terms, at a certian point, it will be far more profitable to use wind energy to build more windmills rather than to run an electric blender or to manufacture knick knacks because the market will be willing to pay nothing for knickknacks but a lot for windmills... because, obviously, they can produce more windmills, which would mean more profit.
Cold comfort for some, but it beats the end of the world.
Hello to those Down Under,
I just want to make sure that you are all aware of the latest from Duncan's latest Olduvai update:
http://www.warsocialism.com/olduvai.htm
---------------------
Olduvai Theory: Toward Re-Equalizing the World Standard of Living
--------------------
If his scenario holds true, [approx. 3.5 BOE/C by 2030]: This means the world has to move pretty damn fast to quickly invent and build lots of 'Mr Fusion' and/or 'Star-Trek transporter-beam' machines, or some other real-cheap inventions, if we want to continue our presently high standards of living, restore the global ecosystem to pristine eco-standards, plus vastly improve the lives of so many others as we ramp towards 9 billion and beyond.
I am not optimistic myself, but I will be quite glad to be proven wrong in 2030 when I am 75.
totoneila,
It's a complete non-sense to propose that standard of living(SL) is equivalent to boe/population. Most OEDC countries have had a rise in GDP at least 1.3% per year greater than increase in energy use.
I lived in US in the early 1970's and am sure that the standard of living has increased considerably in the last 40 years, as it has in Australia.
Human development index gives a better measure, and shows very little effect of energy use and HDI above about 35% of the US energy use value. In other words a 65% reduction in energy use in US would have very little effect on standard of living. Just imagine everyone driving a 50mpg Prius instead of 20 mpg SUV, are you saying their standard of living would drop by 65% because they used 65% less gasoline? or if they added $1000 of insulation to the roof and reduce electricity/gas use by 30% are they poorer?
Hello Neil1947,
Your Quote: "It's a complete non-sense to propose that standard of living(SL) is equivalent to boe/population."
Sorry, but that sentence does not compute with me, as I think BOE/C is a very valid method to compare energy/C until everyone has 'too cheap to meter' alternative sources of energy [a Big IF] to meet their cooking, heating, A/C, water purity, medicinal,entertainment, transport, eating, and pristine ecosystems needs.
Simple question: would you rather have 57 barrels to trade for whatever you deem to be absolutely essential, or just one barrel? My guess is that you can buy a lot more potable water & food, or PV panels, with 57 barrels versus just one.
Maine Lobsters and Alaskan King Crabs do not migrate, by their own free will, to Seafood restaurants in Las Vegas; it takes some 0.X BOE/Crab. Somalia is much, much, much closer to the ocean [how about a mere beach traverse?] than Nevada, yet the average person is desperate because their BOE/C is so low. Because of their Overshoot: I doubt if even wind-powered sailing boats would be enough to bring in sufficient fish, I-NPK, and other goods they need to live to First World Standards.
Just look around the world at different countries and how much energy they use per person, then map that to some measure of quality of life. What you find is something like the graph below of electricity vs HDI,
That is, when you have none then a little bit makes a big difference. When you have a lot, more makes no difference. So for electricity, looking at total use (domestic use is usually 1/3 of this) we can say,
0-1,000kWh each = HDI 0.65
2,000+kWh each = HDI 0.80+
4,000+kWh each = HDI 0.90+
8,000+kWh each = HDI 0.90+
If you look at other graphs of energy to quality of life, you find similar results. When you have none then a little bit makes a big difference. When you have a lot, more makes no difference.
So, BOE per capita is a valid measure, but only up to a certain point. As Thoreau put it, superfluous wealth buys superfluities only; more than 4,000kWh per person improves people's quality of life not at all. Similarly, adding $50,000 to the salary of someone on $100,000 will not improve their life much; adding $5,000 to the incomes of 10 families on $10,000 will make a big difference to them.
Hello Kiashu,
Well done,Well stated!
If you accept that HDI of 0.9 can range from 4,000 kWh/capita to 16,000kWh/capita how can you say SL=boe/capita???
As I said, you cannot measure SL by BOE/total population(BOE/capita).
Neil1947,
Perhaps you are just being argumentative, but I cannot tell for sure.
Then please use units of Firewood/C for SL: you are saying that there is no difference between someone who has four cords of wood for their personal heating and cooking SL versus someone who has just one stick of firewood for their SL. Please compare forested Norway/C to denuded Haiti/C--I think the SL is dramatically different by any metric used to compare these two countries.
If an Easter Island type event starts to occur: Who do you think has a better chance to build a wooden boat to get the hell out of there?
You are ignoring the arugment presented. Haiti is a poor example because they have nothing. Compare Europe to US instead. Hardly the same as comparing the OECD to Easter Island.
One stick and four cords is a difference. But that isn't really the immediate post-peak scenario for the developed world. 10 cords versus a 100? Not much difference. I might say, "Hell, I don't need more wood for heat, maybe I will use the other cords to build a second log cabin even though, you know, I already have one." If firewood got scarce, I would reconsider.
Excess resources breeds waste. Just because growth tracked oil usage one the upslope of the oil curve does not mean that we must continue wasting it at the same rate on the down curve. There is a relation between energy use and GDP/SL, but it is not set in stone.
Example, I went out to dinner last night with my parents for my birthday. Because we live in the country, we drove to the city to eat dinner. Had gas costed $10 instead of $2, I would have eaten at the local BBQ pit. If I had NO gas, sure, I might've stayed home (or walked soewhere even closer?) but with a fraction of the gasoline, I would've been mighty full of ribs and happy and used a fraction of the oil. My money would have suported the local economy just as well as it did the urban economy up the highway.
YOU seem to be the one bent on being obtuse.
I think it's a very relevant example because they didn't always have nothing. They had forests and they cut them down to cook with. But then there was nothing to hold the topsoil, which washed away in heavy rains, and now even if they had fuel to cook with, they've got nothing to cook.
But I mean, they had to cook, so what else could they do? They needed some other kind of fuel. But they couldn't afford it. They couldn't afford oil or coal, couldn't afford to build power stations so they could have electricity, so there it was - cut down forests.
Just a small amount of oil or coal or electricity could have saved the forests, which would have saved them from famine. That's the lesson of those shoulder-shaped graphs - when you have nothing, having just a little bit vastly improves your quality of life. When you have a lot, having more makes little or no difference.
This is very relevant to discussions of life post-peak fossil fuels, because it moderates both the cornucopians and the doomers. The cornucopians don't need to make such extreme claims that we can have these enormous amounts of energy and resources, because we don't need them for a decent quality of life. And the doomers find it harder to be doomy because when we see what we need for a decent quality of life, it's a lot smaller than what we imagine.
It is a poor example because, from what I can gather, we are nowhere near that point on a global scale. We are at peak oil, not peak energy/energy resources. Haiti is small, overpopulated, and without ANY natural resources so that they have to cut down trees for charcoal. Globally: We have coal. We have gas. We have half our oil reserves. We have nuclear. We have wind farms and (some) solar going up. We have toe-to-heel injection. We have the possibility of methane hydrates and oil shale for electricity. Many place have geothermal, cellulosic ethanol, hydro. Etc, etc.
Haiti, on their own, is not at peak anything. They are basically out of resources. This is not really the global situation, yet.
So while I agree that it is an instructive example of what to avoid, using it as an example of our current position is erroneous. It would be like saying we must plan in 2010 as if it were 2100, rather than saying we must plan for 2100 now in 2010.
If Haiti is "out of resources", why do they continue to be supported with aid? Why not let them fend for themselves or perish? When will this artificial life support end for terminal cultures/societies?
Do they get supplied, even at the expense of the producers when scarcity comes? I think not. The hard questions are not answered here. Much talk in circles about angels on the head of a pin, but decisions must be made. And sooner rather than later.
It's called an asymptote.
Productivity cannot be strictly proportional to energy/worker hour. If this were the case then a factory owner who employs 1000 people could fire 999 of them, and since the last remaining employee would have 1000 times as much energy per hour as he or she did previously, the productivity of the factory would not drop. Clearly at a given level of technological development productivity per hour as a function of energy per hour must roll over and obey a law of dimishing returns.
Of course it is true that if you want to extend a given standard of living to a larger group of people by brute force (i.e. without efficiency improvements) then energy use must increase linearly with population. But this claim is not the same thing as the equation Energy per Capita=Standard of Living.
None of which is to say that I am dismissing concern over human population growth. The sooner the human population of the earth stabilizes (a hopefully in the long run contracts) the better off we will be.
All 9+ billion happy monkeys? Yeah sure!
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
John Lennon
At this rate, this thread might drive me to leave TOD forever...
No one is driving 6 billion SUVs right now!! That we can't get everyone a Prius does not mean that getting some doesn't help. And... OMG! There are so many logical fallacies with that seven-word comment I don't think I can even finish this response...
Maybe if I pick a song off the White Album as supporting evidence, my rebuttal will hold more water?
My irony meter just shattered, you owe me a new one.
Uh-huh... is that because you believe that 6.5 billion people own SUVs? Or is it because you believe that tripling the efficiency of half of the fleet wouldn't have an effect on efficiency?
Yes, very ironic indeed. The definition of irony is: obvious statement of fact coupled with simple common sense, no?
No, the irony is that you are able to find multiple logical fallacies in my snide remark, yet seem to find none in Neil1947's retort to totoneila above. Not to mention that you seem to dismiss out of hand the consequences of Jevon's Paradox.
countries below 3.5 barrels of oil per year in 2006:
Turkey (3.47)
Tunesia (3.28)
China (2.1)
Philippines (1.47)
According to Olduvai theory, these should all have collapsed, but they have not. Real hardship is around 0.2 B/year like North Korea. Numbers from
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumpt...
Energy is needed to get energy. Energy is needed to get metals and minerals. Metals and minerals are needed to get metals and minerals. Metals and minerals are needed to get energy.
Both energy and metals and minerals are depleting, but energy is depleting overall more quickly. But their depletion is mutual and synchronized, not separate.
Some of the energy sources are partially renewable from a strictly energy angle (solar, wind, hydro. some bio) but not from a metals and minerals point of view.
The alternative sources are not going to work. There is going to have to be radical retrenchment. How large a population the earth can sustain I don't know. But our only hope is to prepare for the end of industrialism as we know it -- which is just dependence on underground energy, metals and minerals.
Population will be what can be sustained without these. I believe that once we are forced to return to the soil and become directly aware of resource limitations, we can learn to regulate our own numbers. There will be no central world body with the reach and strength to force this on anybody. Right now none of us in the first world are directly confronted with those limitations -- we are only confronted with the lack of money. In that sense we'll be better off when we are directly confronted with these realities.
For me the biggest issue is figuring out how to retain as much as possible of the science we have learned during the oil age and its run up as possible. Oil funded our exploration of space, the subatomic and much else. We won't be a position to continue those areas on an experimental basis. But a lot of what we learned should be of value to us in doing better than the Dark Ages following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. I hope.
Dave,
Some of the energy sources are partially renewable from a strictly energy angle (solar, wind, hydro. some bio) but not from a metals and minerals point of view.
What do you mean partially renewable?, solar wind and hydro are going to be available until the sun swells and eats the earth.You can't really be more renewable than that!
Wind turbines are 85% steel, iron ore is incredibly abundant, and components of wind turbines are >>90% recyclable, so I see no limitation to harvesting at least X10 the energy we presently receive by burning FF's. After that we may want to use solar energy which is X100 more abundant than wind energy.
Is there any metal essential for win turbines that is so difficult to obtain that we will not be able to continue manufacturing wind turbines at X10 the present rate? The rarest metals would be Copper and Neodymium(100-1000kg/MW). Both of these are present at about 30-50 parts per million in the earths crust, approx 1,000,000 tonnes/cubic km.
Science didn't begin in 1869 with the discovery of oil, and it won't end with the exhaustion of easily obtained oil.
I am looking at a design drawing of a solar stirling engine-system. The engine itself has a stainless steel hot end, and the rest of it is carbon steel. This is a highly efficient heat engine, (mechanical power/thermal energy received by the engine). We can get the needed heat from a solar concentrator/mount/tracker that is all aluminum and steel. The mechanical energy does the usual things to make electricity, requiring copper and iron.
Neodymium is nice but not necessary. Electronics is also nice but not necessary.
All of those materials are available from what we already have, if we have enough energy to reform all that junk I see everywhere, much of it sitting in used car lots. We would have that energy and lots left over if we made the system operate on solar.
I don't think energy is our problem. Population is, and masses of junk made for no other result but ruining the planet.
With a little bit of wisdom and the knowledge we already have, we could have all the energy we need for a happy life on a paradise of a planet. As long as we quit going to where we are going now.
+1
I see no reason why only oil can power mining... any reason the above poster has for believing that? Electricity can too. If nothing else, electricity can be used to make a transportable fuel.
It's not so much that only oil can power mining, rather that it's what's happening now, and it just takes time to change things over. Building things takes time, and takes qualified people.
In 2007-8 in that boom before the bust there were shortages of things like those huge tyres - at one point secondhand tyres cost more than new ones, simply because you could get the secondhand ones straight away. Could factories ramp up production? Sure - but then the price of rubber goes up, and maybe we don't have enough rubber for other things, too.
These things can be done, but they take time. For comparison, just look at the history of establishing electricity supply around the world. The first electricity generator was built in a lab in 1832, but the first connection to homes didn't happen until 1882. The idea of a national grid, with standardised AC frequency and voltage, didn't really come about until 1916 (in the UK, where it wasn't started until 1926, and was finished in 1937). In 1951, with about three-quarters the country connected to the grid, the US produced half the world's electricity. Even today in 2009 only 76% of the world has any electricity at all, and of those 76%, more than half only use it for lighting at night.
And I don't think you can really say they weren't trying to do things quickly.
It just takes time to build things. We can do it, but it's the work of a generation or two.
Kiashu,
The interesting thing about the shortage of mining tires was because very large tires require a high proportion of natural rubber. There was not a shortage of car tires because they can be almost 100% synthetic rubber. Rubber trees take 7-10 years to start producing rubber so we cannot suddenly increase natural rubber production.
Converting from diesel/gasoline to electric is going to be much faster for passenger cars than trucks, because of the faster replacement of cars( 10-20 years) compared with trucks( 20-40years). Also many VMT of cars are non-essential or can be avoided by mass-transit or car pooling.
With converting from ICE to electric private vehicles we don't have to build an entire new fueling infrastructure, we already have a very extensive grid with surplus off-peak capacity. The limitation will the the re-tooling to build new electric vehicles, and again 90% of the car is going to be identical to present ICE vehicles. It's not really comparable to the time needed to build gas or oil or electric infrastructure from scratch. Certainly a smaller challenge than building a 500% more extensive mass transit system( that presently only moves 10%PMT) or re-building suburbs to work with mass-transit.
We don't have to build the new cars, either. A conversion is relativly straightforward (although costs quite a bit of money at current one-at-a-time purchase rates).
A Mass Transit system is indeed more expensive than building new cars (or converting old ones) but that's only because we don't count the cost of building the roads, maintaining them, traffic accidents (lost work time injuries etc), security (police/Transport patrols), etc etc, wheras we do count all that for MT.
Here's an interesting talk by Bill Gross however it seems that despite the fact he developed a very cheap and sophisticated collector with a Stirling engine it was never put on the market.
Still well worth a look.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_on_new_energy.html
France has more power than they can use, they sell it to their neighbours. 90% nuclear.
Maybe they will send electric ships to Australia to get the iron ore and uranium. Or perhaps everyone will have to wait 6 months for the sailing ships to return from their voyage, with enough to make another windmill that lasts for decades.
I'm with you Neil1947, science is not only improving it is exploding and accelerating. We have only begun to experience the power of collaboration the Internet has to offer. And just as science will outlast oil, the Earth didn't begin with the birth of Man, and it won't end if some humans evolve into a super-species - consuming and controlling massively more amounts of resources than others.
Evolution doesn't change the laws of physics...but you knew that, right?
Image from Museum of Natural History Paris
Thats funny. You think we're bumping up against physical limits.
Maybe the new super evolved species will be so advanced as to have no need to exploit matter directly and will be able to live off the pure energy bombarding our planet. Oh wait, E still equals MC2.
Do you mean solar energy? I think we have been doing that for 3Billion years
Sorry, try again. We aren't 'using up' matter on the planet, and thus far are using less than 1/10th of 1% of the solar energy hitting the planet. Physical limits aren't what we're up against anytime soon.
We have three known physical limits, thermo, mass conservation, and system dynamics/complexity. The complexity part includes information transfer across the social network, infrastructure dependency, psychology, discount rates, upbringing and development, weather, ecology, and at least a few others.
So, yeah, we're bumping up against physical limits. It's not just about the photons and electrons and tools and machines, which are complex enough in and of themselves.
I think you need to revist what physical limits are if you think it has to do with social complexity. Physical limits are defined, such as the Beckenstein bound, the blackbody radiation temperature of the earth, etcetera.
Out of date. Networks and complexity also contain physical limits.
I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. Expand on this.
Neil
You are correct that iron ore is in abundant supply however, at present we are unable to smelt it into steel without the use of coal. I am fairly confident that direct reduction of iron ore is possible in a plasma furnace but this would be highly energy intensive and would slow production to a small fraction of the amount currently produced.
I expect that at in maybe 20 years, when we go through peak coal, the coal price will go up sufficiently that this material will end up being reserved purely for metal smelting.
phoenix,
Iron ore can be reduced by carbon or methane or hydrogen, presently <10% of coal is used for steel reduction. In US not really a big issue as 78% of steel is recycled (can be done using electric arc). We can go back to using charcoal rather than burning wood for heat or using it for cellulose ethanol. The US grows several hundred million tones of wood per year.
The incredible steel production in China is because they are building lots of infrastructure for the first time, almost none available for re-cycling. This is a once-off for China, by the time the present children retire should be a large surplus of scrap steel and a much reduced population, requiring less infrastructure.
I have several problems with this article.
1. The Coal, Natural Gas and Uranium reserves are extremely conservative.
2. The assumption that consumption of these resources will grow exponentially until the moment they are consumed.
3. The assumption that the cost of alternative energy resources will remain constant at present values.
4. The assumption that advanced nuclear technology will make no impact.
For (1) coal reserves would immediately be doubled if they include Victoria's currently economic Brown coal reserves. Actually the technology to extract water from lignite has been developed and there is a consortium that has concrete plans to export it.
http://www.martinplacesecurities.com.au/Publications/2008/MPS%20IER%20Re...
The black coal reserves are what current miners have taken the time to fully quantify. The final resource value is almost certainly far higher, even without in-situ coal underground gasification which can unlock the energy content in very deeply buried coal deposits.
http://www.lincenergy.com.au
http://www.carbonenergy.com.au
For Coal Seam methane, new advances are continually made. Queensland/NSW have gone from facing imports of nat gas from 2011 to being large net exporters over a 3 year period! ie In 2006 projections showed those states needing imports now they will be exporters.
The 1.15 million tonnes of Uranium is well out of date. All by itself, the resource at Olympic dam has been re-assessed to 1.9 million tonnes.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=14130
For (2) it is obvious that exponential increases in extraction will not continue indefinitely. Particularly since most of the energy content is exported. The authors should work out a more sophisticated extraction profile, like say, a logistic sigmoid.
I would be extremely surprised if the combination of (1) and (2) did not show at least 1 century of resources in Australia.
For (3) there is scope for a factor of two decrease in price for solar thermal and substantial price decreases for PV. Large scale PV modules have already dropped below $1/watt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Solar
For (4) there are variety of new technologies that will substantially increase the energy extracted from Uranium from the present 1% to 10% or greater. This immediately increases the EROI for nuclear by a large factor and in turn makes mining large and more dilute Uranium resources energetically favourable for many, many centuries.
http://www.pmforum.org/blogs/news/2008/08/deep-burn-development-project-...
http://nuclearinfo.net/twiki/pub/Nuclearpower/WebHomeWasteFromNuclearPow...
So we don't need a 60% reduction in world population. What is need is what is happening. A continual upgrade of Mankind's technological capabilities.
The people in the picture below live in a technologically upgraded society, they now possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them over great distances, some of them are disgruntled with the fact that there are people taking more than their fair share of earth's resources...Be happy don't worry!
We've had the means for massive human loss of life for well over 60 years. I do not believe that a 60% population decrease is inevitable.
"What is need is what is happening. A continual upgrade of Mankind's technological capabilities."
What we needed is continual downgrade of Mankind's technological capabilities, that is until Mankind's moral and wisdom capabilities are able to catch up.
We are children playing with live chainsaws. We've done great damage to our house, our family and ourselves. And you want to give the children an "upgrade in technological capabilities"??
Not what I would consider our top priority as a species.
Hooboy. Another 'man is too stupid to wield such power' mantra. And I imagine you're just wise enough to see it.
The irony of people speaking against current technology on the internet always amuses me. :)
It's like those guys who post about living a hunter-gatherer lifestle. Yes, Caveman Ogg used to come home from stabbing mammoths to log on and have cybersex.
There are, what, around 5 billion people on the planet without access to the Internet? The irony is that people talk about technology as being "current", and pretending that access to that technology is because of worth, skill, or entitlement, instead of luck.
Thanks for not addressing my point, everyone.
I guess you all think the what humans have done with what power they have has been just wonderful?
And I did not say anything about destroying all tech. I just question the notion that more and better technology and more energy sources are the top priority to put in the hands of humans right now.
Care to address the point rather than just making off hand, insulting, snarky comments?
(I excuse Dez from any obligation to respond, since he has elsewhere asserted his confidence that we will leave earth to populate other planets--we would clearly just be talking past each other.)
No, of course not. But it has been more good than bad.
Our lives worldwide are longer and nicer than they used to be, overall. Yes, there is a lot of misery. But there was a lot of misery before anyone switched on a light bulb or made ammonia from natural gas. And there is less now, proportionally.
That does not mean that the world has no problems. It has zillions. And they're largely solvable, some by technology, some by simple effort and courage.
Are you unaware that humans have brought about the sixth great mass extinction since the beginning of life, even before the full effects of global warming have kicked in?
And latest estimates from MIT are that we are pushing the planet into a radically different state than it has been in for millions of years in just a few decades. I know that Dez doesn't see this as any kind of problem, but I'm curious whether this is at all problematic for you, that the one habitable planet we inherited, we managed to pretty thoroughly trash, mostly since fossil fuels started being used to drive industrial capitalism.
Its an open question as to mass extinction and climate change makes the planet significantly less habitable for humanity however. Sure, theres documented dangers of monocultures and the like, but we dont actually know how severe the effects are. Its just one of the risks of playing.
But as you've noted, I highly doubt that any of these issues will be remotely relevant in several centuries.
"we dont actually know how severe the effects are'
You're right. There is some uncertainty here. We don't know whether it will merely be one of the six great mass extinctions, the greatest mass extinction since the beginning of complex life, or the end of complex life on earth for ever.
Lot's of uncertainty there.
By the way, you seem to be immediately and virulently hostile to anyone suggesting that technological progress may not be the most important goal for humans to achieve in the next few years, yet you are certain that exactly this technological "progress" will create AI cyber-monsters that will likely destroy us and everything else.
I'm trying to reconcile these positions, but I can't seem to. Unless you look forward to having everything destroyed by cyber-monsters?
That all depends on your view of the future. Ironically the more optimistic you are about the future, the 'worse' the scenario for wildlife in the future. In my opinion, its potentially the end of complex biological life because machines will eventually tear apart everything for raw material, depending on their motivations. They might have some zoos...
Yes. In my view its inevitable, and so we might as well get a good view. Weather or not its terrible depends on your perspective. We cant really tell now because that would be musing on the thoughts of gods, something I'm not prepared to say is within our capabilities yet. We might slowly become machines, or create our exterminators. Either way its progress in my view.
"Weather [sic] or not its terrible depends on your perspective."
Yup, if being responsible for the end of complex life on earth is completely unproblematic (or as a desirable goal, as some on the far religious right seem to) to you, I guess it could be seen as "progress."
At the least, I would think even most such people could understand that this is problematic in terms of generational justice--we are denying to future generations (any that somehow manage to survive such a dramatically altered planet) the richness and diversity that we inherited, and denied them access to the other "resources" we have squandered so carelessly.
I find it to be suspiciously convenient for people to come up with a value system that holds them blameless. Like a child who after burning down their house with all her family in it, claims that houses and families aren't important and that what she did was progress.
When I was born, there were three billion people in total on the planet. Now, more than that live on the planet in poverty. Throughout a history of increasing population, countless lives lived in quiet desperation, slavery, torture.
And if you think that are longer lives are nicer, spend a few graveyard shifts at a nursing home. When my grandmother had a stroke, I visited her before she passed. On my way out, in front of room filled with utter silence and the aged, an old woman in a wheelchair I'd never seen before grabbed my jacket. I bent over to hear her. "Take me with you," she asked me.
Oh, yes, our modern world is amazing, with gifts and pleasures that would astonish most of the kings in history. And every 30 seconds someone successfully offs themselves. But that part is swept under the rug, everyone's dirty little secret.
The part I hate about this is that Dezakin wins no matter what. He thinks this great party will just keep on going and will rub it in our faces as long as the party keeps on going. When it stops, though, none of us will get to find out how his world disintegrated.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about me for. The modern world is both wonderful and terrible, sure.
Yeah, the end of life in the modern world sucks. On the other hand, the rest of life in the modern world is largly far better thanks to things like indoor plumbing and dentistry.
Huh?
Such a statement is purely subjective. To the anarcho-primitive misanthrope it certainly would be terrible. I would rate it objectively as 'successful' so far however, unless you rate success by a particularly perverse metric.
In several centuries. People constantly overestimate the change in the short term and underestimate the change in the long term.
One thing that I am convinced is absolutely inevitable in terms of technological growth is AI inside 150 years, and possibly much sooner. After that, the human era of dominance is over, so if you value humanity that may be important to you. Still impossible to prevent however.
After that gods of electric steel will tear apart the planets for raw material. Weather they ignore humanity or exterminate them is an open question. Its why my opinion of fretting about ecological sustainability strikes me as a rather moot point.
"gods of electric steel will tear apart the planets for raw material"
Okey dokey.
Actually you don't have to wait for your AI gods to do this. Mega corporations already are in effect these "gods." They care no more for the long term future of humanity or the planet than would scifi AI "gods of electric steel."
TheTransition
Unfortunately most of the readers will not be able to properly interpret your comments because they are made in response to the post made on the Australian TOD site. We will be posting an equivalent article to the one that appeared on the Australian site as part 3 of this series. The only difference is that it will refer to the world energy balance in a similar way as we have assessed the Australian situation.
Please repost your comments when we have put up the world analysis as you make a number of very valid points.
Please take into account that the main purpose of this analysis is to establish if an incompatability exists between exponential BAU population and demand growth on one hand and the limitation of energy resources and renewables construction rates on the other. The analysis is not precise. We are dealing with the prediction of future technical, economic and political outcomes. Precision is not possible and not really necessary to at least flag up a valid concern.
All fair enough but your numbers are rather selective and even then assuming reasonable GDP growth and investment in just renewable energy at your quoted prices, we get pretty close to your required 1.8 trillion by 2050 for Australia.
Starting from a 1 trillion economy and 3% GDP growth and 2% diverted to renewable energy I get 1.6 trillion by 2050.
With a 2% growth rate and 3% invested in renewable energy I get a total of 1.9 trillion by 2050.
I can post the spreadsheet if you like. All straight forward.
I have several problems with this article and all the others which lament "the decline of oil EROI means the end of civilization tomorrow". How about doing some fact checking first? I decided I'd seen this theme so many times here, I'd like to know what the real EROEI for the various oil-producing technologies actually is. This graph, from a Canadian group of oil sands companies lays it out exactly in terms of comparative CO2 emissions.
Canada's Oil Sands
Bottom line diffeence between Arab Light (EROEI = 400/510 = 78.43%) and Canadian Oil Sands production (EROEI = 400/570 = 70.18%) is only about 8%. If you can operate your systems on imported Arab Light, then you can operate on Canadian Oil Sands production. A LOT of what gets said on this site is unsupported nonsense.
Glancing at this quickly, it looks obfuscating.
First, CO2 emission is not energy. Coal releases far more CO2 per BTU than light sweet crude. At least, that is my understanding.
Second, it lumps burning of the energy at end point (curiously coded in terms of emissions?) with the energy spent in getting it. Compare just the production bar, and you can see marked differences.
This is all before one even questions the numbers provided.
1) CO2 emissions rates is an excellent alternative for overall energy consumption in oil production.
2) What does coal have to do with anything in this discussion?
3) the ratio (EROI) of energy returned (ER) to energy invested (EI), is DEFINED as the NET ENERGY OUT OF A PROCESS, (eg "burning of the energy at end point") divided by the total of ENERGY PUT IN TO GAIN THE ENERGY OUT OF THE PROCESS. I prefer to express it as a percentage with worse processes getting lower percentages, many prefer to express it as a ratio approaching 1 from above as processes get worse. eg my 75% EROI would be their 3.
I suggest you'd best start questioning the sources then.
Yes but the CO2 emissions issue is not the biggest problem in this case.
Even if I were completely comfortable with figures provided by a Canadian group of oil sands companies, which I'm not, until I see independent confirmation from a source that doesn't have a conflict on interest in providing such data I'll withhold judgement. I'm generally a bit more skeptical when it's the fox that's telling me that the chickens are quite safe thank you.
A much larger issue, in my opinion is environmental damage.
A LOT of what is ignored by those who would like to pretend that these are not issues of the greatest gravity is quite telling as to their mindset. Sweeping these issues under the rug isn't going to work, ecological costs are important now and will be more so in the future. Pretending otherwise is foolish and shortsighted at best and criminally malevolent at worst.
Good attempt to change the subject. And I do NOT accept "if I were completely comfortable with figures provided by a Canadian group of oil sands companies" as "supported". Where's your alternative, trusted reference?
Ok, Shell provides some data. Shell Oil Sands - KPI: Energy intensity
According to this chart, "producing petrol" from oil sands requires "about 7 GJ / tonne".
1 tonne of oil equivalent (toe) = 107 kilocalories
= 396.83 therms
= 41.868 GJ
= 11,630 kilowatt hours
So, 41.868 GJ / (41.868 + 7) = 85.67% EROEI or 41.868 / 7 = 5.98
I never intended it to be interpreted as my having a trusted source. I very clearly stated that I would like one other than "Canadian group of oil sands companies" not that I had one.
Ok, so let's set aside all external environmental costs and take your EROEI numbers at face value for now.
You start out by providing the numbers from The Canadian companies and give the following comparison.
Arab Light (EROEI = 400/510 = 78.43%) and Canadian Oil Sands production (EROEI = 400/570 = 70.18%) is only about 8%.
Then you cite the Shell Oil Sands - KPI: Energy intensity
So, 41.868 GJ / (41.868 + 7) = 85.67% EROEI or 41.868 / 7 = 5.98
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point you are claiming that Shell is saying that EROEI for the tar sands is actually better than what the Canadian companies are saying that it is?
Furthermore that this is actually better than what the Canadian companies say are the numbers for Arab Light (EROEI = 400/510 = 78.43%)?
Well,if EROEI for Canadian Tar Sands is now better than for Arab Light and given the immense size of the Canadian fields should we have invaded Canada instead of Iraq?
I presumed it obvious that Shell's figures don't include several of the inputs which were included in the Oil Sands group figures.
Looking at that bar chart I note with suspicion that the best ERoRI is North Sea. Which is not exactly the easiest source ever, requiring big rigs out at sea.
So historically there would have some significantly higher ERoRI sources which are missing from that chart?
That's possibly due to the quality of the crude extracted. You'll notice that a large part of the charges against a production are the "refinery byproducts" (the yellow bar I believe). The very light sweet crudes taken from NS would produce very little petcoke / other unused outputs. It's a factor that should be figured into every calculation.
Why does Australia continue to ignore the vast reserves of "stored solar" potential it has, represented by CAPE and warm seawater, as well as low-grade geothermal?
The energy in all of these sources can be enabled (harvested) by the Atmospheric Vortex Engine. It's potential is explained by one of your own, Don Cooper, in the presentation:
vortexengine.ca/Publications.shtml
We're talking about reserves which can be transformed from "probable" to "proven" in a project taking less than two years, requiring only about $50 million of investment--a mere pittance compared to developing anything else.
Because Big Carbon is busy greasing the palms of our elected representatives.
The CPRS is little more than Corporate Welfare, the Solar Credit program is deliberate fraud of the MRET, and subsidues for Fossil Fuels amount to fully half value of the Defence budget alone.