Energy, Economy and the Impending Rite of Passage

[Projectile Vomit]

Hi folks, I just finished a new essay entitled Energy, Economy and the Impending Rite of Passage. It's not diet-related, but I thought some here might be interested anyway. You can read it by clicking on the link above. I'd welcome comments and critique. I'd be grateful if folks forwarded this link far & wide.

[ys]

incomplete sentence?  "I’m of the opinion we never will."  maybe rephrase it a bit.

"US history were immediately proceeded by oil price increases"  typo??

Are energy and economy linked?
yes, but in reverse.  energy prices (or in this case oil price) always follow the economy and not the other way around.
2008 slump had very little to do with energy prices.  it was housing crises that brought down the economy and dragged oil price down with it.
"Since transport fuels drive our economy"  it's exactly the opposite.

Why are energy prices rising?
they really do not rise.  prices simply fluctuate, rising and falling depending on the demand.  natural gas prices is at 10-year low.  there is glut of natural gas right now. 

[Projectile Vomit]

Thanks for the comments ys, particularly for pointing out the typo.

It's always hard to talk about causality, because energy & economy are part of a complex system, with causal forces going both ways. I need to figure out how best to accommodate this in my writing, and will ponder it. I'll probably update the essay in a month or so once other comments accumulate. If you can tell me your real name, I'll list you in the acknowledgments section that will be added.

[Iguana]

Just read it tonight.

Excellent: what you wrote is well established and known by all those who have done some serious research on peak oil, limited potential of alternative energy sources and damages done by the agriculture — which has become heavily dependent on oil. Tough times ahead, methinks.

I totally agree with you and I disagree with ys's views.

[LePatron7]

I'm still reading, but I think it's great so far.

I found a gramar error.

"Think about it: if our economy is faltering because of energy scarcity and energy scarcity is emerging because costs of energy production are exceeding levels at which are economy can function normally"

I think you meant to use our instead of are in the last part

[Brad462]

An alternative viewpoint: http://www.infowars.com/end-of-peak-oil-200-year-supply-of-oil-in-one-single-shale-formation/

[LePatron7]

I think it was great. Easy to understand, and made sense.

I'll pass it around to friends.

[Iguana]

I did read it quickly because I already knew most of what Eric explains and I didn’t pay much attention to details. Thinking about it overnight, I got the feeling that the “rite of passage” described at the end of the document, if effective in a tribe or a small community where everyone more or less know each other, wouldn’t be of much help in modern societies comprising millions or billions of people. It would probably not have been effective either in the Neolithic era, after small tribal nomadic groups ceased to split when becoming too large and then huge crowds gathered into cities.

The shift from Paleolithic nomadic hunter-gatherers to sedentary Neolithic farmers was, after the mastery and use of fire to burn vegetation and cook food, the second turning point at which things started to  become out of control — and uncontrollable. The ship on which we are has no skipper... and no rudder anyway.

Oh, sorry: in France there's a skipper (I think he's the president  )

[Iguana]

An alternative viewpoint: http://www.infowars.com/end-of-peak-oil-200-year-supply-of-oil-in-one-single-shale-formation/

Yes, but...
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9569

The impact of unconventional fuels like shale oil on the global energy system is still an issue of great uncertainty. Not so much because of the size of the tank (the resource base), but due to the large physical effort necessary to obtain a sizeable supply of this type of fossil fuel. For instance, to exploit tight shale oil formations we need large capital expenditures to obtain relatively low flow rates from many horizontally drilled wells.

The developments of all things shale oil were discussed at a seminar organized by Allen & Overy and their Future Energy Strategies Group in London on 16 October, of which a summary and key take-away points can be found below the fold. With many thanks to both Allen & Overy and the speakers at this event for sharing their knowledge on these important developments in a public setting.

[TylerDurden]

What puzzles me is that the US hasn't gone in big time for research into non-oil-related ways to fuel cars such as hydrogen cells etc. I mean, if they did that, they would wipe out the Saudis who are funding most of the Islamist hardline factions elsewhere.

[Projectile Vomit]

The US has invested substantially into non-oil alternatives, including ways to derive liquid fuels. The problem is that we haven't identified any suitable alternatives. Ethanol from corn or other high-carb vegetable product is a net energy loser. Biodiesel delivers a solid energy profit but only if produced at small scales that can barely provide enough fuel to run farms. Cellulosic ethanol delivers perhaps a marginal energy profit, but no means of scaling it up to commercially-relecant levels of production has been identified. If we want a transport-dependent society, it seems we're stuck with oil. At least until its supply become constrained enough that we can't afford it.

[Iguana]

That's it. I studied this issue a few years ago for my work. Below is a rough translation of some salient points I wrote then. 

Knowing that the carbon previously fixed and stored by photosynthesis in the one and half kilo of oil used to produce one liter of gasoline comes from the decomposition and fossilization of nearly 25 tons of organic matter (which is the payload of a semi-trailer of 40 tons) it is easily understood why the deposits of fossil fuels are a providential irreplaceable gift.

Science and technology have limitations and can’t accomplish miracles. The most viable substitute to oil currently available is natural gas (methane) but the automotive industry is a gigantic thing with a considerable inertia. Even if it could immediately switch to produce vehicles running on methane, it takes on average about 15 years to renew the world’s one billion motor vehicles.
 
Like electricity, hydrogen is not an energy resource, but only an energy carrier, since there is almost no natural hydrogen usable as fuel on the planet. There are two hydrogen atoms in each molecule of water, but the extraction of this H2 requires much more energy than its combustion can produce: this is a fundamental law of thermodynamics nothing can change. With the inevitable loss in storage, transportation and final mechanical or thermal applications, the question of the overall efficiency of the conversion chain, "well to wheel" arises then, as in any purposes.

Hydrogen production by electrolysis using electricity has currently an astronomical cost, efficiency does not exceed 70% — although this is the most efficient way. It seems affordable on a large scale only by generating this electricity in additional nuclear power plants: to completely replace oil, we would have to multiply the number of nuclear power plants by a factor 10! 

97% of hydrogen is currently produced from fossil fuels. This approach consumes proportionally more fuel than when burned directly, as is the case today. Reforming of methane is the shorter-term option, but why not burn the gas directly in the engine? If hydrogen is produced by exploiting fossil fuels, efficiency losses inherent in the process at least double CO2 emissions compared to the direct use of methane.

While the existing infrastructure can deliver almost any kind of liquid hydrocarbon and electricity as well, not only the large-scale production of hydrogen is problematic, but the infrastructure necessary for the generalization of its use in transport and distribution is also to be built from scratch. Using the pipeline network designed for natural gas is impractical. First, for the same amount of energy, the volume of hydrogen would be tripled compared to methane, which therefore require a tripling of speed in the pipelines. There should be 4 times more powerful compressors, valves, seals and even pipes of different specifications to prevent leakage; losses would be almost doubled. Second, as the network is still used for natural gas, it can not be converted (at great expense) for hydrogen — although it is possible to mix up to 10% or 20% hydrogen in the natural gas network (Hythane).

[Alive]

Great essay Eric.

Unfortunately if we keep burning fossil fuels the Earth will return to the conditions that formed the fossil fuels in the first place:

Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil

In summary, what happens is that the Arctic ice melts, then the warm Arctic ocean shuts down the great ocean currents that circulate between the Equator and the Arctic, oxygen is no longer taken into the depths, and the warm oceans become too oxygen starved to support a food chain. Once this happens the microscopic photosynthesising creatures on the ocean surface take in CO2 and when they die they are not decomposed and fall to the bottom of the ocean, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The same thing happens with the Antarctic currents, just more slowly as there is way more ice to melt. Then after a few hundred thousand or million years of reducing CO2 levels the climate will cool, the ice caps will reform, the sea currents restart, and the earth will rebalance itself again.

Compared to this CO2 armageddon nuclear power is the safest energy source in the world! It seems very unlikely that we people can change our energy cravings, what with the disastrous plan to now mine oil sands (which due to their complex processing produce many times the CO2 of other fossil fuels), so therefore nuclear is the only option.

Thorium based nuclear is very interesting, as its waste products decay within several hundred years rather than tens of thousands. Research into thorium nuclear was abandoned because its by-products could not be used to make nuclear bombs like with uranium. Apparently the US has huge stockpiles of thorium buried since the 50's, and it is quite abundant and easy to mine.

My preference would be to go back to a village type life where we all raised and traded our own foods, but I don't see many other modern people agreeing with this.

James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia Hypothesis where life on Earth can self regulate its temperature (within limits), promotes nuclear power. He has even stated he would like nuclear waste buried under his home to provide a year round temperature boost in chilly England.

Also people do not understand basic arithmetic - everyone wants growth, but they don't realise what compounding growth really means. Sustainability 101: Exponential Growth - Arithmetic, Population and Energy:
 Sustainability 101: Exponential Growth - Arithmetic, Population and Energy (Full - Updated)

China is now saying they want to change their 1 child policy to ensure their growth continues