From: christopher chase-dunn <chriscd@jhu.edu>
>the geological consensus is that world oil extraction will plateau
>somewhere between 2010 and 2030. This does not mean that oil production
Thank you for your comments Christopher. I agree that this issue
warrants intense discussion. I would also like to point out that
WRI's estimates lie on the conservative side of the spectrum.
See, for example, the recent FORBES. Franco Bernabe, chief executive
of the Italian oil company ENI SpA, expects the world to experience
1970s-style oil shocks starting sometime between 2000 and 2005.
http://www.forbes.com/asp/redir.asp?/forbes/98/0615/6112084a.htm
( I think Bernabe relies on Petroconsultants' analysis. )
>2) There are better and worse substitutes for conventional fossil fuels.
In terms of "energy quality", nothing matches oil. I do not believe
it is possible to run a consumer economy (as we know it) without oil.
Here is a snip from my REQUIEM at www.dieoff.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
_________________
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
There are "theoretical minimum" energy requirements to do a
certain amount of work. For example, lifting a ton of rock 100
meters out of the ground requires approximately 235 kilocalories
(kcal) of energy to overcome gravity -- the higher the lift, the
greater the minimum energy requirements. But in practice, we
need much more energy than the theoretical minimum because energy
is "wasted" building and operating machinery needed to lift the
rock. The difference between the theoretical minimum and the
actual energy used is known as "energy efficiency".
New technologies can increase the amount of work that energy
can do by increasing energy efficiency, but technology can not
overcome theoretical minimums. Technology can not repeal the
laws of thermodynamics.
_____________
ENERGY PROFIT
We use up or "waste" energy in systems that supply energy -- such
as oil-fired power plants. Energy is wasted when exploring for
oil, building the machinery to mine the oil, mining the oil,
building and operating the power plant, building power lines to
transmit the energy, decommissioning the plant, and so on. The
difference between the amount of energy generated and the amount
of energy wasted is known as the "energy profit".
We presently mine our fossil fuels from the Earth's crust. The
most concentrated and most accessible fuel is mined first,
thereafter more and more energy is required to mine and refine
poorer and poorer quality fuels. It has been estimated that by
2005, it will require more energy to look for and mine domestic
oil than the amount of energy recovered. In other words, it won't
make energy sense to look for new oil in the US after 2005,
because we will spend more energy than we will recover.[15]
Decreasing energy profits set up a positive feedback loop: since
oil is used directly or indirectly in everything, as it becomes
less "energy efficient", everything else will also become less
"energy efficient" -- including other forms of energy. For
example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal
extraction.
Energy efficiency places absolute limits on how much energy we
can afford to pay for imported energy. For example, if it takes
two barrels of oil to produce the goods and services required to
pay for one barrel of imported oil, we can not afford to pay for
imported oil -- period.[16]
During the next hundred years, the energy profit for fossil
fuel plants (oil, gas, and coal) will become negative. It is
fundamentally impossible to provide a constant level of energy
while aggregate energy profit drops. Keeping the production of
goods and services at current levels will require more energy
than we now generate. To have more energy in the future means
that energy must be diverted now from non-energy sectors of the
economy into energy generation.
________________________
FALLING RESOURCE QUALITY
Mining resources from the Earth's crust is subject to the laws
of thermodynamics. The most concentrated and most accessible
resources are mined first, thereafter more and more energy is
required to mine and refine poorer-and-poorer quality resources:
* The hematite ores of the Mesabi Range in Minnesota did contain
60 percent iron, but we have depleted them and now must use
lower-quality taconite ores that have an iron content of about
25 percent.[17]
* Since the early 1960s, the amount of energy (in fuels,
electricity, and capital equipment) required to refine a ton
of domestic copper has nearly doubled.[18]
* The average energy content of a pound of coal dug in the US
has dropped 14 percent since 1955.
* The amount of energy to drill an average foot of oil well has
tripled since 1945.[19]
When resource quality is defined in terms of energy investment,
the record clearly shows that quality is declining across almost
the entire spectrum of resources. From 1972 to 1982, the
fraction of GDP allocated to natural resource extraction grew
from four percent to ten percent.[20] At some point in the
future, mining will stop because the energy costs will have
become too great.
______________
ENERGY QUALITY
And contrary to a commonly held belief, rising fuel prices
will not create new supplies of fuel ... despite quadrupling
prices for oil and gas products, the "moral equivalent of
war", and a 280 percent increase in drilling, the United
States is producing less oil today than it did in 1973.
-- Gever, et al.
One of the most important aspects of energy is its "quality".
Different kinds of fuel have different qualities. For example,
coal contains more energy per pound than wood, which makes coal
more efficient to store and transport than wood. Oil has a
higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher
temperature than coal; it is easier to transport, and can be used
in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive uses only
one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the
same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more
economic value per kilocalorie than coal.[21]
Oil is the most important form of energy we use, making up
about 38 percent of the world energy supply. No other energy
source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of extractablility,
transportability, versatility and cost. These are the qualities
that enabled oil to take over from coal as the front-line energy
source in the industrialized world in the middle of this century,
and these qualities are as relevant today as they were then:
If one considers the last one hundred years of the U.S.
experience, fuel use and economic output are highly
correlated. An important measure of fuel efficiency is the
ratio of energy use to the gross national product, E/GNP.
The E/GNP ratio has fallen by about 42% since 1929. We find
that the improvement in energy efficiency is due principally
to three factors: (1) shifts to higher quality fuels such as
petroleum and primary electricity; (2) shifts in energy use
between households and other sectors; and (3) higher fuel
prices. Energy quality is by far the dominant factor.[22]
Per capita energy use in the US has been rising since 1991.[23]
World oil consumption rose by 2.4 percent in 1996 to 69.55
million barrels a day[24] with OPEC output hitting an 18-year
high of 27.39 million barrels a day in August of 1997.[25] Global
oil production is expected to "peak" sometime around the year
2005.[26] As oil is depleted and replaced by lower quality
fuels, energy efficiency will also decline.
We can't depend on domestic gas because it will be effectively
depleted by the year 2020.[27] Even if the energy profit for
domestic coal continues to fall at the same rate as it has, it
will thermodynamically unrecoverable by the year 2040.[28]
Nothing can replace conventional oil, gas, and coal. Several
studies indicate no more than 200 million Americans could be
supported at a decent standard of living on solar technologies.
[29] Youngquist states that oil sands will never be a major
world supply, and further suggests that oil shales may never be
commercially viable.[30] The World Energy Commission says that
a shortage of uranium limits the expansion of conventional
nuclear energy.[31] By 2035, all American nuclear plants will
have been decommissioned and represent an energy-production loss
equivalent to about 9 million barrels[32] of oil per day.
Moreover, America, Germany, and France have all dropped their
fast-breeder reactor programs![33]
[snip]
References at www.dieoff.org
I have some specifics concerning various alternative energy at:
http://dieoff.org/page143.htm
In my view, energy is the key to it all. I encourage further
discussion.
Jay