Peak Oil, Transitioning to Renewables, Carbon Offsets, Collapse, and why I think pessimism has been proven silly

[Veritas]

Howdy, folks! I haven't posted here a lot, but I felt like sharing some thoughts I've been having with people who might appreciate them and be able to give some insight without being total shitheads. I've been reading Jacob's blog for awhile, and these forums sporadically, so I thought I'd give here a try. I'm also soliciting contrary opinions, assuming they're well-grounded in reason and supported by evidence.

It's become pretty clear that in recent years we've been collectively holding back on oil production. Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, among other nations, have proven that they can be effective low cost producers at far below the previous prices. Furthermore, I've looked into the world consumption and production of oil, and it seems that our demand is roughly in the low 30s of billions of barrels a year, whereas proved reserves of conventional (ie cheap, <$100/barrel) oil are around 1.5 trillion. A bit less.

In light of that, does worry about peak oil really make a lot of sense? It's definitely a prospect that I bought into before, but that was before I realize that petrostates were really just gouging the world, and from a pure economics/EROEI perspective we have around 4 decades of oil left. Given the growth of renewables is sustaining itself in the high double digits, are we really in bad shape, as a civilization, from an energy perspective?

I used to worry about collapse due to declining EROEI. I always thought the gap between renewables stepping in and fossil fuels stepping out was at least a decade long, if not longer, ie plenty of time for our current economic system to fall apart.

Now, looking at it, I'm not so sure. The developed world is roughly stagnant in oil consumption, and the developing world's consumption is growing...but not so rapidly as to cause alarm.

Now, I just worry about carbon emissions. But carbon offsets are actually pretty cheap at present -- effective offsets are around $14/ton. In 2014, carbon emissions were about 44 billion tons, which (at current prices, which won't stay fixed, obviously) would only cost around 616 billion to fully offset. Given that nature can and does naturally absorb some carbon, I suspect it will come out to somewhere between that number and maybe a trillion dollars. Furthermore, many carbon offsets actually make the world more productive and rich. I currently buy enough voluntary credits to offset my own (limited) emissions, and it goes to distributing clean water systems to Ghana, which reduces unsustainably harvested wood burning to boil water. These people will come out healthier and wealthier, *and* reduce their emissions.

That's why I think that the costs of this whole carbon thing are totally overblown and portends of doom are only justified if intransigence from the previous generation continues to hold us back. But they'll be dead within a decade or two.

Anyone want to throw some counterpoints at me? Is there anything I'm not considering that I should?

[theanimal]

Cargoism is faith that technological progress will stave off major institutional change even in a post exuberant world. Renewable energy sources do not have the same power capabilities as cheap oil. On a mass scale, they are not able to power the current system. You also have to understand that the easy obtainable oil near the surface has already been withdrawn. Current projects involve extracting oil that is hundreds of feet beneath the surface. This will not prove to be economically feasible as time goes on.

The only reason humans have made it this far without a large collapse or crash scenario is because of 2 unique, circumstances. 1. The old world came across the new (Americas) allowing them to mitigate their population problems by emigrating and exploiting another area. 2. The creation of a tool that allows us to extract decomposed matter (oil) that took millions of years to form. Neither of these circumstances can happen again.

Carbon offsets don't really work because there still is too much carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Since we have passed 400 ppm CO2, we are locked into a 2 degree worldwide temperature change (IIRC). It should be noted that this number is almost impossible to change without a drastic reduction in our use of energy (highly, highly unlikely). This number continues to rise year by year as we go about business as usual. So simply speaking, burning more oil doesn't really make sense because it will just continue to degrade our own habitat.

Recommended reading: Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change by William R. Catton, Jr.
http://www.amazon.com/Overshoot-Ecologi ... 0252009886

[Veritas]

Cargoism is faith that technological progress will stave off major institutional change even in a post exuberant world. Renewable energy sources do not have the same power capabilities as cheap oil. On a mass scale, they are not able to power the current system.

That may be the case, but not all such faith is Cargoism. If there is evidence that renewable energy can scale up to levels that could power our civilization, and that they are on track to, why would we worry about this?

The EROEI of Wind is 20:1. Even solar is 4-5:1 and climbing. That's the most important number. The other challenges, like bulk transportation and so on do render it inferior to fossil fuels, but certainly not dramatically inferior. Not to a degree that it's unworkable. Especially given that there are fewer total limitations on the scalability of renewables.

Can you give me a specific objection as to why they cannot handle this task which involves more than a nominal engineering challenge to overcome?

Current projects involve extracting oil that is hundreds of feet beneath the surface. This will not prove to be economically feasible as time goes on.

Today, the proved reserves of conventional oil are enough to last us 4.5 decades at current consumption. All of this can be extracted for under $100/barrel. Most of it can be extracted for $70. We're already seen that the world economy can handle those prices and still grow.

Do you have any evidence that the world can't handle this, or that, say, 4 (or even 3) decades isn't enough to transition off of them? Any solid arguments that aren't pure rhetoric?

Carbon offsets don't really work because there still is too much carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Since we have passed 400 ppm CO2, we are locked into a 2 degree worldwide temperature change (IIRC).

It's my understand that if we reach net-0 emissions by 2100, there's a 66% chance that we will avoid a 2 degree celsius permanent increase. By 2100

Article I was just reading that's relevant. I'm only using this shitty source because I just had it open.
http://bteam.org/the-b-team/business-le ... s-by-2050/

It's no scientific journal. My understanding is that there is a consensus that we might be too late. On the order of low single digit percent chances.

It should be noted that this number is almost impossible to change without a drastic reduction in our use of energy (highly, highly unlikely).

Well, I have a few counterpoints to offer.

1) We are poised to drastically change our methods of energy production.
http://www.livescience.com/46083-epa-ca ... posal.html
Note that even a majority of Republicans are now ready to start tackling this issue.

2) There are ways to eliminate or reduce GHG emissions that don't really fundamentally change how our energy is produced. With carbon sequestration, even coal's emissions can be reduced pretty dramatically.

3) Carbon sinks are another option that have the potential for reducing net emissions without changing our energy production too much.

[Veritas]

I am going to clarify one statement in my above post:

The other challenges, like bulk transportation and so on do render it inferior to fossil fuels, but certainly not dramatically inferior

One might be tempted to leap to rechargeable batteries and note that they are dramatically inferior in terms of energy density to, say, diesel fuel. Above 1/50 the energy density.

However, for uses which require high energy density (such as long haul cargo of various kinds), pressurized hydrogen gas offers energy densities in terms of weight around three times that of diesel fuel. It's bulkier, but for bulk transportation that doesn't matter as much. It can be produced better than 50% efficiently, which means it is interior, and will drive up costs for international shipping, but it isn't so inferior that it will mean that international shipping will be rendered unprofitable in the long run. Most likely it will mean slow growth in international shipping volume for a decade at most. Meanwhile, other aspects of our economy will adapt around that challenge -- more goods will be nearsourced to Mexico or produced in the USA, and China will find more local customers for their bulkier goods.

[theanimal]

I'll respond to your solar and wind objections later. Can't type much now.

The 3-4 decade number is flawed because it doesn't account for increasing energy needs due to the projected global population increase of 3 billion people and the fact that world's crude oil consumption has increased every year since they started tracking it in 1980 (besides 1981, 1983 and 2009).

I won't address any of the climate change points. You might have missed it but we've covered it pretty extensively before on this forum (leading to the biggest thread to date). The science speaks for itself. The EPAs actions are too little, too late.

See:viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5877&p=87266
and
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4654

[Veritas]

I'll check those links out later tonight.

[theanimal]

Also, as an addition to my point about oil in the previous post. The oil we get now takes significantly more energy to refine than that oil which we withdrew initially. The EROEI will continue to decline.

The problem with solar and wind ultimately is that they are intermittent and cannot harness enough energy (both current and excess) to fuel an industrial society. Our current society was built on oil that had an EROEI of 100:1. Solar and wind cannot come close to that. You also have to realize that solar and wind require petroleum based products to capture and then distribute whatever energy they are able to get.

The transition is a lot harder, further and more unlikely than you think. Consider that much of this information has been known for close to 50 years now, if not longer. Yet, look at what’s been done. Basically nothing. Most still even refuse to acknowledge the concept of peak oil or the fact that oil isn't a limitless resource.

All the world's solar panels generate as much electricity as two coal power plants.* For solar power to meet current world demand we would need to cover an area as large as 190,000 sq miles with solar panels.** As of 2007 there were 4 sq miles worth. (Although I'm struggling to find where I heard this).

Geothermal is restricted to only a few areas. Wave power’s energy density varies by area, is limited to the coasts, the salt water is corrosive to turbines and transporting the energy is very difficult.

Hydrogen doesn't work because it requires more energy to extract it from its originally source than is returned.***

The best we can do is combine an array of renewable sources. But we will still have to significantly reduce our energy requirements. The days of an industrialized society are numbered.

*Paul Roberts, "The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World" (2004) p. 191
**http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
***http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... rogen-hoax

[bibacula]

Peak oil never made sense. It's a meme that has outlived its time.

The amount of hydrocarbons in the earth's crust has barely been scratched (literally). Some sources cost more than others, but there is no shortage of gas and oil to extract.

Pessimists believe that we will be forced to sit in the dark using hand tools. I believe that future generations will use vastly more energy per person than we do.

It's true that we will cook ourselves if we use hydrocarbons exclusively to meet our energy needs.

Fortunately, there are a lot of renewable options available, and I'll bet my future that they will become cheap enough to replace fossil fuels.

Veritas, your optimism is well placed. Keep betting for the winning team, humanity!

[JohnnyH]

Here in the Rockies sometimes carbon offsets are sold to far off parties... The amusing thing is that this invariably happens on parcels that were just clear-cut and cannot be logged again for at least 20 years. The general perception is that the carbon offset buyer is as large of fool as can possibly exist in nature.

[Dragline]

I'm taking the appearance of this discussion as a short-term contrarian indicator that the price of oil may be bottoming.

[black_son_of_gray]

@ Vertias: I'm no expert on peak oil, but you wanted a numerical counterpoint, so here is one:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/02/peak-what/

U.S. shale oil accounts for about 70% of the total growth since 2005...Peel off the shale oil and we see that the global plateau is still very much with us—despite sustained high prices through the period.

So it’s fair to say that the continued upward trend in global production post-2005 is due to the shale oil phenomenon.

What does this do to my thinking? Time. It’s added a decade or maybe two to the timescale for global peak oil. And time can be a great thing. With it, one may smartly prepare for a post-carbon world. We need time and the luxury of surplus energy to fashion a world less dependent on fossil fuels (the solution to the Energy Trap).

...

But cutting against us is the sense that we have averted a crisis, so we can go back to business as usual. Investment and research into alternative energies will wane: just when we need them more than ever. Indeed, I myself do not feel the same degree of urgency that I did a few years ago, and have allowed the normal set of “distractions” to creep back in. In part, it’s just a reflection of where society at large is right now. It’s harder to draw an audience to discuss energy/resource scarcity when the headlines are in the opposite direction.

[jacob]

@Veritas - Based on your initial post(s), you're missing large parts of the picture. Specifically how production rates from sources (wells, panels, ...) vary in type over time; the marginal cost curve (standard for mining analysis); ramp-up time (not all the same); funding and the socioeconomic state of the producers (whether private or national, Saudis, Venezuela, and junk funding); geopolitical relations (Ukraine); swing production (who and why); the state of the economy (demand curve vs supply curve sets price); for the demand curve transportation losses (e.g. wire resistance); infrastructure and legacy capital assets (power grid, tankers, refineries); EROEI for different competing sources (conventional, lng, tight oil, pv, ... ) and how they change in time and by location; portability and convenience of different sources compared to existing capital assets and potential capital assets (cost of switching).

In terms of Wheaton levels:

Level 1: No worries, the future will be powered by space lasers using infinite supplies of rainbows and unicorns. They will invent this technology when we need it. Because in the past!
Level 2: In the last 5 years energy production has increased so this is a new era! If I divide two numbers (reserve and consumption), I can extrapolate supply into the future. Also, the USGS expect supply to meet demand which they project using sophisticated economic models.
Level 3: The production rate which is what's important has a peak given by statistics, not trends. The EROEI is much higher for conventional (light sweet) oil than anything else. Once EROEI goes below one, we're stuck.
Level 4: Statistics is too abstract. What matters is the marginal production cost for each individual well. Both in energy but more importantly in dollars. This will determine which projects get developed and which get shut down. The sum of the whole is just the sum of the parts.
Level 5: The sum of the whole is greater than that. Cost curves are also influenced by politics and financing. Timing matters.
Level 6: Right, but ultimately politics and financing are also influenced by the cost curves, not only in dollars but also in energy and legacy costs.

The big lesson of the Wheaton scale is that debate is impossible beyond adjacent levels.

PS: All net carbon emissions (power, transportation, cement production, forest burning, ...) need to halt completely by 2032 in order to have a 66% chance of not exceeding the 2C limit. However, that's based on "general circulation" models which don't include slow feedbacks like ice sheet melt, tundra methane, carbon cycle, ... If those feedbacks are included (instead of being treated as constants), then cruder time-independent models imply we crossed that line in 1988 or so. Hence, the time to act and prevent the 2C world by completely halting all emissions was 25 years ago.

[cmonkey]

Lets not forget that resources != reserves != production.

Believe it or not there are limits to what humans can accomplish and we do make...mistakes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... llenges-1-

I tend to the take the John Michael Greer view on civilization as a whole, particularly his view that a belief in progress has replaced/supplemented traditional religions for many people. Cycles make more sense to me than linearity on human timelines, and I believe we have reached a point where current energy inputs are leveling off or declining slightly, yet we haven't caught on yet. Whether we will or not is up in the air.

Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels as equal energy inputs simply for the fact that fossil fuels are compressed renewables. How many years worth of sunlight and geological forces in one tank of gas? 100 years? 1000 years? Point being the potency of the energy is much higher in a fossil fuel.

Also, current implementations of renewables are essentially piggy backing on fossil fuels and could not even be realized with them. We don't have the capabilities to make solar panels and wind turbines (let along move them around) without oil.

Perhaps if more people knew about our energy issues, let alone did anything about it, we could make a smooth transition. But Lady Gaga is getting married to her boyfriend of 4 months!!!!! Why do I even know this...? 30 seconds of talk radio this morning.

[disparatum]

jacob,

Any recommended reading for moving up the Wheaton scales? I've read a number of books on the subject, but I don't think many of them went into the details of concepts like marginal cost curves, demand curve transportation losses, swing production etc. I think I know what you're getting at in terms of political relations, the socioeconomic and financing concerns of producers (the recent drop in oil price has brought a number of these issues to the forefront), and switching costs, but only in a broad sense. My question may be a little too broad itself, and the understanding I'm looking for is probably not encapsulated in just a couple books. I've started going through the archives of The Oil Drum, but that is a lot of information. I would also say I'm not entirely sure why production RATE is the most important factor over something like total reserves. I have a feeling that this is a simple conceptual error on my part.

In response to the original post,

Another point that I think must be considered in terms of EROEI, is that it's not as simple as being greater than 1:1. Long before energy production becomes net negative, simply going from 100:1 to 20:1 to 5:1 means an ever increasing amount of resources must be put into energy extraction that was previously used to fuel growth in other areas. If you consider that the original transition from wind/water to coal to oil was smoothed over by increasing net energy production then the transition back to more sustainable sources seems even more difficult. As EROEI decreases it becomes a greater and greater drag on the economy compounded by the fact that we're not simply trying to maintain previously produced infrastructure but to actively build an entirely new energy infrastructure. I think our society is caught in the tightening vice grip of slowly decreasing net energy production on one side and required capital expenditures on the other. Unfortunately I don't have any hard numbers or sources for you which I would also find more useful. I can only provide a qualitative argument at the moment.

[jacob]

@disparatum - It is a lot of information. The higher the level the more information is required. Level 1 requires zero information but a faith in eternal technological progress. For Level 2, you'd be looking at economics textbooks (nature is a magic supplier), business articles and official industry projections (from their PR department). Level 3 adds geology, thermodynamics, and some ecology (basically natural science). Level 4 adds financial analysis (sector relevant), company and industry reports. Level 5 adds current news and unfortunately the kind that's not widely published (twitter, bloomberg, zerohedge). Level 6 is tying the whole thing together.

Most complex subjects are divided into camps who only see their half of the equations. Or perhaps not even all equations.

Rate is important for the same reason that the current paycheck is more important than the total lifetime income.

The Oil Drum is good. I'd also suggest adding zerohedge, attheedgeoftime, and cassandralegacy.

[Veritas]

@Jacob:
Personally I'd probably plug myself between 3 and 5 for this particular debate. I'm actually aware of a lot of the factors not specifically mentioned in my post, because it was pretty off the cuff and not meant to be anywhere near exhaustive. That said, my understanding is that the swing producers are right are the shale producers, principally in North America, the bulk of whose oil fields have a marginal cost of around $70/barrel. Most of the proven reserves of oil in the world is cheaper than this if you exclude politics. Prices were high principally because petrol states were happy to let prices stay high to fund their regimes while increasing their burn time. Now that we have actual swing producers at around $70/barrel, they have to choose between price and market share. Saudi Arabia tried maintaining price via cutting production in the 80s, but other OPEC producers broke ranks and produced more than their quotas. The lesson the Saudis learned was that they were better off pumping out their oil at closer to their maximum production in order to give them greater market share, since they are the rock bottom producers in terms of marginal extraction costs.

And they have a lot. They alone could supply us for several years at current prices. Even though each well has its own production curve, the Saudis have been intentionally holding back for some time -- my understanding is that we actually haven't seen the real peak of their own production curve, and it's enough to keep the market cheap for a few years at least. There are many other large reserves which also have marginal extraction costs and EROIs high enough for the world economy to tolerate also have several decades supply. Even with current consumption growth, it's still a few decades.

The most convincing counterarguments I've heard are the ones related to the aforementioned GW models being too optimistic since they don't take into account other sources of GHGs caused by existing warming. Which is a pretty significant dimmer. It essentially means death as a species, or maybe even all complex life, or pushing through to a much smaller civilization, poorer civilization without the benefit of nearly as many free externalities from nature.

I don't see it meaning the collapse of technological civilization, though. The highest EROI technologies are all high tech. While we are likely to downsize our individual (and thus collective) energy usage out of necessity, I don't see us switching to lower tech, lower EROI energy sources.

Another point that I think must be considered in terms of EROEI, is that it's not as simple as being greater than 1:1. Long before energy production becomes net negative, simply going from 100:1 to 20:1 to 5:1 means an ever increasing amount of resources must be put into energy extraction that was previously used to fuel growth in other areas. If you consider that the original transition from wind/water to coal to oil was smoothed over by increasing net energy production then the transition back to more sustainable sources seems even more difficult. As EROEI decreases it becomes a greater and greater drag on the economy compounded by the fact that we're not simply trying to maintain previously produced infrastructure but to actively build an entirely new energy infrastructure. I think our society is caught in the tightening vice grip of slowly decreasing net energy production on one side and required capital expenditures on the other. Unfortunately I don't have any hard numbers or sources for you which I would also find more useful. I can only provide a qualitative argument at the moment.

This is pretty spot on and fairly straightforward. Principally what you're getting at is that the depreciation rate is going up and the return on capital is going down. The initial creation of technological civilization required truly massive EROIs we can only dream of today. However, today we also have a much greater capital stock and use energy more efficiently. There's a lot to be said on that topic. Principally renewables, energy efficiencyand social reconfiguration/lifestyle changes (such as more urbanization vs suburban living) provide us a "floor EROI" from which we can then determine the new baseline. Our societies will undoubtedly have to increase gross fixed capital formation, but I doubt there will be anything we as individuals would call a systemic collapse.

People like you and I would save more and invest it in better (more efficient, better located) housing, energy efficiency, and energy production systems, economists would play with official inflation numbers to make it look like the economy grew by 1% instead of shrunk by 1%, people would continue to experience a slow decline in quality of life that they barely notice, and life would go on. From an EROI perspective, our floors are relatively high. If we start using nuclear, they'd actually improve, but even with standard renewables with buffered EROIs around 5-10:1 or so, it would be far above what was historically available before the industrial revolution, and our greater existing capital stock will ensure that we still come out with a large per capita energy budget. Renewables and nuclear alone provide some 20% of the world's energy, and that's not likely to go anywhere. What we will likely see is a change that dramatically reduces the prevalence of personal transportation in the form of cars, and a transition to smaller, closer, more efficient houses.

The effects will vary from place to place, though.

Iceland and France will be relatively well off. Iceland uses almost 100% renewables and produces more energy per capita than the rest of the world. France uses almost entirely nuclear for its electricity infrastructure, and could scale that up to cover some of the gap they'd experience from the loss of cheap, easy automotive fuels.

Island nations that don't learn to utilize local renewable resources will be boned. Hawaii won't be a nice place unless it changes its ways. Places that has a cultural tendency to extensive rather than intensive growth will end up quite poor. The Southwest US won't fare well once fossil fuels get expensive.

On the other hand, where I live in the lovely Pacific Northwest, we have good public transit that's getting better over time, and we're already on 90+% renewables. So that won't be so bad.

I still don't think we'll see a collapse so much as systemic stagnation and the loss of a couple of decades of growth spread out over 4-6 decades.

That said, all of this is without global warming in the picture.

That's the thing that will truly fuck us, and if it's already too late to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect, I have no idea what we'll do. Slowly stop going outside, invest in passive cooling, learn to recycle our water more efficiently, and eventually investigate in oxygen-recycling systems? Live on spaceships on Earth? That's about all I've got.

[George the original one]

Understanding value systems also plays a part.

Oregon, for instance, values clean water & fish, so you see wind power replacing some hydro projects (several dams have been removed) and the only coal-fired plant in the state will cease operation in 2020 because it is the largest source of mercury pollution by far... Oregon will not permit new coal-fired plants. However, Oregon electrical consumption continues to increase and demand cannot be met by increasing wind power because wind power is unreliable and requires a backup power source that currently is a combination of hydro & gas-fired powerplants. Since new hydro projects are unlikely to be built, that means all the backup power will occur in the form of gas-fired powerplants. Also, in the spring, hydro pre-empts wind power; wind-producers are left holding the bag, idling, for what is also one of their peak seasons.

Oregon's experience with nuclear power was unsatisfactory. It wasn't bad, but the economics do not pan out when the operation encounters problems with the construction. Utilities here-abouts are not going down that road again unless there is better reliability in the industry.

[George the original one]

On the other hand, where I live in the lovely Pacific Northwest, we have good public transit that's getting better over time, and we're already on 90+% renewables. So that won't be so bad.

90%. Really? Being an Oregonian, I seriously doubt that number. Where did you get it? Or are you merely talking about Seattle's public transit that covers only a few hundred sq miles?

[Veritas]

Strictly speaking, you're right, because I slightly mispoke. What I really meant was that our electricity was 90+% non fossil fuel, which I'm pretty sure is true. However...

I'm trying to crunch the numbers, but there's some weirdness on the IEA site that makes is hard to do. On the one hand, they claim 851 trillion BTU of hydropower in Washington, on the other hand they claim 4448 GWH of hydroelectricity. Given that 851 trillion BTU is about 250,000 GWH, I really think I'm missing something. There's no way that only 2% of the hydro in Washington goes to electricity. Anyone have any insight?

Data from the various tabs here:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-1

Specifically I'm comparing the hydro numbers from tab 1 and tab 4.

I would immediately jump to the electricity vs thermal factor (although even that wouldn't account for that huge difference), but we're talking about hydroelectric dams, so that isn't even relevant.

[disparatum]

@jacob. I think your breakdown makes sense. Zerohedge is on my list. Hadn't heard of the last two you mentioned, so thanks for that. I should probably remove Yahoo! Finance from my daily reading list. I get headaches from slapping my forehead so much.

@veritas. My understanding is that the major oil producers are pretty much maxed out on production capacity. I think even the EIA (generally optimistic) retroactively put peak production at 2006. What makes you think someone like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is 'holding back'?

Also, while I'm in agreement that the Pacific NW is one of the more viable long term locations, this (http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.6/muddy-wa ... reservoirs) seems worth considering in regards to renewable energy (I'm assuming hydro made up a big part of the 90% renewable number you mentioned).

More generally, I think we're somewhat in agreement regarding the trajectory of things. Change will probably happen slowly enough that people 20 or 30 years from now MAY look back and go "Hey, wait a sec. This isn't how they said things would be" but they probably will not notice it on a day to day level. I mean, I think you can already do this by looking back to the 1950's and how people then predicted things would turn out. And yet there are very few people jumping up and down pointing out this disparity. Although he seems to cater more to the "currently unsuccessful and marginalized but hoping to profit from the coming decline" crowd, I want to second the John Michael Greer recommendation. His blog and his books have provided some useful insights especially in envisioning a decline that happens over 150-250 years rather than one that happens over 10-20. Like I said though, I think he ignores the viability of truly secure capitalists, who generally have enough wealth to cash in long positions in a declining economy for privileged starting positions in new ones as investors (Rockefeller’s descendants are still pretty damn rich several generations later). I'm just saying there are more options than buying a rural homestead and learning organic farming.

It's also my opinion that a lot of the prophets of apocalypse seem to grossly underweight human adaptability. In the face of real, unavoidable change, I think most people will acclimate. I mean, when it's between that and dying. The current preference for constant complaining, lobbying government, spinning their wheels trying to maintain the status quo, expecting handouts, etc. I think speaks more to the current greater marginal utility of that course of action than to some fatal human weakness that's going to doom us all. The meta-lesson of ERE to me is that adaptability is really one of the most fundamental skills, and the intelligence to see reality for what is and adapt faster and move into new niches first is where the true advantage lies.

Finally, the idea of an EROEI floor is interesting, and something I'd like to think about some more. I think I've derailed your topic a little bit, so I'll stop here.