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

[cmonkey]

@Veritas
Two things I have noticed you mention that I disagree with. First is that we do technically have "decades" of oil left but this statement is a bit misleading. Since we began extracting oil we have very nearly always had a surplus supply (in other words we were always able to extract more this year than last), and so could keep up with increasing demand just fine. In fact, our economy essentially expects it, being debt based and all. The 'peak oil' point is not when we run out of oil (which is decades away), its the point where you can't keep increasing your supply year after year. At that point, demand outstrips supply, rationing begins and we have problems that affect essentially the entire economy because the economy hinges on trade and trade is only possible through transportation. Close to 100% of all transportation is currently run on oil so if you can't keep growing your oil base, you can't keep growing your transportation base. Switching out to a different transportation infrastructure (such as natural gas) would take, at best, 10+ years.

This feeds into the second point and that is hydrogen. You can't generate energy from a hydrogen cell, it is simply a storage mechanism and you need some other way to generate the power. Currently, the best method in EROEI terms is probably coal, but with a shrinking transportation sector, how are we supposed to move around enough coal to fuel up all those hydrogen cells?

Also, we do not have decades of shale oil in the ground. The two agencies that are supposedly "managing" all of the information about reserves are continually revising their estimates down. I suggest you read through at least the executive summary of a report put out by the Post Carbon institute.

http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/drillingdeeper/

Best case scenario is that the current decline in demand will push off the peaking of shale production by a year or two but still, the low 2020's are not that far away... Be watching the Bakken over the next couple of years. Expectations are that it will begin declining in 2016-2018 time frame.

I agree with Jacob that JMGs approach to civilizational collapse makes the best sense, but I do believe we are going to see oil shocks that make the 70's look small in comparison. Also, we can expect a financial reset as well because our monetary system is debt based and so is hardwired for an economy that grows each year. I expect the most obvious sign over the next 5 years or so will be dramatically decreased mobility.

On the up shot, we do have all those miles and miles of interstates that will make biking and horseback riding a breeze.

[Scrubby]

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).

On the other hand, the output from solar cells has been increasing at about the same exponential rate for more than 20 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_cells

[IlliniDave]

I heard a prediction on the radio this morning that there would be a large disruption in the status quo over the next 30ish years. One of the main features was that on a macro scale there would be a transition back towards a more "rural" lifestyle/mindset, not necessarily in location, but in the sense of reduced mobility and a bit more self reliance, especially when it came to recreation/entertainment.

The caveat is that the prognosticator is a professional tarot card reader

I also recently heard the summary results of a study performed on California where they played something like a 70 or 90 year extreme drought into economic models of the state. The results were less dire than expected (presuming there would not be nation-wide riots due to shortages of inexpensive pre-packaged baby carrots). Apparently California agriculture consumes staggering amounts of water, is rather sloppy in how it's utilized, and has a system of water rights that is probably not sustainable going forward. The models assume an amount of behavior change on the part of farmers.

I have no idea exactly how things are going to play out, but the simplest view is that our species is going to have to adapt back to a lifestyle that uses less energy per capita than we've grown accustomed to in the western world, or suffer a large reduction in the denominator of that per capita calculation. It's hard to imagine a magic bullet coming along in the foreseeable future to provide effectively unlimited, clean, non-disruptive energy to supply ever increasing amounts of power for each member of a rapidly expanding population base.

[steveo73]

It's hard to imagine a magic bullet coming along in the foreseeable future to provide effectively unlimited, clean, non-disruptive energy to supply ever increasing amounts of power for each member of a rapidly expanding population base.

Nuclear power.

[IlliniDave]

It's hard to imagine a magic bullet coming along in the foreseeable future to provide effectively unlimited, clean, non-disruptive energy to supply ever increasing amounts of power for each member of a rapidly expanding population base.

Nuclear power.

It might work for some of the "haves" provided they have the water. But for obvious reasons the technology is suppressed to keep it from getting into the hands of some of the "have nots". It's had an overall decent track record for safe deployment, but still has the potential for catastrophic accidents. It's probably the best solution we have in hand for those wealthy enough, however in my mind it's not the magic bullet.

[George the original one]

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.

Try http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/ele ... m/state=WA which distills the data. 86.8% of electricity was generated by renewables in 2011 for Washington. Also worth noting trends for total electricity consumption on that same page or comparing to other states. Note anything odd about Washington's consumption trend around year 2000 and what that implies?

[George the original one]

It's hard to imagine a magic bullet coming along in the foreseeable future to provide effectively unlimited, clean, non-disruptive energy to supply ever increasing amounts of power for each member of a rapidly expanding population base.

Nuclear power.

Coal, if you can scrub it clean of mercury & other toxins. Which leaves breeder reactors and a host of political problems. Conventional nuclear has a very limited supply of uranium.

[DSKla]

I'm diving into Overshoot right now, and wanted to bounce an idea off of you folks to see if I'm properly grasping it.

One of the cargoism arguments is that everything will be fine because humans are creative out of necessity, and have reached this point because of that trait. We will figure out cold fusion or some other form of ultracheap, renewable energy and that will propel us forward.

I can't help but feel that would only delay and magnify the eventual crash. Even if we have a near-limitless energy supply which allows the population to continue expanding at current rates, we would still run into the problem of overshooting the carrying capacity for humans with regards to water and food, and exceed it by a larger margin, wouldn't we?

If you imagine us remaining earthbound it would happen sooner, if you get all sci-fi and give us fusion + space colonies I suppose (with a little optimistic imagination) it could be extended for quite some time in the same way that discovering a new hemisphere allowed for a population expansion, but isn't this a debt that will be paid eventually?

So with regards to the best case scenario, I'm wondering if you think it will be 1) a solution, 2) a postponement and exacerbation of the overshoot and crash, or 3) do you feel we are far from the last period of overshoot (the one that leads to a big crash), and that there may be several iterations of a technology that allows expansion in some way we may not be able to currently imagine (as fire, tools, iron, new hemispheres weren't specifically anticipated)?

[theanimal]

Your initial analysis is spot on. Solving the energy problem of peak oil does not solve overpopulation, peak fresh water, peak vegetables etc. or mitigate the issues related to climate change. If you think what John Michael Greer says is true, that the collapse will be gradual (based on historical precedent), rather than a sudden, dramatic hollywood-like crash, one could argue that the crash/collapse has already started. I think the best case scenario is to hope for is something like a late 19th century living with some modern technology. However, if nobody acts things could regress much further back.

[cmonkey]

Personally I agree with what theanimal said. Slow steady decline is the likely outcome until in about 20-30 years from now we look back and say "hey wait a minute".

If a solution to our energy issues was to be found, it would have been found by now. Fusion is the best alternative for electricity (and possibly a hydrogen fueled transportation sector) but has been 20 years away for going on 30-40 years now and is still 20 years away by best estimates. No one really talks about how transportation is key to nearly the entire economy, yet it is very fragile, relying on essentially one fuel source (oil). Crude oil production has been flat/declining for 10 years, offset only by expensive tight oil that is putting a chokehold on the entire economy. It doesn't matter how much coal you have, if you can't move it to a coal plant, you have no energy.

Even still, you bring up a valid argument. Exponential growth doesn't care what resource base you have (clean, nearly limitless or very finite fossil), it will grow using the same paradigm. Once you get past the bend there is no going back. Humans need to learn to live in steady state, be happy with what they have instead of constantly looking at the horizon for the next advancement. Only then will we be mature enough for more advanced energy sources. Until then, we are not ready.

[cmonkey]

An endorsement of Export Land Model on a global level. Seems producers are starting to get squeezed by their own populations.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-exports- ... n-the-elm/