Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!

[zorro]

Zorro, I think you are too optimistic.

 

Yes but; ..... we must start from somewhere and put population (driven consumption) into the equations.

Edited August 10, 2013 by zorro

[EdEarl]

 

Yes but; ..... we must start from somewhere and put population (driven consumption) into the equations.

It was done in the 1960s using a computer simulation with the results published in a book called the Limits to Growth. The effort did not end there; since then relate work has continued and has been published. You can find this information by starting with the following links. Knowledge about the environment has increased since the 1960s, which has changed the equations used in simulations. However, the date predicted for overwhelming the Earth's resources has remained about the same (2040-2050). But, time flies and many things need to be done if we are to avoid disaster.

 

See: Limits To Growth, Related books, Already Beyond? – 40 Years Limits to Growth, and Books and Literature.

[zorro]

hello EdEarl: thanx for your responces

 

Action, Action, Action, ....... like Real Estate, is the top priority.

 

Construct Clean Fusion Energy reactors, Recycling all Waste, Reduced Petroleum Production, Electric cars and more Trains, improved renewables.

 

Government and Industry are tied up into their own graft factions so the Action needs to come from the middle classes and financed by conversion of the Lotteries and drug trafficking away from the Crime Industries into regulated money farms controlled by the middle classes in a new NASDAC with a Cap and Trade subsidiary.

 

I have "Limits to Growth" and the Population Bomb (I am a '50's Soul). I need to get them out again.

[EdEarl]

Zorro,

You should get more recent reports than the Limits To Growth; it's data is old and does not include data for global warming. I don't know what books are latest. There is data to suggest population growth is under control from a Ted Talk by Hans Rosling: Religions and Babies. Another interesting Ted Talk is by Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change. Two Elon Musk companies are working to help climate change, Solar City and TeslaX. Windmills are popping up all over the place. The number of solar farms is increasing. Many companies are saving money by reducing their energy bills. The Elio three wheeler will be sold soon; it gets 80+ mpg, can go 100 mph, has air condition, power windows, and appears that it will be a good commuter car scooter.

 

The down side is glaciers and northern permafrost are melting at astonishing rates, among other things. Whether the advancements will overcome the detriments soon enough to prevent catastrophe is unknown. I hope they will.

 

If the US had spent money on renewable energy sources that it spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have a green economy and taxpayers would already be getting billions of dollars from green jobs and not spending as much money to buy foreign oil. Oops.

 

It would be nice if we always knew how to do the right thing. It would be nice if congress could do something right.

Edited August 10, 2013 by EdEarl

[zorro]

Zorro,

You should get more recent reports than the Limits To Growth; it's data is old and does not include data for global warming. I don't know what books are latest. There is data to suggest population growth is under control from a Ted Talk by Hans Rosling: Religions and Babies. Another interesting Ted Talk is by Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change. Two Elon Musk companies are working to help climate change, Solar City and TeslaX. Windmills are popping up all over the place. The number of solar farms is increasing. Many companies are saving money by reducing their energy bills. The Elio three wheeler will be sold soon; it gets 80+ mpg, can go 100 mph, has air condition, power windows, and appears that it will be a good commuter car scooter.

 

The down side is glaciers and northern permafrost are melting at astonishing rates, among other things. Whether the advancements will overcome the detriments soon enough to prevent catastrophe is unknown. I hope they will.

 

If the US had spent money on renewable energy sources that it spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have a green economy and taxpayers would already be getting billions of dollars from green jobs and not spending as much money to buy foreign oil. Oops.

 

It would be nice if we always knew how to do the right thing. It would be nice if congress could do something right.

 

Much of the new stuff is politically oriented especially global warming trash science so I work with Pre GW and basic research.

 

Don't count on Congress or Industry.

 

Clean Fusion ( <> Iron ) is needed ASAP!!

Edited August 10, 2013 by zorro

[EdEarl]

A GreenTechSolar report says 2/3 of solar PV has been installed in the past 2.5 years.

 

And capacity will nearly double in the next 2.5 years.

[NATO]

As pathetic as battery's may be compared to petrol engines, At the rate technology is advanceing... It wasn't that long ago that steam power was the only form of mechanization. In my late great grandfather's lifetime (1914-2013) He saw the end of two World Wars, the last civil war vet, the entire Cold War, and the atomic age, the entire space program from Von brown to Neil Armstrong, to Shuttle Discovery. He may have forgotten in his last days some details do to him being so damn old, But in his golden years, he remembered all of it. With some historic perspective, things aren't that bleak. I can definitely see battery's evolving to a tolerable performance level. All that's left is finding out an affective way to charge and manufacture them.

As pathetic as battery's may be compared to petrol engines, At the rate technology is advanceing... It wasn't that long ago that steam power was the only form of mechanization. In my late great grandfather's lifetime (1914-2013) He saw the end of two World Wars, the last civil war vet, the entire Cold War, and the atomic age, the entire space program from Von brown to Neil Armstrong, to Shuttle Discovery. He may have forgotten in his last days some details do to him being so damn old, But in his golden years, he remembered all of it. With some historic perspective, things aren't that bleak. I can definitely see battery's evolving to a tolerable performance level. All that's left is finding out an affective way to charge and manufacture them.

Darn. It posted itself twice. My iPod is lagging.

[ralfy]

Don't forget fossil fuels needed for JIT systems, petrochemicals, lag time, an energy trap (energy to be invested for any transition), energy returns, increasing demand. and significant levels of cooperation and coordination between economies.

 

In this case, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth (based on a 2-pct increase in oil demand per year for the past three decades). To move to other sources of energy while maintaining growth, we will need even more. This will be a problem because crude oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and unconventional oil has lower energy returns and steeper decline curves.

 

What type of energy returns are needed? To support a middle class lifestyle, very high. For more details, see

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

Finally, what are the chances that governments and businesses will cooperate with each other in a global free market capitalist system that is significantly based on competition and profit-making? To answer that question, one needs to look at whether or not the same have cooperated with each other not only in light of peak oil but even in terms of global warming the past two decades.

[EdEarl]

As pathetic as battery's may be compared to petrol engines, At the rate technology is advanceing... It wasn't that long ago that steam power was the only form of mechanization. In my late great grandfather's lifetime (1914-2013) He saw the end of two World Wars, the last civil war vet, the entire Cold War, and the atomic age, the entire space program from Von brown to Neil Armstrong, to Shuttle Discovery. He may have forgotten in his last days some details do to him being so damn old, But in his golden years, he remembered all of it. With some historic perspective, things aren't that bleak. I can definitely see battery's evolving to a tolerable performance level. All that's left is finding out an affective way to charge and manufacture them.

 

Perhaps graphene super capacitors with a storage density of lead acid batteries can soon be manufactured economically. The charge time will be brief. However, the charger must be designed considering trade offs between using a high ampere, heavy cable versus a high, dangerous, voltage. Fortunately, the light weight of a super capacitor and electric motor can make lighter cars, and that will help lower ampere-hour storage requirement. In turn, that will make automobiles more fuel efficient, which is a win for the environment.

 

 

In this case, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth (based on a 2-pct increase in oil demand per year for the past three decades).

In my opinion, the need for additional oil in the amount of one Saudi Arabia every seven years is nonsense. Costa Rica has a longer average life span than people in the US and a happier population, yet they use only 1/4 the resources that the US uses. We need to live happier with less, not destroy the environment with oil gluttony.

 

 

 

 

Robert F. Kennedy on what GNP means.

 

Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

Edited August 27, 2013 by EdEarl

[swansont]

The energy trap idea applies to increased demand, which is why there also needs to be a push for efficiency. e.g. the move away from incandescent bulbs in the last few years. That flattens the demand curve and makes the transition easier. US electrical demand, for example, has not been increasing at 2% per year.

 

I suspect also that much of the demand that contributes to the 2% per year global increase is new power, i.e. not replacing old power, and the energy trap argument does not apply.

[ralfy]

 

 

In my opinion, the need for additional oil in the amount of one Saudi Arabia every seven years is nonsense. Costa Rica has a longer average life span than people in the US and a happier population, yet they use only 1/4 the resources that the US uses. We need to live happier with less, not destroy the environment with oil gluttony.

 

 

The Saudi Arabias needed were given by the IEA and refer to oil demand increase trend: 2 pct increase per annum for the past three decades. Given current levels, that's more than 1 Mb/d a year, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.

 

Your second sentence does not prove your first sentence. Put simply, without additional Saudi Arabias, countries like the U.S. will have to cut down resource use by three-quarters.

 

Next, Costa Rica is not a good example given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

 

because It requires an ecological footprint higher than bio-capacity. If you want a good example, then try Cuba, which has an ecological footprint that comes closer to the latter.

 

Finally, you have to figure out how 15 pct of the world's population plus a growing global middle class will be willing to give up much of a middle class lifestyle, which includes computers, Internet access, etc. Don't forget the financial elite which controls much of the global economy and is dependent on the populace to borrow, spend, and consume more so that the value of money, the main component of its wealth, will maintain its value.

 

It's easy to imagine that governments and businesses worldwide will cooperate and coordinate with each other, giving up tax revenues and profits, as it guides the world population to living standards equivalent to that of Cuba, with military forces cut back drastically, and the financial elite accepting major losses.

The energy trap idea applies to increased demand, which is why there also needs to be a push for efficiency. e.g. the move away from incandescent bulbs in the last few years. That flattens the demand curve and makes the transition easier. US electrical demand, for example, has not been increasing at 2% per year.

 

I suspect also that much of the demand that contributes to the 2% per year global increase is new power, i.e. not replacing old power, and the energy trap argument does not apply.

 

An energy trap doesn't apply to increased demand but to oil needed for components used in renewable energy. For more details, read

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

 

A "push for efficiency" leads to conservation if we didn't have a global free market capitalist economy. Unfortunately, that's not the case, which means whatever resources are not used by some will be sold to others. And there's a huge potential demand for resources worldwide as most people don't have access to one or more basic needs. That's why we have the first chart in this article:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

where we have lower oil consumption in the U.S., EU, and Japan due not only to efficiency but to economic crisis has been overtaken by increasing oil consumption for the rest of the world, and that taking place even with a tripling of prices.

 

How much resources will the rest of the world need to copy the U.S., EU, and Japan? Definitely more than what's available. Even following the ecological footprint of a country like Costa Rica will require more than one earth.

 

And that's given the current population, which will still grow, and not counting the effects of environmental damage and global warming on bio-capacity.

[swansont]

An energy trap doesn't apply to increased demand but to oil needed for components used in renewable energy. For more details, read

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

Providing the same link you gave earlier doesn't address my comments, and the argument in the link is clearly about energy, not oil for components. Did you even read it yourself?

 

A "push for efficiency" leads to conservation if we didn't have a global free market capitalist economy. Unfortunately, that's not the case, which means whatever resources are not used by some will be sold to others.

Then it's a good thing we don't have a free market capitalist economy. We have governments that can pass legislation regulating markets.

 

And there's a huge potential demand for resources worldwide as most people don't have access to one or more basic needs. That's why we have the first chart in this article:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

where we have lower oil consumption in the U.S., EU, and Japan due not only to efficiency but to economic crisis has been overtaken by increasing oil consumption for the rest of the world, and that taking place even with a tripling of prices.

I think that article has viewed the situation backwards. Poor countries can outbid wealthy ones for oil?

 

How much resources will the rest of the world need to copy the U.S., EU, and Japan? Definitely more than what's available. Even following the ecological footprint of a country like Costa Rica will require more than one earth.

 

And that's given the current population, which will still grow, and not counting the effects of environmental damage and global warming on bio-capacity.

Yes, it's more than what's available. Which is the subject of the thread: what is going to replace petroleum.

[EdEarl]

 

Your second sentence does not prove your first sentence. Put simply, without additional Saudi Arabias, countries like the U.S. will have to cut down resource use by three-quarters.

Exactly, the US needs to cut down resource use greatly. Spending resources, money and time driving one person in an full sized car for 30 minutes or more to work and again to home is not a good use of time, money or resources. That is part of what people consider middle class living, but IMO that is not living it is existing. Slick corporate ads have sold people on trying to achieve a life style that is not realistic for everyone in the world to achieve, and it is not necessary for happiness and health of people and a thriving environment. It is not just the US, for example, the Chinese need to stop using rhino horn for a worthless traditional medicine. Some African men who have HIV believe that if they have sex with a virgin they will be cured. People believe all kinds of nonsense, and those beliefs are sometimes destructive.

 

People can make a difference in US and global energy use, but they do not believe it possible and are unwilling to car pool or buy a hybrid instead of an SUV. Most of all, they cannot agree to lobby their representatives and vote for green politicians; they would rather vote for moral purity, left or right, and the easy street for everyone. I fear the lack of action.

[Mr Monkeybat]

I dont know what the answer to the threads original question is, maybe ox carts? Seriously though as things currently stand all alternatives except for other fossil fuels require significant improvement before they can run a modern economy. Things like solar and wind also need effective energy storage to replace fossil fuels. There have been developments creating things like batteries and super capacitors with graphene paper which have had promising results in energy density and re usability, graphene could also possibly have some applications in making solar panels cheaper and powerful. But it remains to be seen whether such things can be mass produced cheaply.

 

If Robert Bussard was correct that relatively cheap fusion reactors can be made using the poly well design then that's great, but if tokamaks is the only real route to fusion power then it will be incredibly expensive.

 

With the technological status quo fossil fuels are just so energy dense, portable and convenient, that we will continue burning it all up until we are left with worse shales and other crud with near negative EROI, No matter what carbon taxes are declared or treaties signed.

[ralfy]

Providing the same link you gave earlier doesn't address my comments, and the argument in the link is clearly about energy, not oil for components. Did you even read it yourself?

It is implied in the article that you need oil for manufacturing, especially petrochemicals. In addition, because energy returns are lower for other energy sources, then you need to invest additional energy to transition to them. Thus, the energy trap has nothing to do with demand, as you pointed out earlier.

 

Then it's a good thing we don't have a free market capitalist economy. We have governments that can pass legislation regulating markets.

Except that that hasn't happened, likely because governments rely on more production and consumption of goods to earn more tax revenues.

 

Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between what you think will happen and what you wish will happen.

 

I think that article has viewed the situation backwards. Poor countries can outbid wealthy ones for oil?

Feel free to challenge the EIA oil consumption chart and come up with what you think is the right one.

 

Yes, it's more than what's available. Which is the subject of the thread: what is going to replace petroleum.

My point isn't that other energy sources will replace fossil fuels, as that's inevitable given peak oil. It's that they won't be enough to do so. For more details, read the IEA 2010 report.

Exactly, the US needs to cut down resource use greatly. Spending resources, money and time driving one person in an full sized car for 30 minutes or more to work and again to home is not a good use of time, money or resources. That is part of what people consider middle class living, but IMO that is not living it is existing. Slick corporate ads have sold people on trying to achieve a life style that is not realistic for everyone in the world to achieve, and it is not necessary for happiness and health of people and a thriving environment. It is not just the US, for example, the Chinese need to stop using rhino horn for a worthless traditional medicine. Some African men who have HIV believe that if they have sex with a virgin they will be cured. People believe all kinds of nonsense, and those beliefs are sometimes destructive.

 

People can make a difference in US and global energy use, but they do not believe it possible and are unwilling to car pool or buy a hybrid instead of an SUV. Most of all, they cannot agree to lobby their representatives and vote for green politicians; they would rather vote for moral purity, left or right, and the easy street for everyone. I fear the lack of action.

Indeed, but I don't think most members of the middle class, the financial elite that runs the global economy, or governments (not to mention energy-hungry military forces that want more and better armaments) will accept a decrease of resource use, as that threatens their income, profits, or sources of revenues. The same goes for much of the global population that wants a middle class lifestyle.

 

The latter point is important. For everyone to reach the average ecological footprint of Costa Rica, the example that you gave earlier, we will need the equivalent of one more earth.

 

Cuba comes closest to bio-capacity, but I don't think most people will accept authoritarian rule as well. And as bio-capacity is affected by environmental damage and global warming, and as population continues to grow, ecological footprint will have to shrink further.

Edited August 29, 2013 by ralfy

[EdEarl]

At some point, the Earth will complain enough to get everyone's attention.

[swansont]

It is implied in the article that you need oil for manufacturing, especially petrochemicals. In addition, because energy returns are lower for other energy sources, then you need to invest additional energy to transition to them. Thus, the energy trap has nothing to do with demand, as you pointed out earlier.

The focus of the article is EROI, plain and simple.

 

Also, if you are interpreting my statement as saying the energy trap has nothing to do with demand, then I need to explain it better: it has everything to do with demand. The energy trap scenario assumes there is no excess capacity, and there is a zero-sum game with exploitation of new energy sources. If demand is reduced, and/or you otherwise have excess capacity, and the scenario's assumption is false.

 

 

Except that that hasn't happened, likely because governments rely on more production and consumption of goods to earn more tax revenues.

 

Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between what you think will happen and what you wish will happen.

Sure it has. We have gas mileage requirements in the US. In Europe, gasoline is taxed a great amount, which limits consumption. France has built out nuclear capacity. Germany is using feed-in tariffs to expand solar power. Many places are phasing out the inefficient old-style incandescent light bulbs with efficiency standards. In the US you can get a tax write-off for installing a more efficient home heating system or solar panels or an electric car. Governments subsidize mass transit.

 

These things are actually happening. Not wishful thinking.

 

 

Feel free to challenge the EIA oil consumption chart and come up with what you think is the right one.

I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning the rationalization/explanation of it.

[EdEarl]

From: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=628324110532598&set=a.465299380168406.106666.465298390168505&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

[ralfy]

The focus of the article is EROI, plain and simple.

I already shared another article from Business Insider about the same. That is, an energy trap plus oil (fuel and petrochemicals) needed for a transition to non-fossil fuel sources:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

A more detailed implementation of this can be seen in the IEA 2010 report, but extensive coordination and cooperation between governments will be needed.

 

Such has never taken place in recent history. Anyone who equates what ideally should happen with what will happen is hopelessly mistaken.

 

Also, if you are interpreting my statement as saying the energy trap has nothing to do with demand, then I need to explain it better: it has everything to do with demand. The energy trap scenario assumes there is no excess capacity, and there is a zero-sum game with exploitation of new energy sources. If demand is reduced, and/or you otherwise have excess capacity, and the scenario's assumption is false.

An energy trap does not have to do with demand. As you pointed out above, it has to do with "EROEI, plain and simple." However, don't forget to add oil needed for the manufacturing and delivery processes.

 

You can obviously have "excess capacity" (which is not part of an energy trap) by lowering demand. Not surprisingly, the IEA argues the same, and it will involve extensive government intervention. What is the problem with that? You're looking at governments that earn tax revenues through greater sales of goods and services, and that means more oil demand.

 

That's why governments aren't preparing for peak oil. That's why, not surprisingly, they're not cooperating in terms of lowering CO2 emissions to deal with global warming, either. Instead, not surprisingly (again), they've been bailing out the financial elite and spending more on war costs to control various resources. Guess who's paying for those?

 

Finally, don't confuse what you hope will happen with what is likely to happen. If any, the "scenario's assumption" is false (i.e., we are guaranteed that resource demand will drop) because of a growing global middle class, a financial elite and governments that want more profits from production and consumption of goods, and more oil needed to ensure the latter. That's it.

 

Sure it has. We have gas mileage requirements in the US. In Europe, gasoline is taxed a great amount, which limits consumption. France has built out nuclear capacity. Germany is using feed-in tariffs to expand solar power. Many places are phasing out the inefficient old-style incandescent light bulbs with efficiency standards. In the US you can get a tax write-off for installing a more efficient home heating system or solar panels or an electric car. Governments subsidize mass transit.

 

These things are actually happening. Not wishful thinking.

Keep in mind that the rest of the world has not reached the same standards as those of the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the first chart of this article for details:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

See also,

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/25/uk-eia-energy-outlook-idUKBRE96O0LD20130725

 

That means to reach something even close to such standards (e.g., Costa Rica) will require an additional earth.

 

I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning the rationalization/explanation of it.

The EIA shows that oil demand is growing worldwide. Very likely, resource demand in general is growing worldwide.

 

It has to do with a growing middle class:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470

 

Remember, we are looking at a larger human population plus a growing middle class, and the resource demands of a middle class lifestyle is much higher.

 

What has kept scarcity at bay is the extensive use of oil for manufacturing and food production, and that's oil production that had high energy returns, with the latter critical for that same lifestyle:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

But that EROEI has gone down, and the alternatives cannot ensure high returns because of an energy trap, oil still needed for manufacturing and delivery of components needed for renewable energy, etc.

 

That's why the IEA argues that given replacements like unconventional oil, we will see only a 9-pct increase in oil and gas produced worldwide, and that in an economy that needs a 2-pct increase in oil demand to ensure economic growth and sustain that same growing middle class. That's the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years:

 

 

This explains why the IEA now believes that governments must cooperate with each other and intervene in the global economy, to force oil companies to maximize production and move economies to renewable energy (to deal with peak oil and global warming).

 

But what has been taking place the past few decades is the complete opposite: governments undecided on peak oil and global warming, businesses using more oil to produce more goods and services to meet demand from a growing middle class, the same middle class resistant to less resource use as that means lower income or profits for them, and continued effects of environmental damage and global warming.

From: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=628324110532598&set=a.465299380168406.106666.465298390168505&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

Excellent point! Guy McPherson says something related here:

 

 

In short, we're looking at three predicaments: a global financial crisis, peak oil, and global warming. All three amplify each other and make our situation more difficult.

Edited August 30, 2013 by ralfy

[swansont]

An energy trap does not have to do with demand. As you pointed out above, it has to do with "EROEI, plain and simple." However, don't forget to add oil needed for the manufacturing and delivery processes.

The energy trap scenario assumes your demand is equal to your production. Otherwise there is no zero-sum accounting of coming up with new energy. Thus, it has a lot to do with demand. Claiming otherwise misses the point — there is no energy trap scenario if that condition is not met. Your exploitation of new sources must be depriving someone else of energy for there to be an energy trap.

 

 

You can obviously have "excess capacity" (which is not part of an energy trap) by lowering demand. Not surprisingly, the IEA argues the same, and it will involve extensive government intervention. What is the problem with that? You're looking at governments that earn tax revenues through greater sales of goods and services, and that means more oil demand.

Oil isn't the only source of tax revenue, and lowering demand affects imports first, which have a lower profit margin and thus a smaller impact on taxes. Goods and services don't necessarily require oil, which is one reason for moving to alternative sources. And making those devices that run on the alternate sources, and exploiting those alternate sources, is a larger source of tax revenue!

 

 

Finally, don't confuse what you hope will happen with what is likely to happen.

Repetition doesn't make this any more profound or any better excuse for an actual argument. I gave you some examples of efforts already in place, and all you did was move the goalposts.

 

Keep in mind that the rest of the world has not reached the same standards as those of the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the first chart of this article for details:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

I already objected to the "analysis" that's in the link. Re-posting it doesn't do anything to address my objections to it.

 

Also, the U.S., EU, and Japan comprise 40% of the world's oil consumption. Efforts made there have a huge impact on the world.

 

The EIA shows that oil demand is growing worldwide.

 

And I repeat: I am not questioning the data. I am questioning the analysis of the implications of the data. Such as the conclusion that poor countries are outbidding rich countries for oil, and that's why oil demand has decreased in the rich countries.

[ralfy]

The energy trap scenario assumes your demand is equal to your production.

No, it doesn't. It simply refers to investing energy to obtain energy. Examples including using energy to drive oil drills to extract oil from which you extract energy, and using oil to manufacture solar panels which can be used for solar energy. That's it.

 

Otherwise there is no zero-sum accounting of coming up with new energy.

What you want to avoid is zero-sum. For more details, read p. 2 of this interview:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

Thus, it has a lot to do with demand.

Demand affects your reaction to an energy trap. If you have a lot of demand, then you need to deal with the issue. If not, then you can happily ignore it.

 

But that assumes that you can have a situation where a lot of demand will not take place. That's a fantasy.

 

Claiming otherwise misses the point there is no energy trap scenario if that condition is not met. Your exploitation of new sources must be depriving someone else of energy for there to be an energy trap.

You're missing the point. There will always be an energy trap no matter what you do. You can have zero demand but you will still need energy to manufacture solar panels.

 

Demand determines the importance of that energy trap, not whether or not it will take place. With zero demand and lots of energy available, you can happily manufacture solar panels for no reason at all.

 

Oil isn't the only source of tax revenue, and lowering demand affects imports first, which have a lower profit margin and thus a smaller impact on taxes. Goods and services don't necessarily require oil, which is one reason for moving to alternative sources. And making those devices that run on the alternate sources, and exploiting those alternate sources, is a larger source of tax revenue!

I didn't argue that oil is "the only source of tax revenue." I argued that oil is a significant resource needed for manufacturing and food production, and that's where you derive tax revenues.

 

Obviously, "[g]oods and services don't necessarily require oil" because one can use "alternative resources." The catch is

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

If you want more details, read the IEA 2010 report, which was linked earlier.

 

Finally, "exploiting those alternative sources" is not "a larger source of tax revenue" because their energy returns are lower. See the Charles Hall article for details.

 

Repetition doesn't make this any more profound or any better excuse for an actual argument. I gave you some examples of efforts already in place, and all you did was move the goalposts.

It's not that I am trying to make things "more profound" or that I am giving excuses. It's that you have almost no knowledge of this issue, which is why I am repeating points that you either cannot or will not understand.

 

I already objected to the "analysis" that's in the link. Re-posting it doesn't do anything to address my objections to it.

Your objections are wrong. I showed that above and in my previous posts.

 

Also, the U.S., EU, and Japan comprise 40% of the world's oil consumption. Efforts made there have a huge impact on the world.

And oil consumption for the rest of the world is rising and outstripping demand destruction for the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the link containing the EIA chart shared earlier.

 

There's your "huge impact."

 

And I repeat: I am not questioning the data. I am questioning the analysis of the implications of the data. Such as the conclusion that poor countries are outbidding rich countries for oil, and that's why oil demand has decreased in the rich countries.

Oil consumption for the rest of the world is outstripping those of the U.S., EU, and Japan. Here's the link to the EIA chart again:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

Oil consumption for the U.S., EU, and Japan dropped by 5 Mb/d during the last decade, but consumption for the rest of the world rose by 10 Mb/d. In fact, oil consumption for the rest of the world rose by 100 pct during the last three decades!

 

What is the trend line for this? The IEA explains in its 2010 report that oil demand has been rising globally by 2 pct a year for the past three decades. That's because even as rich countries mature, developing countries are gearing up for more spending. That's why car, appliance, and other sales are growing in Asia and in other parts of the world. That's why resource demand is on an upward trend not only for oil but for many other resources.

 

Remember, most human beings are only about to join the middle class. The BBC report shared earlier that the middle class will balloon to 40 pct of the world's population in two decades. How much resources do we need to fulfill demand from such?

 

The IEA reports that to meet a 2-pct increase in oil demand a year, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. To meet a growing middle class, we will need even more oil and resources. To meet a growing middle class plus use extra resources and energy to transition to renewable, more still.

 

That's why the IEA 2010 report states that the next two decades will be critical: governments will have to intervene, coordinate, and work together to deal with both peak oil and global warming. And when we look at recent history (two world wars, one Cold War, hundreds of millions dead, military forces used to control resources) we have not seen that.

[swansont]

No, it doesn't. It simply refers to investing energy to obtain energy. Examples including using energy to drive oil drills to extract oil from which you extract energy, and using oil to manufacture solar panels which can be used for solar energy. That's it.

 

 

What you want to avoid is zero-sum. For more details, read p. 2 of this interview:

 

Demand affects your reaction to an energy trap. If you have a lot of demand, then you need to deal with the issue. If not, then you can happily ignore it.

It's amazing that these are exactly the points I made — avoiding a zero-sum scenario and how you can ignore the energy trap issue of you have less demand — and yet the tone of your response is that I'm wrong.

 

 

But that assumes that you can have a situation where a lot of demand will not take place. That's a fantasy.

 

 

You're missing the point. There will always be an energy trap no matter what you do. You can have zero demand but you will still need energy to manufacture solar panels.

If there is zero demand, there is no trap. The trap occurs when you have to use energy that is demanded by someone else.

 

The catch is

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

Simply repeating yourself, and your links, is not particularly helpful.

 

Finally, "exploiting those alternative sources" is not "a larger source of tax revenue" because their energy returns are lower. See the Charles Hall article for details.

Taxes stem from profits and from gainful employment, not on energy return. Money spent in-country instead of overseas has a very big impact on tax revenue.

 

It's not that I am trying to make things "more profound" or that I am giving excuses. It's that you have almost no knowledge of this issue, which is why I am repeating points that you either cannot or will not understand.

I am disagreeing. If you are truly convinced you are right, you need to come up with a better argument to convince me.

 

Your objections are wrong. I showed that above and in my previous posts.

All you did was repeat you unconvincing arguments. Many of your links are simply people who have a similar opinion, without presenting any actual facts.

 

And oil consumption for the rest of the world is rising and outstripping demand destruction for the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the link containing the EIA chart shared earlier.

 

There's your "huge impact."

 

 

Oil consumption for the rest of the world is outstripping those of the U.S., EU, and Japan. Here's the link to the EIA chart again:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

 

Oil consumption for the U.S., EU, and Japan dropped by 5 Mb/d during the last decade, but consumption for the rest of the world rose by 10 Mb/d. In fact, oil consumption for the rest of the world rose by 100 pct during the last three decades!

(emphasis added) Explain to me how 5Mb/day is insignificant compared to 10 MB/day. I mean, you are telling me I'm wrong when I said that the efforts of the US, EU and Japan have a large impact, and then you cite numbers that show that indicate a pretty meaningful impact on worldwide consumption.

[EdEarl]

 

The energy trap scenario assumes your demand is equal to your production.

No, it doesn't. It simply refers to investing energy to obtain energy. Examples including using energy to drive oil drills to extract oil from which you extract energy, and using oil to manufacture solar panels which can be used for solar energy. That's it.

This statement seems to imply that without anyone using oil, except investing to obtain energy, there would be no energy trap. If my understanding of this statement is correct, then if everyone else stopped using energy (I know it is absurd) then the energy trap would still exist. That would a significant portion of the world's energy is being used to obtain energy.

 

Acording to Wikipedia everyone's consumption is the following:

Consumption is currently around 84 million barrels (13.4×10⁶ m³) per day, or 4.9 km³ per year.

which is what everyone are producing, too. Now, 13.4×10⁶ m³ per day is a lot of swimming pools full of oil. Why would drilling for oil or making windmills consume even 1% of that amount? There amount of oil used to make a windmill blade is a tiny fraction of 13.4×10⁶ m³ oil, and one windmill produces enough energy to power a windmill manufacturing plant, assuming batteries to assure power when the wind doesn't blow.

 

I haven't been able to find any facts about energy used to build wind turbines.

 

 

[ralfy]

It's amazing that these are exactly the points I made avoiding a zero-sum scenario and how you can ignore the energy trap issue of you have less demand and yet the tone of your response is that I'm wrong.

Yes, but what you are giving are responses to an energy trap, not points that will make it cease to exist. That is what I mean when you say you are wrong.

 

Again, an energy trap is something that takes place even if you have zero demand. The same goes for EROEI for unconventional oil. You can have lots of demand or less demand, but the amount of energy needed to extract and process oil is driven by physical limitations.

 

If there is zero demand, there is no trap. The trap occurs when you have to use energy that is demanded by someone else.

No, that's not right. There is an energy trap no matter what the demand is. Read the article carefully and see for yourself.

 

Put simply, you need a certain amount of energy and various resources to produce solar panels. You can have zero demand the phenomenon takes place. You can use technology or use other resources to decrease energy and resources needed, but the phenomenon remain.

 

The only way for you to say that there is no trap is to argue that you can create solar panels without using any energy or resources at all!

 

I can't believe that you cannot grasp a physical reality that is painfully basic.

 

Simply repeating yourself, and your links, is not particularly helpful.

That's because you keep making the same mistakes. In order to have no energy trap, you have to produce components for renewable energy without using any energy or resources. How does that work?

 

Taxes stem from profits and from gainful employment, not on energy return. Money spent in-country instead of overseas has a very big impact on tax revenue.

Taxes stem from profits and employment, but both are dependent on production of goods and services. The level of production is dependent on energy returns.

 

If, for example, you have no energy returns, then you won't be able to produce anything.

 

Your last point is precisely the reason why most cannot understand why economies essentially run on energy returns. Economies are measured using money, and money is basically credit: it's not backed by physical assets and can be created readily. How readily? Try a quadrillion-dollar unregulated derivatives market:

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

 

How much oil and resources do you think will be needed to back that?

 

I am disagreeing. If you are truly convinced you are right, you need to come up with a better argument to convince me.

I think my argument is good enough at it reveals the basic points about energy and economy that you cannot grasp. The pressure is now on you to show that things can be produced without energy and resources (hence, no energy trap) and that we can lower demand because it is taking place (again, not true). Produce evidence and I will consider it.

 

All you did was repeat you unconvincing arguments. Many of your links are simply people who have a similar opinion, without presenting any actual facts.

First, you argue that you are not discounting facts that I've been presenting to you. Now, you're arguing that I'm not giving any facts but opinions. That makes no sense at all.

 

What are you now saying? That one can produce things without using energy and resources because one can increase demand? That it is not true that oil consumption is not growing worldwide?

 

(emphasis added) Explain to me how 5Mb/day is insignificant compared to 10 MB/day. I mean, you are telling me I'm wrong when I said that the efforts of the US, EU and Japan have a large impact, and then you cite numbers that show that indicate a pretty meaningful impact on worldwide consumption.

There is no peak demand. Oil consumption for the U.S., EU, and Japan dropped by 5 Mb/d because of economic crisis. Remember, outside casino capitalism, the only way that economic growth can take place is through increased oil consumption:

 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/18/how-much-oil-growth-do-we-need-to-support-world-gdp-growth/

 

which explains why oil consumption for the rest of the world outstripped demand destruction for the U.S., EU, and Japan:

 

10 Mb/d - 5 Mb/d = 5 Mb/d increase. Again, there's no peak demand.

 

How much higher will demand get? According to the IEA, oil demand has been rising by 2 pct a year worldwide the past three decades:

 

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html

 

which means we should expect increasing consumption for several decades, especially as a growing global middle class demands more resources and energy.

 

What makes matters worse is that the only way to back all that money and to ensure returns on investment for rich countries, the developing world has to consume more. And they are consuming more. That's why peak demand is a fantasy.

 

The problem is that there isn't enough oil and gas available to meet growing demand:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/our-oil-constrained-future

 

That's why the IEA argues that the next two decades will be critical: we have to lower oil demand considerably and replace energy lacking with renewables. That will take coordination and cooperation between governments that has never taken place in modern history:

 

 

In fact, if any, governments have done the complete opposite: using military forces and covert activities to control resources in other countries and to destabilize regions.

 

Combine that with environmental damage coupled with global warming, and what do you get? High food and oil prices, chronic unemployment and austerity measures, economic crisis for the U.S., Japan, and EU, saber-rattling in the Pacific and social unrest in Europe and the Middle East, events like the Arab Spring, economic fallout and collapse for countries like Iceland, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria, etc.

This statement seems to imply that without anyone using oil, except investing to obtain energy, there would be no energy trap. If my understanding of this statement is correct, then if everyone else stopped using energy (I know it is absurd) then the energy trap would still exist. That would a significant portion of the world's energy is being used to obtain energy.

 

Acording to Wikipedia everyone's consumption is the following:

which is what everyone are producing, too. Now, 13.4×10⁶ m³ per day is a lot of swimming pools full of oil. Why would drilling for oil or making windmills consume even 1% of that amount? There amount of oil used to make a windmill blade is a tiny fraction of 13.4×10⁶ m³ oil, and one windmill produces enough energy to power a windmill manufacturing plant, assuming batteries to assure power when the wind doesn't blow.

 

I haven't been able to find any facts about energy used to build wind turbines.

My understanding is that even a lifestyle equivalent to that of Costa Rica will not be able to operate with zero energy returns. Charles Hall also gives details on p. 2 of the SciAm interview.

 

For info on wind turbines, etc., various journal articles on EROEI might help:

 

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/New_Studies_EROI

 

This might also help:

 

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25

 

Finally, the same Do the Math site which discusses energy traps also has other articles. For example, wind and solar:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/

 

Related articles include discussions on economic growth:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

 

Limits to growth:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-growth/

 

and an alternative energy matrix:

 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/

 

Finally, ecological footprint might be more encompassing, as it looks at resources in general. This was mentioned earlier:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

 

The argument is that we are now at overshoot: an ave. ecological footprint of 2.7 global hectares per capita (equivalent to that of Costa Rica) versus a biocapacity of only 1.8 (equivalent to that of Cuba).

 

That ave. ecological footprint will rise because of a growing global middle class. The biocapacity per capita will drop because of population increase and environmental damage (coupled with global warming).

[swansont]

Yes, but what you are giving are responses to an energy trap, not points that will make it cease to exist. That is what I mean when you say you are wrong.

 

Again, an energy trap is something that takes place even if you have zero demand. The same goes for EROEI for unconventional oil. You can have lots of demand or less demand, but the amount of energy needed to extract and process oil is driven by physical limitations.

 

 

No, that's not right. There is an energy trap no matter what the demand is. Read the article carefully and see for yourself.

 

Put simply, you need a certain amount of energy and various resources to produce solar panels. You can have zero demand the phenomenon takes place. You can use technology or use other resources to decrease energy and resources needed, but the phenomenon remain.

 

The only way for you to say that there is no trap is to argue that you can create solar panels without using any energy or resources at all!

 

I can't believe that you cannot grasp a physical reality that is painfully basic.

I understand the concept. It takes more energy to produce the same energy capability when you use a resource that has less EROI. The author explains the "trap" as being that requiring more energy is new and extra demand and that clashes with existing demand — that will drive the price up. But the reason it's a "trap" is because the author assumes supply = demand (the 100 units, in the example).

 

What if the demand was 90 instead of 100? Where exactly is the trap? You need 8 units of energy to produce the new output, but you have 10 available. That's not a problem at all. There's no trap.

 

The flaw is that if the energy trap scenario actually applied, it means we could never have increased our energy capabilities in the past. It's the same scenario, just with increasing demand. Work it through — the model tells us we could not have expanded, especially in light of the falling EROIE of oil over the years.

 

 

Taxes stem from profits and employment, but both are dependent on production of goods and services. The level of production is dependent on energy returns.

 

If, for example, you have no energy returns, then you won't be able to produce anything.

Yes, it's quite clear that as the EROIE of oil dropped from 100:1 to 20:1 over the past ~century that the world economy has contracted. Quite clear.