Which energy source is going to replace Petroleum??!

[ralfy]

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).

The trap doesn't have to do with the price, supply, or demand. It has to do with energy and resources needed to produce energy. For example, you need certain amounts of resources and energy to produce solar panels. You need the equivalent of a certain number of barrels of oil to extract oil from the ground. It doesn't matter if supply is greater than demand, less than demand, or equal to demand: these physical realities remain.

 

Again, it won't happen that because you have no demand then you can suddenly manufacture solar panels without using energy and resources.

 

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.

Whether demand is 90 or 100 the trap remains: you still need various resources and energy to manufacture solar panels. And if demand is 0, it will not be the case that you can make solar panels with 0 energy and resources. That is scientifically impossible.

 

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.

The reason why we actually "increased our energy capabilities in the past" is because we had lots of oil available. In fact, the U.S. was the primary exporter, with oil literally gushing from Texas and elsewhere, with an estimated EROEI of 1:100. After that, EROEI started dropping for obvious reasons: as more oil is extracted, what remains is either too deep or requires more processing.

 

After U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, Saudi Arabia and other countries took over. Currently, two-thirds of oil-producing countries have reached or have past peak, and again for the same reasons. As for Saudi Arabia, it boasted in 2009 that it would easily breach 15 Mb/d by 2011. To this day, they have barely gone past 10 Mb/d. Because they refuse external audits, we do not know what will happen next, but reports indicate that they will have to move from Ghawar to Manifa, which has mostly heavy-sour oil and requires a special processing plant, which means a lower EROEI.

 

Thus, what you claim has not taken place has been taking place: in 2010, the IEA, BP, and the EIA confirmed that crude oil production peaked in 2005. Oil production for the six major players are starting to decline. That's why we are now resorting to unconventional oil, but the EROEIs for these are not very high, and in several cases, their decline rates are steep:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

 

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.

I understand what you are saying, but you need to say it clearly: it's not that an energy trap disappears if demand is zero. It's that our worries over an energy trap disappears. That's why even if demand drops, the EROEI will still be low.

 

That's why if you look at various mainstream articles that argue that peak oil is "dead" because of peak demand, you will see that they are giving the wrong conclusions. Peak oil is not "dead." Rather, our worries concerning peak oil is "dead" because demand is falling. The problem is that demand is falling for the wrong reasons.

 

The belief is that the U.S., EU, and Japan have become more efficient. But if you look at their economies, you will see that they remain anemic. Keep in mind that in capitalist systems, efficiency means using fewer resources but maintaining or increasing economic growth. This is not the same as demand destruction.

 

That's why some of them are struggling to increase consumption, as that's the only way for their economies to grow.

 

The U.S.:

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9549700a-00d0-11e3-a90a-00144feab7de.html

 

Europe:

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/e2d0f410-f621-11e2-a55d-00144feabdc0.html

 

Of course, for the rest of the world, demand is growing, and that's because they want a middle class lifestyle, too. And it doesn't help when banks, the major driver of the global capitalist system, can only earn more money by lending more money, and can only receive returns on their investments or loans if the money is used to manufacture more goods and services, which means higher oil demand.

[swansont]

I think you need to look up the definition of a trap: something from which you cannot escape

 

If you can escape from it, it's not a trap

[ralfy]

I think you need to look up the definition of a trap: something from which you cannot escape

 

If you can escape from it, it's not a trap

Exactly! Unless you can create solar panels using zero energy and resources, then you can't escape an energy trap.

[Mr Monkeybat]

Would not a more accurate definition of a trap be something that is hard to escape from. Few traps are impossible to escape from, and if you target is stupid enough you could even use an easy to escape trap.

[swansont]

Exactly! Unless you can create solar panels using zero energy and resources, then you can't escape an energy trap.

It's not a trap if the energy is not earmarked for another use, i.e. demand is lower. It's just the energy cost of making the panels. Just like there's an energy cost to drilling for oil. It only becomes a trap when demand exceeds supply, just as the article describes.

[ralfy]

It's not a trap if the energy is not earmarked for another use, i.e. demand is lower. It's just the energy cost of making the panels. Just like there's an energy cost to drilling for oil. It only becomes a trap when demand exceeds supply, just as the article describes.

Exactly! The trap is "the energy cost of making the panels." It won't matter if demand is higher or lower. The only way to argue that there is no trap is to show that there is NO energy cost for making the panels.

 

The reference to a demand is a response to that energy trap. When demand goes to zero, that doesn't mean that the "the energy cost of making the panels" goes to zero. The fact that you need to use energy, whether or not "it is not earmarked for another use," proves the existence of that trap.

 

Do you understand this point? The fact that you need to use energy to make the panels, whether or not you had planned to use it for something else, the existence of that energy trap. It doesn't matter whether or not you wanted to use that energy for something else: the trap is the "energy cost of making the panels."

 

That's why various mainstream news is so keen on talking about peak demand. Since oil production cannot be increased significantly because of lower EROEI, demand has to go down. But more people worldwide need more goods and services, which explains why global demand is going up.

Would not a more accurate definition of a trap be something that is hard to escape from. Few traps are impossible to escape from, and if you target is stupid enough you could even use an easy to escape trap.

It can be both. In this case, we used oil in place of coal, etc., but we are unable to find other energy replacements easily. The IEA argues that we can minimize the effects of peak oil and global warming through significant levels of cooperation and coordination between countries, but what has been happening during the past few decades, especially the last decade, reveals the opposite.

[swansont]

Exactly! The trap is "the energy cost of making the panels." It won't matter if demand is higher or lower. The only way to argue that there is no trap is to show that there is NO energy cost for making the panels.

 

The reference to a demand is a response to that energy trap. When demand goes to zero, that doesn't mean that the "the energy cost of making the panels" goes to zero. The fact that you need to use energy, whether or not "it is not earmarked for another use," proves the existence of that trap.

 

Do you understand this point? The fact that you need to use energy to make the panels, whether or not you had planned to use it for something else, the existence of that energy trap. It doesn't matter whether or not you wanted to use that energy for something else: the trap is the "energy cost of making the panels."

 

That's why various mainstream news is so keen on talking about peak demand. Since oil production cannot be increased significantly because of lower EROEI, demand has to go down. But more people worldwide need more goods and services, which explains why global demand is going up.

 

It can be both. In this case, we used oil in place of coal, etc., but we are unable to find other energy replacements easily. The IEA argues that we can minimize the effects of peak oil and global warming through significant levels of cooperation and coordination between countries, but what has been happening during the past few decades, especially the last decade, reveals the opposite.

I understand the point. My objection is to the use of trap, which, if you look at the context of the article, makes the meaning clear. Or so I thought. But it's semantics, so no big deal.

 

If you can curb demand, you will not have the problem of depriving anyone of energy in order to transition to alternative sources. Or it will be less of a problem. That's my point. This is already happening in the US and Europe. In the US, demand is dropping because we are driving less. This is not completelytied to any economic stresses — there's a decline in addition to that.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/stats-show-americans-driving-anymore-20102969

 

Driving less does not require any international cooperation.

[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.

 

I found this information. A wind turbine deal made with Siemens was for 1.8GW for (€2.9 = $3.828B), which is 1GW for $2.125B.

 

The energy in 1 gallon US of diesel oil is 40,700 watt-hour, which at $0.065 per kilowatt-hour is worth $2.6455/gal diesel.

 

Assume the cost of this wind turbine deal is typical for machinery costs estimated as:

60% material

23% labor

01% energy

16% other

 

$2.125B*1%=$212.5M which can be converted into equivalent diesel oil gallons.

$212.5M/$2.6455/gal diesel = 80.325M gallons of diesel

 

The 84 million barrels of oil consumed per day converted into gallons is 84M barrels * 42 gal/barrel = 3528M gallons per day.

 

A gallon of crude oil contains more energy than a gallon of diesel, but I didn't find the ratio; I shall assume 1:1.

 

Thus, 3528M gallons of oil per day / 80.325M gallons of diesel to make 1GW of turbines, means there is enough oil produced per day to make 43.92GW of turbines, which is 43.92*365=16030.8GW of turbines per year.

 

Now, 16030.8GW is a little less than the world uses in electricity per year (20,000G KW).

 

Additionally, each GW of renewable energy produced, lessens the need for oil to make these turbines. If wind turbines are produces using only wind turbine power, after producing 1GW of wind turbines with oil, it would take about 6.25 years to make 16K GW of turbines.

 

I realize that turbines will not be used to generate all the renewable energy in the world, but this calculation demonstrates we do not need another Saudi Arabia every seven years to make enough renewable energy, regardless of demand by people.

Edited September 3, 2013 by EdEarl

[ralfy]

I understand the point. My objection is to the use of trap, which, if you look at the context of the article, makes the meaning clear. Or so I thought. But it's semantics, so no big deal.

 

If you can curb demand, you will not have the problem of depriving anyone of energy in order to transition to alternative sources. Or it will be less of a problem. That's my point. This is already happening in the US and Europe. In the US, demand is dropping because we are driving less. This is not completelytied to any economic stresses — there's a decline in addition to that.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/stats-show-americans-driving-anymore-20102969

 

Driving less does not require any international cooperation.

Keep in mind that driving less is not the same as efficiency, which refers to driving the same distance or more but consuming less oil. If people in the U.S. and elsewhere are consuming less because they are driving less, then the only logical reason for that is because they cannot afford to drive the same distance or more as they did before. And the only logical reason for not being able to afford to drive the same distance or more is because of economic stress. That explains the points raised in this article:

 

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

 

Why is it that economic crisis persists even with a "decline"? It's because the "decline" is driven by increasing money supply to bail out banks, provide jobs, etc. But the U.S. is running out of funds for more quantitative easing:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/26/lew-debt-limit-boehner-fiscal-october/2702937/

 

which means one should expect the pain to return, with even developing countries to be affected:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-g20-imf-idUSBRE9830AN20130904

 

The irony, then, is that the "solution" to an energy trap, lower EROEI, and peak oil is the result of the same.

 

In the end, we have to realize that our middle class lifestyles, industrialization, consumer spending, etc., can only be sustained with more oil consumed to produce more goods and services to ensure more profits from which we get our income, bonuses, returns on investment, etc. Hence,

 

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

 

We can transition to other sources of energy, but the process is lengthy, difficult, and will require extensive cooperation and coordination:

 

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

 

which, unfortunately, is not something that we are ready to do, given what has happened the last few decades.

I realize that turbines will not be used to generate all the renewable energy in the world, but this calculation demonstrates we do not need another Saudi Arabia every seven years to make enough renewable energy, regardless of demand by people.

We "do not need another Saudi Arabia every seven years to make enough renewable energy." According to the IEA, we need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years (given a 2-pct increase in oil demand each year for the past three decades) to maintain economic growth of around 4 pct per annum. To transition to other sources of energy, we will need that extra energy for economic growth plus more for the transition.

 

Keep in mind that our problems deal not only with energy but with petrochemicals, bunker oil needed for cargo ships, etc. In short, we are looking at a manufacturing system, food production, and delivery systems dependent heavily on oil not just for energy but for petrochemicals.

 

Theoretically, it is possible to transition to other sources of energy, but it will take decades, and we don't have that time:

 

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

 

That is why the IEA argues that we will need extensive cooperation and coordination between governments to cut down oil demand increase by more than half, make sure that oil companies employ maximum production for oil and gas, and move quickly to renewable energy in order to deal with lack of energy plus global warming:

 

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

 

The bad news is that we have not seen such massive cooperation in decades, and given complacency concerning peak oil (and the point that economies should have prepared for this at least a decade ago) and a lack of cooperation regarding dealing with climate change, it is unlikely that we will not meet these requirements. That is why even the chief economist of the IEA is very concerned:

 

 

Finally, FWIW, these are not merely "opinions" but arguments raised by what is probably the top authority on global energy concerns.

[swansont]

Keep in mind that driving less is not the same as efficiency, which refers to driving the same distance or more but consuming less oil.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim that they were, then.

 

 

If people in the U.S. and elsewhere are consuming less because they are driving less, then the only logical reason for that is because they cannot afford to drive the same distance or more as they did before. And the only logical reason for not being able to afford to drive the same distance or more is because of economic stress. That explains the points raised in this article:

 

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

 

Actual facts trump flawed logic.

 

"average automobile use has declined recently even among those who have remained employed."

 

They point out that being able to do shopping online reduces driving. Use of public transportation is up, as is biking. And part of it is simple demographics — the peak driving age is 45-55, and the baby boomers are moving past that.

 

 

oft-repeated links deleted.

[ralfy]

I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim that they were, then.

In an earlier message, you referred to efficiency.

 

Actual facts trump flawed logic.

 

"average automobile use has declined recently even among those who have remained employed."

 

They point out that being able to do shopping online reduces driving. Use of public transportation is up, as is biking. And part of it is simple demographics — the peak driving age is 45-55, and the baby boomers are moving past that.

 

oft-repeated links deleted.

Low employment, GDP growth, and median household income:

 

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/08/the-collapsing-us-economy-end-world/

 

Higher gas prices, weak economy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/americans-driving-less-gas-prices-weak-economy_n_3274911.html

 

In short, it's a combination of the two: a car culture "dying" and economic stress.

 

The bad news is that demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan are being offset by increasing consumption for the rest of the world:

 

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

 

And as the FT articles show, the same countries are trying to increase oil demand as that is ultimately the basis for economic growth.

 

Unless, of course, the US goes back to "recovery" through more credit creation, but that's no longer possible.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/treasury-us-hit-debt-limit-mid-oct-20073772

[swansont]

In an earlier message, you referred to efficiency.

Not in reference to driving less. That was in reference to lowering demand, and it's one way of doing it.

 

Low employment, GDP growth, and median household income:

 

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/08/the-collapsing-us-economy-end-world/

No mention of oil or gasoline here.

 

Higher gas prices, weak economy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/americans-driving-less-gas-prices-weak-economy_n_3274911.html

 

Yeah, that's based on the same study mentioned in the article I linked to. It mentions changing demographics in addition to the economy. (You need to read past the headline to see this, though)

[EdEarl]

 

We "do not need another Saudi Arabia every seven years to make enough renewable energy." According to the IEA, we need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years (given a 2-pct increase in oil demand each year for the past three decades) to maintain economic growth of around 4 pct per annum. To transition to other sources of energy, we will need that extra energy for economic growth plus more for the transition.

CEOs want economic growth to pad their income, which in the US is usually outrageous. People need to focus on living happy lives, and stop fretting about having more junk than their neighbors. The US needs to reduce its consumption of energy, and I've already provided sources that illustrate countries can have happy, healthy citizens with 1/4 the resource use of the US. Applying that model worldwide means there would be a net economic decrease, but no one would suffer, in fact everyone would be happier and healthier. The current thinking of economists and the IEA is nonsense. So repeating the need for economic growth is shaking a dead bush just to make noise.

 

You lack cogent arguments. Try people are stubborn and resistant to change; thus, they will not cut back. And, they will ruin their good lives because they will not be reasonable.

Edited September 4, 2013 by EdEarl

[ralfy]

Not in reference to driving less. That was in reference to lowering demand, and it's one way of doing it.

But global demand isn't dropping.

 

No mention of oil or gasoline here.

You need money to buy gasoline, and the former comes from income, etc.

 

Yeah, that's based on the same study mentioned in the article I linked to. It mentions changing demographics in addition to the economy. (You need to read past the headline to see this, though)

That's why you need to look at two factors involved in this, as well as demand destruction in EU and Japan. Also, don't forget to look at unemployment for those ages 18-30, broad unemployment, the percentage of the economy that is connected to consumer spending, connections between consumer spending and employment, etc. Finally, there's an increase in global consumption.

 

Thus, we see a combination of demand destruction due to fallout from casino capitalism in rich countries coupled with the effects of peak oil due to increasing demand for the rest of the world.

Not in reference to driving less. That was in reference to lowering demand, and it's one way of doing it.

But global demand isn't dropping.

 

No mention of oil or gasoline here.

You need money to buy gasoline, and the former comes from income, etc.

 

Yeah, that's based on the same study mentioned in the article I linked to. It mentions changing demographics in addition to the economy. (You need to read past the headline to see this, though)

That's why you need to look at two factors involved in this, as well as demand destruction in EU and Japan. Also, don't forget to look at unemployment for those ages 18-30, broad unemployment, the percentage of the economy that is connected to consumer spending, connections between consumer spending and employment, etc. Finally, there's an increase in global consumption.

 

Thus, we see a combination of demand destruction due to fallout from casino capitalism in rich countries coupled with the effects of peak oil due to increasing demand for the rest of the world.

CEOs want economic growth to pad their income, which in the US is usually outrageous.

Not just CEOs. See the last two sentences of your second paragraph.

 

People need to focus on living happy lives, and stop fretting about having more junk than their neighbors.

I agree, but we need to be realistic about this. We can't assume that what we think should happen will happen. Rather, what has been taking place will continue. That's why oil consumption is rising globally.

 

The US needs to reduce its consumption of energy, and I've already provided sources that illustrate countries can have happy, healthy citizens with 1/4 the resource use of the US. Applying that model worldwide means there would be a net economic decrease, but no one would suffer, in fact everyone would be happier and healthier.

Actually, the global ecological footprint is already a fourth of that of the U.S.:

 

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

 

and even that is overshoot, as biocapacity is much lower. And most worldwide lack one or more basic needs.

 

The current thinking of economists and the IEA is nonsense. So repeating the need for economic growth is shaking a dead bush just to make noise.

What economists and the IEA are saying isn't based on what they think should happen. Rather, it's based on what has been happening. The reason is seen in the last two sentences of your last paragraph.

 

You lack cogent arguments. Try people are stubborn and resistant to change; thus, they will not cut back. And, they will ruin their good lives because they will not be reasonable.

Your first sentence is contradicted by the next two. Apparently, my arguments are very clear as they are based on your assessment of "people."

 

What is lacking is your argument that this resistance to change will suddenly be reversed voluntarily. I cannot agree given what I've seen the past seven decades.

[EdEarl]

 

I agree, but we need to be realistic about this. We can't assume that what we think should happen will happen. Rather, what has been taking place will continue. That's why oil consumption is rising globally.

I suppose one's perception of realism depends on perspective, because I believe what you and the IEA propose is unrealistic. Just because billions of people believe in a fairy tale, does not make that fairy tale real. I try to choose a realistic path in spite of my government doing too little and regardless of people who stick their heads in the sand.

[ralfy]

I suppose one's perception of realism depends on perspective, because I believe what you and the IEA propose is unrealistic. Just because billions of people believe in a fairy tale, does not make that fairy tale real. I try to choose a realistic path in spite of my government doing too little and regardless of people who stick their heads in the sand.

That "fairy tale" has been going on for around seven decades. Why do you think population increased dramatically during the same period?

Edited September 7, 2013 by ralfy

[EdEarl]

That "fairy tale" has been going on for around seven decades. Why do you think population increased dramatically during the same period?

What?

[ralfy]

What?

Ever since the Green Revolution was promoted after '45, life expectancy rates worldwide have soared and infant mortality rates dropped. With manufacturing thanks to cheap, abundant oil, better sanitation systems, etc., we have seen living conditions improve to the point that population doubled during the same period. Coupled with that was the emergence of a middle class with incredible levels of consumption (e.g., the U.S., with less than 5 pct of the world's population requiring up to a quarter of world oil production) followed by the rise of a global middle class.

 

Thus, what you call a "fairy tale" has been going on for the past seven decades. The irony is that the same "fairy tale" is leading to current predicaments.

 

Finally, FWIW, the government simply follows what Big Business wants, especially banks. And for these institutions to thrive, more production and consumption of resources is needed.

 

With that, I cannot imagine any energy source effectively replacing petroleum, at least for the next two decades. Unfortunately, we need those replacements in place during the same period. The IEA and others are even less confident, as they argue that preparations should have been made more than a decade ago.