Blueprint for Sustainability
The Threat
To most people,
sustainability means the indefinite maintenance of present day living
standards. This can’t happen. Our world is running down, as does a clock when
there is no one to rewind it or replace the battery. Within 30 years, the high
cost of energy and other raw materials will cause the cost of living to
skyrocket so that most people will not be able to afford what we have today.
The result may be anarchy and chaos. All resources are finite and the faster we
use them, the sooner they will disappear. Mankind has existed for a million
years, but the situation has changed totally due to the large numbers of people
on the Earth and their increased dependence on mineral and other natural
resources. The sun may last for millions of years, but mankind will be gone
long before then, or at least they will be reduced to small numbers living
under primitive conditions. Under present policies we as a nation will probably
be in serious trouble within 30 years due to lack of oil and natural gas. This
shortage will first cause joblessness and serious economic changes. Then as
more shortages occur, there will be starvation and utter despair. The only
society that can really survive is a society based on planning, ultimate
thrift, hard work, productivity in a physical sense, and technology. Running
out of energy and other raw materials is inevitable. Long ago Malthus predicted
that the Earth’s population would outstrip food supplies and that famines would
occur. He was long ridiculed for these views because coal, natural gas, and
mined fertilizer delayed his predictions. However as populations increase and
these materials are depleted, his predictions will come true. There have been
plenty of famines since Malthus’ death, but we haven’t seen the big one yet.
The Club of
Here we use phrases like “American Dream” and “Living Wage” to glorify our waste of resources. What these phrases really mean is that every American has the right to eat beef, live in a house, have a big lawn, and drive a car. Surely you realize that if the Chinese, Russians, or Indians satisfy their “Dreams” then all natural resources of the Earth will become so scarce that poor nations will have nothing. Yet they have the same right to these dreams that we do and to believe otherwise is to be an American Nazi. The Chinese were roundly criticized for taking draconian birth control measures. Did they have any choice? Wasn’t this the right thing to do? We don’t even have birth control for automobiles or houses. There can be only temporary definitions of sustainability because as the threat increases, the countermeasures will have to be more desperate. The truth is that this country has achieved its piggish over consumption at the expense of other countries that have not competed well. This situation will change in the future and we will have to worry about the consumption of 8 billion people rather than 250 million. Energy and other raw materials will be in short supply, and the poor will multiply. As it stands now, we are importing more than 50% of our oil.
Global Warming
There are
several plausible scenarios whereby Global Warming could kill millions or even
billions of people. Therefore we should not hope for finding more fossil
energy. One of these mechanisms is by rising of the seas, which would drown
island nations, low nations like
Mineral Resources
The best source that I have been able to find for the production and reserves of various minerals is the 1997 Encyclopedia Brittannica. Total reserves are divided by yearly production to get a rough estimate of years of availability.
Aluminum ore (Bauxite)------224
years of availability.
Ammonia-----Produced from the atmosphere at huge expenditure of energy. Production of this essential fertilizer ingredient depends on natural gas.
Antimony-----79 years availability.
Bismuth----78 years availability
Cadmium----49 years of availability.
Chromium----World 521 years
availability. US reserves and production negligible.
Coal-----World 333 years of availability, US 228 years of availability.
Cobalt-----World 244 years availability. US no production, some reserves.
Copper----world 61 years availability, US reserves 16% of world.
Gold-----World 25 years of availability.
Iron ore-----World 112 years availability, US
reserves 6% of world.
Lead-----World 35 years of availability,
Magnesium----Produced from Sea water with huge energy
expenditure.
Manganese-----World
161 years availability, US reserves zero. Mercury------World 43.6 years of
availability, US zero. Molybdenum-----World
107 years availability,
Nickel------World
117 years availability,
Phosphate rock-----World 211 years availability. US has about 13% world reserves of this essential fertilizer element.
Platinum------World 230 years availability. Essential for Catalysts.
Potash-----World 637 years availability, US has 1.7% of
world reserves,
Sulfur----- World 62 years availability,
Tin------World 29 years availability, US reserves negligible.
Titanium-----Reserves not given,
Tungsten------World 89 years availability, US reserves 6% of world.
Uranium-----Reserves not given,
Vanadium-----World availability 495
years,
Zinc-----World availability 43 years,
Another statement about natural resources left is a short article from a German newspaper that gave the following limits to the riches of the Earth: 67 years Natural Gas, 185 years Coal, 243 years Aluminum Ore, 190 years Iron, 110 years Uranium, 1019 years Lithium, 26 years Gold, 238 years Platinum, 62 years Copper, and 810 years Potassium Fertilizer. There was no elaboration about the catastrophes that might accompany total depletion. Since these numbers came from two different sources it is remarkable that they agree as much as they do. Of course these numbers are somewhat laughable in their exactness. It should be noted that some of the ores may be of dubious value because they require too much energy to refine them. What will happen is that location and price problems will make resources unavailable to most people in a time far in advance of their total exhaustion. In some of these cases new large deposits may be found. In others the costs of mining including the energy costs may make these items scarce much sooner than expected. Already the third world is too poor to buy fertilizer and many other things they need.
It must be
noted that quantities of the materials found on this list could vary completely
from what is shown. Obviously the numbers are contentious because of the
varying estimates and the popular viewpoint that the Earth’s resources are
infinite. More deposits could be found, some of the deposits might be
overestimated or impossible to retrieve, or increased demand could deplete them
very quickly. Many of the resources must be imported by the
The idea of entropy originally conceived for energy also applies to raw materials. This principle simply says that if something is scattered to the point that it can’t be retrieved then it is no longer available. One obvious example would be lead and steel scattered by explosives on a battlefield. These elements still exist but they can’t be recycled. Recycling will extend the usage of many of the materials but even if recycling is 99% effective, there still is a 1% per year loss of material. Fertilizer will be difficult to recycle because of the build up of salt and other harmful chemicals. Energy can’t be recycled and must be replenished by the Sun. Nuclear and fossil are the only forms of energy that don’t come from current sunlight. However, neither of these resources are renewable.
It is worth noting that some of the metals such as Zinc and Tin are used for protective coatings and by their nature are difficult to totally recycle. There is certainly a continuous loss of iron due to rust. Also tool and stainless steels may be in the form of mixtures that are difficult to separate out and recycle. Tools are continuously ground to sharpen them and that presently is a total loss of important material. Loss of stainless steels will make such things as jet aircraft engines impossible to make. Good boilers for nuclear and steam power need stainless steel. Without cutting tools we cannot manufacture anything. Loss of metals will eventually strangle manufacturing, so that life styles will go ever backward. War materials are continuously being made unrecyclable by dispersement. Every time a ship is sunk that is a loss of material. Incredibly ships are now being sunk to make reefs or to get rid of them. The waste from households and factories contains myriad small pieces of metal which are deemed negligible by the owner but which mount up relentlessly. These small pieces of metal are usually buried. Metals used to make paint are not recycled and gradually dissipate in dumps or are eroded by the weather. The entropy of our universe continues at a rapid pace. Eventually it will cause a complete downfall of industrial processes and a return to simplistic life styles or death. Total recycling and a reduction in consumption of resources is the only way we can protect our progeny. Every thing we manufacture must be looked at to see if it can be made of easily recycled or longer lasting resources.
Agricultural Resources
Topsoil-----Topsoil is the reservoir of plant food that has already sustained many generations and if conserved, will feed many more. Topsoil is the carbon and nutrient rich layer that has been brought to the surface by many generations of trees. We can make topsoil by planting many billions of trees. This will also conserve by not allowing topsoil to blow away and will store water. We must work on methods of removing salt so that nutrients can be recycled as long as possible. If we allow our topsoil to blow away, leach out, or be exhausted then we will starve.
Water-------Fortunately the
Forests----- Forests are a treasure house of stored energy and mineral resources and therefore are a natural resource just like fertilizer mines. When energy resources are depleted, one of the first things that will happen is that our forests will be under massive attack because wood is really the only material available to keep people warm in winter. It is imperative then that we not only plant large numbers of trees but also apply military law to keep this resource from being wasted. As resources are depleted we must pack houses with people in order to conserve fuel.
Fertilizer--------The most important elements of fertilizer are Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphorous. The hydrogen in natural gas makes it the best material for making Ammonia for fertilizer. Nitrogen fertilizer is crucially important and takes so much natural gas to make, that we must give it top priority and look at all alternatives. If there is any possibility at all of making of hydrogen from solar energy then it probably would be used to make ammonia or to run tractors rather than being used to power cars. Potassium can be derived from wood ashes. Therefore a wood planting, gathering, and burning industry is essential. The consumption of phosphorus and potassium can be reduced by first manufacturing them into soaps, and then using sewage totally as fertilizer. Total recycling of fertilizer materials may cause the long time build up of salt compounds, particularly those of sodium that could damage plants, thus causing infertile soil. I can see systems where such materials are removed from wood ashes before they are used for fertilizer. It might ultimately be necessary to stop manufacturing salt and instead feed wood ash to both people and animals in order to get whatever salt or other minerals they must have for bodily needs. These materials are then recycled through sewage use for fertilizer.
Energy Depletion
Energy is the
keystone for our society. Without it, we cannot survive. The present energy
consumption for the
Oil------- Presently oil is furnishing about 38% of the total energy we are using. About 70% is being imported now, but that amount will have to increase as our supplies dwindle. (Billions of barrels can be referred to as BBl or Gb). It has been predicted that world consumption will go from its present value of about 27 BBL/year to as high as 40 BBL as other countries become more affluent. There is a big difference of opinion between various oil forecasters. You can divide them into two groups called the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists are the USGS (US Geological Service) and the EIA (Energy Information Administration). The pessimists are a group of senior oil scientists that believe that the USGS is over estimating and that we will be in deep trouble by 2030. The names of some of the oil pessimists are Campbell, Laherrere, Duncan, Deffeyes, Simmons, and Holmquist. “Association for the Study of Peak Oil” or ASPO, headed by Colin Campbell is one of the most active organizations in dispensing oil and gas information. Jean Laherrere has also been generous with information. We owe a debt to all of these pessimists. I wish to state that pessimism is the moral course because that will instill in us the moral force that is needed to help our progeny. Any arguments about oil can be settled by the fact that the only valid argument hinges on what year that disaster will happen. Who cares about what year my grandchildren will be desperate. We have a duty to help them now.
There was an article in the March 1998 Scientific American by Campbell and Laherrere called “The End of Cheap oil”. This article indicated that oil supplies had been over estimated and that total remaining oil in the world might be as low as 1000 BBls. The article also stated that proven oil reserves have a 95% probability of existing, that best estimates for total remaining oil would be 50% probability, and that many estimates that have been given have only a 5% probability of existence or recovery. Joseph Rivas also gave a summary of oil reserves and consumption that was more pessimistic than the USGS. The USGS estimate simplified, was more like 2000 BBL so this gives us a range of estimates from 1000 to 2000 BBL oil. World consumption is now about 27 BBL oil/yr. World oil production will grow smaller and demand will grow much larger so we obviously have a monstrous collision coming. The forecasts of the USGS and IEA are completely disputed and questionable. The oil crisis may start well within the lifetimes of many of those reading this book.
Historical perspective of the Age of Petroleum
This graph is from ASPO newsletter 35 and by C J
Most of the cheap oil left is in the hands of the Arab countries. Since their resource is limited they will charge high prices for what is left. Tar sands, heavy oil, oil from coal, and shale oil, will make up part of the difference. However the cost of development will make fuels refined from them much higher in cost than present fuels. Furthermore, production rates will be low. Also, the energy needed to produce some of these fuels is so great that they are not energy effective.
The above
graph from ASPO by C J
The energy usage of oil is almost equal to the sum of natural gas and coal consumption. This huge magnitude of consumption makes it impossible to find any substitute for oil. No one really understands how costly and difficult it will be to produce these enormous quantities. We can predict small gains in many areas but it will be impossible to match this huge magnitude. It is easy to predict that oil prices will go up and up until oil is completely unaffordable. Any kind of a change in politics or terrorist action could interrupt our oil supply long before all oil is gone. We have to ask ourselves if it is worthwhile to try to maintain our present oil consumption by military action or invading other countries. Such a policy can only result in financial and energy hemorrhage. The policies of George Bush are already causing bankruptcy for the American people. Yet, if our nation is to survive we will need to spend huge sums on housing and alternate energy.
.
The above graph
from Aspo and C J
The
following quote from ASPO and CJ Campbell makes it clear that the portion of
importable oil for the
The BP Statistical Review lists consumption for most
prominent countries. Comparing this with the ASPO production
forecasts points to certain countries facing radical changes in their
situation. The most noteworthy are as follows. For this exercise, it is
assumed that consumption is static, with the positions becoming more extreme if
it should grow.
In fact, it is unlikely that the system will be able to tolerate such indicated changes, with a radical fall in consumption being the probable outcome. As more countries become net importers, less and less will be available for the global market.
Supplies from
Note that the
presence of unconventional oil such as heavy oil, and tar sands gives a
possible indication that disaster might start in more like 2050 than 2030. Tar
sands are being processed into oil in
Natural Gas------At the present time we are sitting on the
edge of catastrophe. We are using 22 trillion cu ft of gas/year. Since
production is insufficient to get through the winter, we are storing about 3
trillion cu ft during late spring, summer, and early fall and barely have
enough gas to make it to spring again. Some gas wells deplete to 50% of initial
production in a year’s time. Therefore there must be constant drilling to keep
up. Drilling is going deeper and farther offshore and costs are rapidly
increasing. Presently we are getting about 15% of our gas from
The USGS has
optimistically forecast that we have about 60 years of gas left at present
consumption. There is no accuracy to these estimates and I don’t believe them.
Strangely, in spite of this forecast, greatly accelerated drilling for gas has
not produced a surplus. Why is gas getting harder and harder to find? If we
have so much gas, why are we importing 15% of our consumption from
Although there
are large quantities of world gas, the competition for that gas from nearby users, and the difficulties of transporting it here in
sufficient quantities make it impossible for us to maintain our production by
importing. The low energy density of gas as compared to oil makes shipping it
into a very costly thing. A pipeline from
Chemically converting gas to liquids using the Fischer-Tropsch process is also a possibility that could result in automotive fuel. However, the investments to get significant quantities, in conversion plants on politically sensitive foreign shores, would be so costly that it might not be worthwhile. It might make sense however to put such facilities in Alaska and Canada where the investment would be safe from politics and the waste heat might be used for building heating. The total cost of importing gas, coupled with a greedy public, could cause monstrous trade imbalances that would break our economic system.
These costs are so large that it is better to invest the money in more permanent energy producers such as windmills. Every energy investment must be compared in terms of permanence, security, and cost with other investments. The long term solutions that are secure from politics are investments in our own country in the form of apartments that save energy, windmills, tree planting programs, and solar energy facilities. Extended use of fossil fuels is causing a Greenhouse effect that could be the worst catastrophe of all. Therefore it does not make sense to invest large amounts of capital in getting fossil fuels. We need this capital here to help our long range resource problems while making jobs for Americans.
Discovery and Production of Natural gas
This graph by
Jean Laherrere shows
Other experts are making similar warnings. We need to take drastic conservation efforts before it is too late. If you wish to get some more good information on gas and oil, then search the Internet for “ASPO”, “Laherrere”, “Campbell”, or Simmons on Google.
Coal------Supplies
of coal will probably last longer than any other fossil fuel. The only
reference that I have for coal gives world supplies as 1598 billion metric tons
while the world is producing 4.783 billion metric tons for a use period of 334
years. The
A.Darimont collected this data on coal from the EIA website.
Total recoverable coal:
(In million short tons)
Current annual consumption:
(In million short tons)
I then was curious about how long the endowment of coal would
last, given current consumptions rates...
Years of consumption at today’s rate:
Years of
consumption assuming 1% annual growth in consumption:
Years of consumption assuming 2% annual growth in consumption:
Germany 98
It
is probably likely that the growth in consumption for
India
will be somewhat higher than that in the US and Germany, so we
can expect them to burn up their endowment of
coal much sooner. What happens to them then?
They have no energy source that could possibly replace coal. Their
consumption is already far below that of the
Nuclear
Energy------- Presently nuclear energy provides about 20% of our electricity
production and about 8% of our total energy consumption. In order to supply all
of our energy needs, we would need roughly 1300 new plants, which about 13
times as many as we have now. Nuclear fission is a non-renewable energy. There
are limited supplies of ore. Nuclear plants have a limited life. The problems
of waste disposal would make it folly to greatly increase production. We have
not even decided how to store our present levels of waste. There probably will
be future costs in storing fuel and retiring old plants that we are not aware
of now. Any moral society would save nuclear fuel for the ultimate threat to
human survival rather than wasting it on a profligate society. Another fact is
that transportation, plowing, and other essential tasks require portable liquid
fuels. We have no economical way of converting other kinds of energy to the
mass usage of oil that is going on today.
If we scatter nuclear power plants throughout the world to counter the
energy shortage then we have worldwide bomb making capability, worldwide
disposal problems, and worldwide raw materials problems. The simple fact that
nuclear energy is presently supplying only about 8% of our National energy
needs is enough to show us that nuclear energy is not the answer. Can you
imagine the cost of building 13 times as many nuclear power plants as we have
now? I cannot imagine that any high tech
solution such as fusion will work because sooner or later, such solutions will
be defeated by lack of raw materials like stainless steel. Breeder reactors
would help but efforts to build them have been unsuccessful.
Wind Energy---------Wind energy is much cheaper than solar energy. Wind energy goes up as the third power of wind speed. Therefore there is little energy at speeds below 10 mph. The number of sites that can furnish the necessary average wind velocities is unknown. Furthermore the storage of energy needed to make wind a constant source is very expensive. Although it is essential that we immediately start building large numbers of windmills we cannot make the assumption that wind will cure all of our energy problems. It is possible that future development of windmills may go toward mills, which compress air or refrigerants or pump water. Such mills may be much simpler and cheaper than grid synchronized electric mills, the direct action may be more efficient, and copper would be saved.
Solar energy---------Solar energy may cost four times as
much as wind energy. However it will be essential to use it because there will
not be enough energy from wind and because solar is much more ubiquitous than
wind. Even in the
Biomass-------Energy from biomass may be obtained from, crop residues, manure, biomass energy crops, solid waste, and trees. Wood is the traditional and the eternal energy source. Biomass is the only way we can fix carbon from the atmosphere, and wood is the only biomass that can store energy from summer to winter, or from year to year. Wood is a solid fuel that could be used to fuel trains or cars. I see wood charcoal as being a major transportation fuel. Trees help prevent Global Warming, are essential to nature, are a prime building material, and are a raw material for chemicals and plastics. We need to plant a surplus of trees at lowest possible cost, ASAP. However, the amount of biomass that can be grown is limited by land, fertilizer, and the human will to plant. Biomass plantations can grow more fuel per acre than forests and also may be able to produce large quantities of food. We must exploit biomass to the fullest. However there is not enough land to supply all of our needs.
Hydrogen--------Hydrogen is only a small part of the solution
to our problems because it must be made from other energy sources, it is costly
to manufacture, and is difficult to store and transport. The biggest advantage
of hydrogen is that with fuel cells it permits a high efficiency in converting
to electrical power. However the means of obtaining the hydrogen from solar
cells or biomass are inefficient enough that hydrogen can hardly be thought of
as a savior. It may be more useful to synthesize Methanol from Solar, wind, and
Biomass because it is so much easier to store and transport and can also be
used in fuel cells. Hydrogen gained its popularity as an alternate fuel partly
because of the belief that it makes no pollution. Pollution from combustion
will become less important as consumption is reduced by scarcity and as
increased efficiencies further reduce pollutant output. Tar Sands-----There are some fairly large tar
sand deposits in
Pollution-------Pollution has been the black beast of the
environmentalists in recent years. Indeed, the emphasis on pollution control
has been so strong that it has overshadowed the need to reduce over
consumption, which is even more important. Short term pollution from forest
fires and volcanoes has been with us eternally and tell us that the Earth can
survive pollution at limited levels indefinitely. However we need only to look
at the terrible effects of uncontrolled pollution in
Cost--------Presently some of our largest expenditures are on war. However, energy starvation and Global Warming are much more serious threats than war. Although we must invest heavily and immediately in wind, solar, and biomass we must remember that the cost will be enormous and that we can never reach our present demand. The duty cycle for solar is probably not over 15% on average and that of wind in many locations may not be better than 50%. If poor locations are used for wind, then the duty cycle will be even lower. This increases capital costs sharply in comparison to fossil fuel, biomass, or nuclear plants, which can work 80% of the time. Energy storage costs will make it difficult to have energy all of the time. Nuclear, wind, and solar all have the problem that it is difficult to make vehicular fuels. Batteries are useful but are inadequate because of cost and weight penalties. Can you imagine running a bulldozer or an airplane from batteries? Making liquid fuels or hydrogen from these sources poses problems in cost and inefficiency. Methanol is one of the easiest fuels to synthesize from solar or biomass but in terms of corrosion and energy/lb it is a greatly inferior to gasoline or fuel oil. In converting to wind, solar, and biomass the costs in terms of dollars, raw materials, and energy will be enormous. There will be millions of heat exchangers, pressure vessels, solar mirrors, and windmill towers.
Conclusions------When the Natural gas is gone we will not
be able to heat houses. When the oil is gone we will not be able to drive to
work. The catastrophe that will come after that will be lack of enough energy
to farm or manufacture. There is no possibility that consumption at our present
levels can be maintained. Therefore our only recourse is to declare a war on
Unsustainability. This effort will cost much more than WW2 and will counter a
bigger threat. We must make many sacrifices and change our whole culture to a
more thinking and productive culture for the sake of our progeny. A society
that can be maintained for 200 years must cut energy consumption to levels that
can be sustained by solar, wind, biomass, and other renewable sources. It must
take countermeasures against catastrophic events such as Global Warming. It
must recycle and use with thrift all raw materials. It must gradually reduce
its population. The bulk of the population must give up single-family houses
and private transportation. Remember, the exact year that we run out of
resources is totally unimportant because we can be certain that it will cause
desperation for one of our progeny regardless of whether it is a grandchild or
a great grandchild. We also do not have the ability to judge how soon we can
come up with a solution or how much money it will take to meet this monster. We
know that it will take many trillions of dollars, much labor, and much energy.
Therefore we should start right now.
Various
Essays
This letter from the “Oil and Gas Journal” indicates that natural gas may deplete rapidly. How can we justify the construction of new houses if there is no way to heat them?
Producers were drilling wells that they could bring on production quickly at high flow rates. With activity on these types of prospects now halted, production from high-flow-projects likely will be down by 30-40% this year, he projected. “As a result, sequential production declines should continue to gain momentum as the year progresses, and we continue to believe that US natural gas production could be down by as much as 5-6% this summer on a year-over-year basis,” Andrews said.
Essay By DAVID GOODSTEIN Oil Doesn’t Grow on Trees
David Goodstein is vice provost and professor of physics at Caltech.
This is a singular moment in our history. We are rushing toward a calamity that may very well bring our way of life to an end. It is entirely predictable and almost inevitable. It is not the doing of terrorists, but the terrorists may have given us a unique chance to do something about it. The calamity I speak of is the end of the age of oil.
Here is the basic physics: Life on Earth exists because of radiant energy from the sun, plus a small amount of nuclear fuel that condensed with the Earth when it was formed billions of years ago. Over the eons, a tiny fraction of that sunlight was converted by natural processes and stored in the form of fossil fuels. In the course of a few generations, we have nearly used up the Earth’s entire supply of accessible petroleum.
When that and the other more-difficult-to-use fossil fuels are used up, we will have nothing left to live on except the light from the sun and whatever nuclear fuel on Earth we haven’t burned. Even nuclear fuel is a finite resource. How much oil is left in the ground? Even if we knew how to answer it, that would probably not be the right question. A better question is how long can we go on increasing the rate at which cheap oil is pumped out of the ground?
We in the
The most reliable source of information about how much oil is left may be retired oil geologists, no longer beholden to their employers, privy to confidential data and possessing the technical skill to make use of the data. Their estimates of when conventional oil supplies will peak (found in various obscure journals and Web sites) range from 2007 to 2016. In his recent book, “Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage,” retired geologist Kenneth S. Deffeyes’ estimate is 2004. After that, we will have no choice but to learn to live on less oil. For as long as we have the sun, we have at our disposal a steady stream of energy amounting to about 300 watts per square meter, averaged over the face of the Earth. The sunlight falling on our country amounts to about 10,000 times the electricity we Americans consume. Each of us also consumes 30-plus barrels of oil each year.
We already use little bits of solar energy in the form of hydroelectric and wind power, biomass (wood from trees, alcohol from corn) and photovoltaics, in addition to the fossil fuels we use up. We could learn to live within our energy “income,” but that would amount to a technological and economic revolution of historic magnitude. That revolution is precisely what President Bush should challenge the nation to accomplish.
Last May, a task force under the leadership of Vice President Dick Cheney issued a now-notorious report on energy that was heavily influenced by testimony from oil and energy company insiders. The report urged increasing the rate at which we pump oil as rapidly as possible. That may have seemed the best solution for next quarter’s bottom line and for popularity in the next election—provided the peak doesn’t occur by then—but it was never the best solution for our future.
The Sept. 11 terrorist acts have made it politically possible to do what is really needed. A president with courage and vision, particularly one who is himself a former oilman, could seize the moment and challenge the nation to devise the means to kick its fossil fuel habit over the next decade. With all of our industrial might and scientific talent applied to the effort, we might be able to accomplish it. That is the way to win the real war. The alternative is to go on hunting terrorists while our civilization slides into oblivion.
Essay by William
E. Rees, ecological economist and professor at the
Recent price
hikes are mere tremors heralding the real price shock to come. Oil “production”
(i.e., extraction) peaked in
And running out of oil is not running out of just oil. Oil is the means by which industrial society obtains (and overexploits) all other resources. The world’s fishing fleets, its forest sector, its mines, and its agriculture all are powered by liquid portable fossil fuels -- 17 per cent of the U.S. energy budget, most of it oil, is used just to grow, process, and transport food alone. Keep in mind too that petroleum is not just a fuel. Oil and natural gas are the raw material for medicines, paints, plastics, agricultural fertilizers and pesticides. Since oil is directly or indirectly a part of everything else, the scarcity of oil and the coming price shock means higher prices all round. Some economists argue that rising prices enable us to exploit less accessible deposits, that the resource is “constantly renewed as it is extracted.” This is grossly misleading. The physical stock of exploitable oil is not being “renewed.” Improved technology has simply made a dwindling supply more accessible. Abundant short-term market supplies then effectively short-circuit the price increases that would otherwise signal impending real scarcity, even as finite stocks are depleted.
Moreover, oil exploration is very much subject to diminishing material returns. Despite increasing effort, we currently discover less than six billion barrels of new oil a year, not even a quarter of present consumption. In much of the world, oil extractors used to produce 50 barrels of oil for every barrel consumed in drilling and pumping. Today the ratio is five to one, heading to one for one by 2005. At that point, there will no point in extracting oil at any price even though plenty will be left in the ground.
What about substitutes? The fact is that no suitable substitutes are yet in sight for the fossil fuels used in heavy farm machinery, construction and mining equipment, diesel trains and trucks, and ocean-going freighters. Jet aircraft cannot be powered by electricity, whatever its source. It is also no small irony that we need high-intensity fossil fuel to produce the machinery and infrastructure required for most alternative forms of energy. Sunlight is simply too “dilute” to use in manufacturing the high-tech devices and equipment required for its own conversion to heat and electricity. Industrial civilization faces a paradox: we need oil to move beyond the age of oil.
The human population has grown six-fold in less than 200 years. The global economy has quintupled in less than 50. No factor has played a greater role in the explosive growth of the human enterprise than abundant, cheap fossil fuel. No other resource has changed the structure of economies, the nature of technologies, the balance of geopolitics, and the quality of human life as much as petroleum. Little wonder that some scientists believe that passing the peak of world oil production will be a shock to the human enterprise like no other event in history. Population and consumption are still on a steep trajectory but the rocket is running out of fuel.”
Noah built his ark before the flood. Today we need to build an ark by planting trees and other energy crops and constructing the facilities needed to produce solid and liquid fuels and electricity from them before the oil needed to create those facilities runs out. If we wait. it will be too late!
Letter by Murray
Congratulations! You are the first major publication to
Address the unthinkable, - the end of cheap oil.
Unfortunately, while your coverage of oil, wind, sun and
Hydrogen was accurate in what it said; it was much too complacent by
what was not said. The challenge of a declining oil supply will be
much more difficult than the breezy writing style would suggest, and
the probability of an early decline (before 2010) much higher than
you suggest.
The comments by Roger Charpentier of the USGS were
particularly misleading, typical of USGS work for decades. (They were
found guilty of misleading Congress after the 1973 oil shock). Both
Charpentier and Newsweek failed to mention pre-Deffeyes work done by
Campbell, Laherrere, Ivanhoe, Duncan and others that represents many
man years, uses different approaches, and reaches the same
conclusions. “Questionable methodology” is a dog that won’t hunt,
except for the USGS itself.
The USGS year 2000 report presents “potential” world oil
reserve increases for 1996 through 2025 inclusive, of nearly 1300 Gb
(1.3 trillion barrels), which, added to already used plus existing
known reserves gives the 3 trillion barrels you mention. 0.9 trillion
of that 3 trillion are already gone.
To find the 1.3 trillion “potential” barrels in 30 years
would mean finding more than 40 Gb/yr. on average for three decades.
The world experienced reserve increases of 40 Gb/yr average during
the decade from 1958 through 1967, one decade only, never before, and
never since. The first 6 years of the USGS 30 year projection
have seen actual finds of less than 33% of their average expectation,
and that included 2 unusually large finds, unlikely to be repeated.
The decade from 1990 through 1999 was less than 25%. The
USGS “potential” is a nonsense figure arrived at by nonsense
methodology, regardless of how many man years they spent. Can anyone
really believe that, with all the billions oil companies have spent
on exploration since 1967, the vast USGS cache remains to be found?
If we take away 70% of the USGS projection, and the 0.9
trillion barrels already consumed the remaining world supply is a
still optimistic 1.2 trillion barrels, out of an original world
endowment of about 2.1 trillion. At present consumption rates we will
get to 50% of the original endowment consumed, in only 6 years.
Deffeyes’ point is that after 50% has been used, the extraction rate
begins an unavoidable and irreversible decline, which even the USGS
seems not to dispute.
World discovery peaked in 1963, and is now less than 1/3rd of
annual consumption. You can’t extract what you don’t discover. For
mature oil provinces, history tells us that the extraction peak
follows the discovery peak by about 20 to 40 years. The world
extraction peak will be very soon. We had better start urgently
preparing for a world that has less and less petroleum available
every year, and get used to rising oil prices.
Sincerely yours, Murray
www.energiekrise.de/e/news/aspo.html www.buddycom.com/ecol/Brainfood/duncanoil.htm
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Simmons_02-1.pdf www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/.
www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/p0070.htm www.energiekrise.de/e/news/aspo.html
www.buddycom.com/ecol/Brainfood/duncanoil.htm http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Simmons_02-1.pdf
Why Hydrogen is a Hoax
1 Part
of the assumption about hydrogen is that we can produce it and the SUV's can
continue merrily on their way. This is impossible because presently oil
consumption is about 38% or 38 quads. This is a tremendous amount of energy and
we cannot possibly find any way in the future to produce this much of any kind
of energy and take care of other more urgent energy needs. Therefore the big
vehicles will go regardless of what happens. Hydrogen could only be a small
part of the solution and in its expectations has the dimensions of a hoax.
2 Money
spent on hydrogen subtracts from money that is needed for other energy needs.
For example a low tech tree planting program can produce a lot of energy in 30
years. It is practical to run tractors, buses, trains, and trucks on woodgas.
Wind energy is almost ready to go. Every dollar spent on wind energy is a golden
dollar for the kids. Solar energy will be more costly than wind but will be
absolutely essential in the future. It is really at a standstill. There are
many uses of solar energy that have not been proposed.
3
Hydrogen is not a source of energy, just a carrier. In other words hydrogen
must be made from coal, oil, natural gas, wood, soft biomass, or electricity.
In the future all of these fuels will be in short supply but are essential for
other needs such as farming and manufacturing.
4 Most
of the vaunted advantages of hydrogen depend on the over hyped efficiency of
fuel cells. By the time all of the inefficiencies of converting other energy
into hydrogen are taken into account these efficiencies are reduced. Fuel cells
are way too expensive and there is no indication that prices will fall fast.
5 What
the conservatives have in mind is to produce hydrogen by electricity and heat
generated by nuclear power plants. Even if this process were efficient it would
still be impossible to build enough new plants to satisfy those hungry gas
guzzlers. The inherent problem of the nuclear plant is that one generation
enjoys the power and the next generation pays the cleanup costs. I believe that
experimental nuclear plants should be built but going into production on them
we would be making kid killers. This is also a dirty trick on environmentalists
who are against nuclear energy.
6 As an
engineer-inventor I am quite certain that the mpg of vehicles using
conventional engines can be increased by a factor of 50% and perhaps more. The
evolutionary improvement of vehicles is being completely ignored. The concept
cars and ultra lights ignore present realities. The place to start is with my
gas hog.
7 Money
spent on improving the efficiency of hydrogen production is useful because
hydrogen has many potential uses. These include short distance transportation,
peak energy storage, and as a chemical in making other things such as
fertilizer. However money spent on long distance transportation of hydrogen and
hydrogen filling stations is money wasted. Since money is a limiting item, then
Sustainability will have been retarded.
8 We
need a solution now, not 20 years from now. By then, much of the oil will have
been already depleted. By improving present cars we could do something
meaningful within 5 years. Of course the whole process of pleasing the greedy
public is totally unsolvable. Conservation is the only thing that works.
Apartment houses and trains are the most significant long term solutions.
Kermit
Schlansker