The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
—Albert Einstein
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
This past week Exxon Mobil announced the closure of their operating coal mine in Illinois, and their departure from the coal business. For those who worry most about greenhouse gas emissions this might seem to be a step forward, and, while I will likely write about that issue some other time, I would rather express a different concern today.
The current complacency over the longer term natural gas supply extends to the lack of viable replacement sources, and to what will need to be done to supply us, in the short-term, with the power that puts the light on, when I flip that switch.
Suggesting that we ought to build more coal fired plants in the short term without stating at the same time what you think our long term energy strategy should be encourages the tunnel vision which is typical of the response of our economic and political system to potential resource depletion problems. Clearly burning more coal in the short term is a stop gap measure and a highly dangerous one from the point of view of global warming. If burning coal is a stop gap, what to you foresee on the other side of the gap? These narrow focus technocratic postings about how to maintain business as usual functioning of the economy for another decade or so are useless. If you have a clearly defined energy strategy for the long term then present it, or at least post a link to a previous presentation. If you do not have a clearly defined long term energy strategy then the only sensible short term response to global warming and fossil fuel depletion is to advocate large reductions in energy use even if such reduction implies economic contraction. The goal of increasing the total volume of economic transactions forever in a finite world is insane. Our goal should be to produce a good quality of life with a minimum consumption of resources. Let growth occur in the intellectual and artistic realms and not in the magnificence of our personal dwellings and size of our piles of toys. Our economy needs to be structurally fixed and not merely propped up temporarily by technocratic energy policy.
Well said!
IMO the "growth religion" vs the needed steady-state economy is really the root of the peak-everything problem.
We are not facing a peak-everything problem. There is not good reason to think there is a practical limit the the amount of fission energy we could develop. Or wind and solar.
So you think we can "grow the economy" exponentially forever, on a round (finite) planet?
Edit: to be clear about "exponentially": I mean X percent per year, which the economists seem to believe is "necessary". This leads to exponential growth. E.g., at a 3.5% per year growth rate, that's a doubling every 20 years. Quadrupling after 40 years, 8x after 80 years... For a great explanation of that and the consequences, see the lecture by Albert Bartlett - available on the web (e.g., Global Public Media) as video, audio, or text/figures. The most important math lesson you'll ever get.
The problem is not simple and while there are several issues that can be addressed, we can divide it into the long-term, where sustainable sources will provide most of the energy needs and the short-term, where we have to provide alternate sources for existing infrastructure until we can get to the long-term answer. Picking (based on the Hirsch Report ) 20-years or so for this transition, and assuming that we are in that period now, I believe we are going to need all the "silver bb's" we can find to get through this period without major disruption.
Picking (based on the Hirsch Report ) 20-years or so for this transition, and assuming that we are in that period now, I believe we are going to need all the "silver bb's" we can find to get through this period without major disruption.
I agree about the “silver bb’s”, but the biggest bb of all is going to be reduced energy use and reduced economic activity in general, at least in the OECD nations. And no energy source whatsoever is going to allow indefinite exponentional expansion in the volume of economic transactions. The hope of no major disruptions in our current social institutions is a chimaera. If at the end of twenty years we hope to have sustainable, humane, democratic society, then fundamentally new economic institutions will have to be developed. Social engineering will be more vital than mere physical engineering.
Hi Heading Out,
Thanks for bringing up this topic.
re: "sustainable sources will provide most of the energy needs"
How do you come up with the certainty that seems to be implied here?
How can sustainable sources supply most needs - 1) without a massive conversion-to-renewables starting right this minute?
2) Even if this conversion takes place, can the needs be met?
re: "I believe we are going to need all the "silver bb's" we can find to get through this period without major disruption."
How is it possible that "this period" - of transition to "sustainable sources" can even occur at all?
That's another way to ask the question.
Or, yet another way to put it:
1) You posit a future of "sustainable sources" - yes?
2) You posit a "alternate source" for "existing infrastructure" until...this "long-term answer".
3) But without having the plan, the means and the *actual work taking place* to make this huge move - how can it happen?
In other words, I'm worried your silver BB will be just swallowed up, with nothing to show - a little ledge extended on to the cliff.
Can you address this?
Hi, Aniya:
Well I could just grin and tell you that at heart I am just an optimist, believing in the great inventiveness of society and the prognosis of the Hirsch Report, but actually I am a little more optimistic than that. There are some techniques that will provide some significant energy supply that are now at production scale and that will increase in size. Plus we are starting to see the investment in a broader search for answers than held true even a couple of years ago. Yes we really do need a plan that is much broader in scope than what we are seeing to date, and we need to be a little less confined by the current box when it comes to funding innovation and more flexible in what might be viable. But I know that there is work ongoing that will increase crop yields significantly, as an example.
Twenty years may be a bit short, though my experience in other fields seems to show that as a first rough guess this is about how long it takes to get new ideas accepted at a significant scale. And there are some new ideas that may well give some contribution (though no silver bullet).
One of my concerns is with institutional knowledge. Many of those that worked on potential solutions the last time are now retiring or retired. there has been little effort yet it seems to resurrect some of those ideas. And many of the working results came about after a lot of trials that didn't. So my bb may indeed get swallowed up, or quietly take the watch and head home to the rocking chair.
There are however a number of colleges that are now creating Chairs in Energy, and if we could only find enough people to fill them we might have a bit of a ground swell starting.
Well I could just grin and tell you that at heart I am just an optimist, believing in the great inventiveness of society and the prognosis of the Hirsch Report, but actually I am a little more optimistic than that.
Heading Out,
It's a good thing that you are more optimistic than the Hirsch Report. I followed your link on that report and I find the following statements in the report summary:
Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
Governments will have to take the initiative on a timely basis.
Without massive mitigation the problem will be pervasive and long lasting.
Effective mitigation will be dependent on the implementation of mega-projects and mega-changes at the maximum possible rate.
Given the fact that in all probability peak oil has already arrived and no government initiated mega-projects or mega-changes addressing peak oil mitigation are in place (We are still selling SUVs, monster pickup trucks and 400hp sports cars for God's sake!), a person claiming to believe in the Hirsch report might be expected to be a little bit pessimistic about avoiding major economic disruptions.
Roger
Roger:
I think that in general my posts tend a bit to the dark side, in regard to looking into the future. I have been quite pessimistic in regard to seeing any intelligent planning that has not been driven by political considerations (ethanol being a prime example). But I do see some change in that, not huge amount but enough to get me slightly more optimistic.
I'm not sure that one "believes" in the Hirsch Report, rather it lays out a timeframe that indicates that if we don't start significant research we have a major problem, and I would suspect most of us agree with that.
We could certainly grow the economy in ways that don't consume more of the few resources that are actually limited. Since our concept of growth is something of a fiction involving increased productivity in the production of goods and the delivery of services that don't really use much in the way of commodities to produce.
The typical household could consume less oil, natural gas, coal and water (indeed much less) and still have an increased economic consumption in the form of more of the rest of the budget: better dental care, better schooling, better entertainment, etc. As currently measured, the economy would be growing.
I honestly think the US could have grown through the 70's oil shocks except that the US economy was heavily dependent on auto manufacturing and the high gas prices made imports far more competitive. This partly explains why global growth did not stop in the 70's. Japan was growing like crazy and actually benefitting from the high gas prices.
It's hard to tell what will happen this time around and of course it won't be over in ten years. But I just think it is very unlikely that global growth will simply stop. I think rather that there will be winners and losers with growth in some form continuing.
Four new plug-in hybrids purchased and one Suburban that is driven off a cliff nets a lot of reduced oil consumption and yet allows the economy to "grow."
No rational person would claim that all growth is bad. Obviously the rural populations of much of the developing world would like to have growth in a number of basic goods and services. And in the developed world growth in public transportation, renewable energy technology, sustainable agricultural practices, etc is highly desirable. The question is whether growth of the overall economy forever in every country and every region of the globe is a reasonable goal. The end of composite growth as the end all and be all of economic activity does not imply technological or intellectual stagnation. Our imaginations are imprisoned in the straight jacket of the market paradigm. The accomplishments of the Greek mathematicians and the great gothic artists and artisans of Europe were not achieved by the pursuit of favorable market transactions. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
The options are not either peak everything or exponential growth. The best outcome by me would be to stabilize the population and stablize/slow physical growth while growing virtual wealth (intellectual property, software, communications, entertainment, etc.) like now.
Just wanting it to be does not make it so. As I said in my first comment, there does not seem to be a resource based reason why would could not grow fission, wind and solar for the foreseeable future. That is a different question than whether we would want to.
Even if we can find substitutes for all finite resources. Even if we could manage to grow the economy endlessly. Is this really the sort of world we want? Not me.
EGYPT - by Tuxedomoon
Enough is never enough when the going gets tough
Too many things coming up for one dope to handle
Just foot in mouth lean on crutch
Wish I was with the Ancient Egyptians
With how many thousand Gods
Someone to turn to someone to pray to
Someone to listen to the silence of my tears
Enough is never enough when the going gets tough
A diet of instant time inspiration
Just foot in mouth lean on crutch
Firing blanks at critical moments
When the going gets tough
The tough goes shopping
To buy something a little nothing
To fill up the hole in his heart
To buy something a little nothing
To fill up the hole in his heart
Obviously humans havbe to fulfill basic caloric needs and perhaps have some form of shelter and clothing but beyond that basic survival people can be "relatively" happy in comparison ot others or to what they do not know about. PErhaps a culture of who can do with less or conserve more as a competitive downsizing/powerdown could come into being. Thiose who could find the cheapest form ofentertainment, for example a guy like Homer with his great memory could provide entertainment and whoever had the best dreams everyday and told them could win applause from the group and be "leader for the day". Materialism is a dead letter. Watching on TV how a chimp outsmarts a university student starts you thinking perhaps we aren't as smart as we think and should focus on increasing our gray matter and be more content about exteranl things as I don'T see any objective evoltuionary improvement in humnas since they invented agriculture much less industrialization so who are we fooling?