The End of Fossil Energy
Posted by Robert Rapier on October 7, 2006 - 9:31am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: alternative energy, conservation, peak oil, sustainability [list all tags]

A couple of months ago, I received an e-mail from John Howe, author of the book The End of Fossil Energy and the Last Chance for Survival. He indicated his concern that the public is not getting the message on Peak Oil, and he asked if I would be interested in receiving a copy of his book and helping him post some of his ideas to TOD. I accepted his gracious offer, and I received his book in the mail a few days later. A couple of weeks later, I read the book on a flight to San Francisco.
There were a couple of things that really impressed me about John. First, he has laid out a plan for transitioning to a sustainable energy future. He calls this plan "The Five Percent Plan to Energy Sustainability", and he covers the details in Chapter 5. By actually committing a plan to writing, John is probably ahead of the vast majority of us in this debate. Most of us have various ideas for what we need to do to achieve sustainability, but I am sure that few of us have put as much thought into it as John has.
The other thing that really impressed me is that John practices what he preaches. He has built three completely solar-powered vehicles, including a 1962 MG Midget and a tractor he uses on his farm. He goes over some of the technical details in one of the appendices of the book. The experience John is gaining with his solar-powered vehicles can be a valuable asset to the world if we will learn from him. If the world had more John Howes out there, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned about the challenges facing us.

John Howe on His Solar-Powered Tractor
John asked if I could help with posting his White Paper to TOD, so with that intro, here are some excerpts covering various topics:
Our Addiction to Oil
By 2005, the first indications of peak oil awareness (headlined by the title of this page from President Bush and his 2006 State of the Union Address), started appearing from Washington. On Dec. 8, 2005, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on energy held its first full-scale congressional hearing on peak oil. A bipartisan caucus co-chaired by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) and Rep. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) along with 16 other congressmen prepared resolution 507 beginning with the following paragraph:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the `Man on the Moon' project to address the inevitable challenges of `Peak Oil'.
Each time the price of oil and gas ratchets a little higher, the mainstream media gives sporadic attention. Unfortunately, the message the public hears is a blend of obfuscation and short-term excuses such as inadequate refinery capacity or terrorist activity in producer countries. (See "We Were Warned" on CNN, March 18 and 19.) As usual, media coverage is "balanced" by conflicting optimism. See page 12 for the usual delusions. Very rarely is the concept mentioned that the world just might be running out ... forever! Very few, big business, the media or most elected leaders can fathom or admit that the oil party is over. We're now faced with a giant hangover.
As with any addiction or terminal-illness prognosis, the first reaction is denial. How can this be? Our entire economy (and our personal plans) are built on never-ending growth fueled primarily by oil. As reality sets in and logic rears its ugly head, the next response will be ... depression, "gloom and doom". Next, we obviously must begin the weaning process without substitution of hopeless quackery. Finally, a proactive search for honest answers and solutions brings back some optimism even if the best first hope is to encourage others, to join a mass movement of public awareness. Remember, our addiction to oil is only a visible part of the other interrelated problems of excess population and ecological devastation.
Delusions That Will Not Save Us
(But waste valuable time and dollars while we chase them down)
With the onset of peak oil and higher energy prices, there is a flurry of new and, in many cases, revived old panaceas. Some have a touch of legitimacy. Some are pure snake oil, some are only a way to profit either from selling books or from ill-directed research grants and tax incentives. Not necessarily in order:
- Hydrogen-Hype: Now quieting down. Most people understand it has to come from fossil fuels, or if from renewables, is a terribly inefficient way to use precious non-fossil-sourced electricity. In addition, it is very dangerous and technically difficult to handle and store in compressed or cryogenic form.
- Biofuels (exclusive of wood): Sunlight is very dilute and sporadic. Expecting the annual solar energy to replace the millions of years of concentrated solar energy in fossil fuels is impossible. As the fossil fuel base (nitrogen fertilizer, diesel fuel, irrigation- energy, etc.) for our food supply winds down, we will need ALL the biomass energy we can find just to feed ourselves. Also, biofuel production (esp. ethanol from corn) requires about as much fossil energy input as the resultant energy yield. The energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is too close to unity to be worthwhile. Finally the intensive monoculture of crop land is not sustainable.
- Wood: Somewhere between dilute annual sunlight-energy and concentrated fossil fuels is wonderful wood. But, it takes 50 to 100 years to grow a reasonable tree. Harvest at a quicker rate only depletes the forest, soils, and ecological balance. This signals the end of a civilization and is happening the world over and exacerbated; by increasing population and fossil-fuel powered harvesting equipment.
- There's Plenty Left: We are now using about 6 barrels of oil (at one billion barrels, worldwide, every 12 days) for every single new barrel discovered. Natural gas is not far behind and can't be shipped overseas except as liquid natural gas (LNG). Coal and tar sands are more plentiful but contribute heavily to eco devastation and will soon approach an EROEI of unity, especially as oil runs down and the harder-to-reach, dirtier sources are mined.
- Efficiency Will Save Us: Only if we concurrently reduce consumption (reverse growth and population). In most cases improved efficiency increases consumption due to increased value and numbers of consumers. ("Jevon's Paradox") In the long run, we must survive with no fossil energy at all.
- Other Sources: Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar, and wind are all legitimate. But, except for solar and wind, all are limited by site availability or in the case of nuclear, finite fuel and waste problems. Total energy will be much less without fossil-fuels.
- "Pie in the Sky": Abiotic oil, nuclear fusion, methyl hydrates, shale oil, perpetual motion machines, etc. None are proved.
Non-fossil Energy Sources
The Three fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) represent a non-renewable "bank account" being drawn down at an annual rate leading to complete depletion or the point of negative energy return on investment (EROEI) in less than one lifetime. This prediction can be challenged but more optimism will, in no way, change the obvious threat of the "Triple-Crisis." New unexpected discoveries might provide extra time and a better chance to effect a transition protocol to less population and a much lower-energy future. However, the desperate consumption of additional fossil fuels will only exacerbate the global warming component. A sustainable future can only come from sustainable, clean energy.
Nuclear
The best bet for continued, clean electricity on a large scale. But, sources of finite, fissionable uranium must be found and ultimately mined without cheap fossil energy. This scenario also assumes that acceptable waste disposal and protection from terrorism can be assured. Also, nuclear, like all other non-fossil energy sources except biofuels, produces only direct electricity. No matter what energy sources we use we will need a complete rethinking of our transportation system.
Hydro
Limited to acceptable sites nearly all of which have been used. Global warming has reduced water flow and electrical output in the last decade. Considerable fossil energy is required to replace dams, which ultimately fill with silt. Reversible pumped hydro at 85% efficiency (as well as nuclear) can be used to smooth the sporadic output of solar and wind.
Biofuels
Only for absolutely essential needs as liquid fuels, lubricants, etc. and with full understanding of the required energy input and the deleterious effect on crop land and food supply. See pages 7 and 12 for more details. Waste products will decline as a source of fuel because the original energy sources are finite and depleting.
Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, etc.
All are site specific and cannot be scaled up to be of importance.
Wind
A true, clean source that can be scaled up extensively especially while fossil fuels are still available for manufacture and installation. Sporadic electrical output could be smoothed by working in concert with solar PV and other available sources.
Solar PV (photovoltaic)
The best modern technology providing direct electricity on a local or centralized basis. Very dilute and sporadic but infinitely scalable and especially applicable to residential use as well as direct solar-powered tractors and cars. In all cases, the weak output needs to be coupled with battery storage and/or other sources. This is our best bet for a long, clean future including agricultural power and transportation. Small urban and suburban farms could use approximately 100 volt tractors with integral solar-panel arrays and large battery-packs. Huge commercial farms might better use a large portable separate array of 4 to 8 kilowatts peak power (300 to 600 square feet). With a 200 ft. #8 cable, this concept would allow working up to 3 acres almost on a one to one energy basis as long as there is direct sunlight. The portable central array could be moved to a new location or brought to the farm buildings in off-season. The high cost and availability of PV will require a 50 year scale-up from present minuscule levels. We need massive investment in solar PV and lead/acid battery recycling facilities.
The Low-Energy Community
The key component for a low-energy sustainable future is a community center with the following objectives:
- Strive for a balance between peripheral AGRICULTURAL land, which can sustainably supply food for the farmers and community center inhabitants. This food supply will ultimately rely ONLY on manual or draft animal power, solar-powered tractor power or biofuels made locally, IN LIEU of food. Fossil-fuel based fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, and irrigation will diminish.
- Transportation energy will become unavailable except for electric or muscle power. Therefore the furthest distance to a community center would be a radius of about 20 miles. Present U.S. arable land of about 300 million acres will not be able to provide for 300 million inhabitants at today's rate of 10 energy units of fossil fuel input for each single energy unity of food output. Ideally a 20 mile radius (800,000 acres) with one-half (400,000 acres) perfectly arable land could support 250,000 people with approximately 200,000 in non-agricultural roles. The others 50,000 would live on 10,000 farms, each with approximately 80 acres with one-half tillable. The other half of the land would be forest, green space, and recreation area. On this basis, a downsized U.S. population of 250 million people could live on 1,000 such community centers utilizing 800 million acres or about one third of the total U.S. land area.
- The community center will provide the energy -mixing hub for surrounding self-generating residential energy services as well as centralized energy sources. It would also be a community center and transportation hub for intra-city electric-rail travel and shipping, which may also connect to traditional water travel routes.
Personal Action
Obviously, our only chance is to enact massive change on a national level. But, national redirection only happens as a response to a ground swell of combined personal action ... a protest movement or a revolution. Nothing will happen if individuals do not take their fate into their own hands. In addition, there are many things individuals should do to be ready for the coming crises whether they be power shutdowns, food shortages, or climate-caused catastrophes. Remember, don't plan on calling someone on your cell phone to come and save you. Everyone will be too busy saving themselves. Below are actions you can take immediately:
- Continue to educate yourself about energy, population, and ecology. Don't be misled into complacency by the delusions (page 12). Tell others what you're learning.
- Drastically decrease your personal gasoline consumption. (One-eighth of the world's petroleum goes to American motoring). This will save money as prices steadily rise. If you can't afford a hybrid, buy one of the many cars that get 35 mpg and drive half as far. This is the easiest first step.
- Plan to heat only a core area of your home (kitchen, bathroom, laundry, and living area) to less than 65 degrees F for the winter months. Wear much warmer clothes. Three hundred square feet per person would be luxurious for 99% of the world. Rearrange water pipes and insulation accordingly. In hot climates, rearrange living area into a cooler zone (cellar, breezy area) to minimize air conditioning. When the weather cooperates, you can expand back into the rest of your home. All of the above will require only a minimal expenditure, not rebuilding.
- Grow a garden. Dig up the lawn, fertilize and build up the soil. NOW! It takes a few years to get up to speed. Remember one acre could be a commercial farm in China. You'll be healthier and happier than riding the lawn mower. Learn where food comes from and how to store it. A good part of suburbia is built on good farm land. Buy a copy of Mother Earth News.
- Get the kids involved and start your own solar photovoltaic system. A couple 150 watt panels, charge controller, batteries, and 1000 watt 120-volt inverter costs about $3000. Don't worry about inter-tieing with the grid. This will be your educational and emergency back-up system. Check state incentives.



Amen
Well done Robert.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/699
The problem of PO (or in my view, the problem of Global Warming, which is more pressing and more systemic than the possibility of PO) is simply this:
- we have too many people, and too advanced a civilisation, to tolerate 'going backwards'. What we have to do is figure out how to 'go forwards' by using the energy we do use with much greater efficiency and lower carbon emission, and at the same time finding new sources of energy (which are in fact very old sources of energy: wind, solar, tidal, geothermal have all been used by humans since the dawn of civilisation in one way or another).
To the extent that 'back to the land' is aligned with that, great. But most people on the planet no longer have the ability to live that way (too many people for the available land and food).
- we might get lucky and discover commercial nuclear fusion tomorrow. But more likely we are going to have to do this the long, slow, hard way- -rebuilding our physical capital for a low CO2 emission world.
An example: the Germans have a house design that only burns 800 watts a day, and has no external heating source. It relies on passive solar and the heat and light generated by its inhabitants. Rebuilding all our housing stock on that basis would be hard, but it is doable (Germany, Japan, Russia all lost 60%+ of their habitable structures 1939-45, and rebuilt them within 15 years).
- no man is an island. If we really are going off a Peak Oil cliff, or if Global Warming is anywhere near as bad as the leading climatologists are predicting, the response has to be societal. There won't, by and large, be rural communities that will somehow be insulated. Or at least that way of life is not practical for most (New York can't go and live in Vermont, and India certainly can't go and live like Wisconsin).
"the Germans have a house design that only burns 800 watts a day, and has no external heating source."
Watts is a unit of power. Watt-hours, kilowatt-hours or something thusly is a unit of energy... "800 watts a day" means nothing, unless you mean watt-days which would be a weird unit. The [Rocky Mountain Institute www.rmi.org/] is also superinsulated and uses passive solar heating and uses no fossil heat. I think they even have a greenhouse that they grow bananas in...and they're located in a place that gets really cold.
"It relies on passive solar and the heat and light generated by its inhabitants."
I've never seen glowing people before :)
"The watt is named after James Watt for his contributions to the development of the steam engine"
burning 800 of him a day could be considered another holocaust.!
I presume they mean the house runs at an average of 800W which seems reasonable. That would be 19.2 KWh per day or about £1.80 per day where I come from.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/300whr_a_day_th_2.php?a=0
http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Kran/Passivhaus_Kranichstein.htm
couldn't find the actual power usage for the house on the site, and my German isn't good enough to translate all of that graph.
http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Kran/Passivhaus_Kranichstein_15Jahre.pdf
there as an interesting piece in the New Yorker a couple of years ago, pointing out that RMI is an environmental disaster compared to a couple in a 1 bedroom flat in Manhattan, in terms of energy consumption. The difference being the cars and the amount of living space.
Do you have a link? It would seem a little unfair to compare a commercial business building with something like 40 employees to a residence of 2 people. I doubt, even with the extra space, that a Manhattan flat could even come close to matching the RMI in terms of fossil energy used...the RMI doesn't even have a heating system, it relies on passive solar and the heat generated by the occupants and computers/lights/etc inside. Now the cars thing...that you could get them on.
The key was the driving (or lack thereof).
Unfortunately the New Yorker archive is not online in any form that I can find.
flag top right.
The energy use in the Passive haus Kranichstein (Passivhaus)
the diagram to the right at http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Kran/Passivhaus_Kranichstein.htm gives annual (final)energy consumption per m2.
Heating 10.5 kwh
Hot water 7.2 kwh
Electricity 14.7 kwh
total 32.4 kwh/m2/year
This translates into approx. 60-65 kwh/m2/year in Primary energy ( energy at the source).
At the moment some 6000 passivhouses have been built in Germany as single family homes, row houses, schools, highschools, sport halls etc. So the Passivhaus concept is going mainstream. The passivhaus it not rocket science, but application of traditional materials in an optimal combination, coupled with good workmanship. The important things are an airtight vapour barrier inside, trible glazed windows with insulated frames, ditto doors, 1-1½ feet insulation - floor-walls-roof and a ventilation with >85% heat recovery. The houses are tested with blower door for airtightness. Costs are +5-15% of ordinary buildings. The passive house principles can be applied to old buildings as well. Solar, PV etc can be added, off course and reduce energy consumption further.
regards/ And1
Certainly energy consumption will decrease in proportion to its availability. Its just basic thermodynamics. If the "free market" is taken to be the entire World System, and since it is obvious that consumption can't exceed availability, then it doesn't matter what fancy economic theories are applied, consumption will go down as availability declines. It is so for yeast, and it is so for man. The question becomes "what will be left of a civilization that is defined by consumption as consumption declines?"
I guess the "liberal survivalist" notion of Peak Oil adherents is the vison that we can go from one state of energy consumption to another in a relatively calm manner -- "no man is an island", "we can all work together to solve common problems," etc.
History, to the extent it is any guide, suggests the opposite. And if you go to FreeRepublic.com or any similar site, you may be impressed as I am with the vitriol that is heaped upon those who believe that Reason and Cooperation are keys to the future.
I guess the test of our survival as a species, or at least as a civilization, will be the extent to which the Peak Oilers can influence the Freepers to develop a saner future.
Political alliance is an identity statement, not a policy statement. So we are talking about emotions and how people organise themselves vis-a-vis the world, rather than intellectual debate.
By nature, Liberals see shades of grey, think things are amenable to reasoned debate-- we see problems and want to tinker with them and fix them. Conservatives see overarching values and principles, which cannot be compromised. They see black and white.
Think Jimmy Carter v. Ronald Reagan. The former reasoned and complex policy prescriptions (a la John Kerry) involving conservation the latter a certainty in positive outcomes, in the abundance of energy and the environment. In the case of GWB, add an unshakeable religious faith, and a conviction of being God's chosen.
I have to say the latter mindset is much more aligned with the self-view of Americans as the optimistic 'country of the future' and with the instincts of the American electorate. I would say the former, slightly wonkish outlook, is more how Europeans tend to see the world. Obviously the West Coast of the US is home to many people of the former view (particularly Northern California, Oregon, coastal Washington) and so is the north east.
Having torn ourselves apart in two World Wars, the Holocaust, the Soviet Purges, etc. etc. we Europeans are by nature less optimistic ;-). Also Europe is a small place with few natural resources.
(I am ignoring religious conservatives in this discussion, which is a different group again-- one of the most interesting developments of the last few years has been the rise of an 'ecological' evangelical movement. Small perhaps, but when you have Pat Robertson saying he believes in man-made global warming, the times, they are 'a changing (I hope)).
On the net, there is a strong libertarian heritage (think www.janegalt.net) which is quite intellectual, but also quite dogmatic (sometimes). Instapundit is a bit like that.
Conversely on FreeRepublic, you get the 'dark side' of the conservative mindset. A degree of xenophobia/ homophobia sometimes creeps in, and certainly a 'kill them all and let God sort them out'.
*When people describe Global Warming as a 'conspiracy against America' one has to understand that, emotionally, they mean it.
Puts the Peak Oil crowd in exactly the same position. Americans (of the conservative stripe) do not, by and large, recognise physical limits on human activity.
I don't think the FreeP types are amenable to reason. What one has to wait for is tangible evidence in the outside world of a need to change behaviour.
* the left wing version of this is some of the conspiracy sites. The 9-11 Conspiracy ones are exemplars of this, to my mind.
what someone said about the Free Republic - if people had trouble getting along when resources were plenty, why do we think they're going to get along when resources are scarce ?
As with others here, I'm interested in learning do you mean either:
800 W-Hr per day average energy consumption
OR
A household energy demand equivalent to 800 W? i.e, functionally equivalent to running 8 100W bulbs continuously.
I've been measuring my family energy footprint closely for most of the past year. Since the Awakening you might say. As an engineering mentor once said, "If you can't measure it, you don't understand it." So I'm very interested in getting other data points.
I can believe 0.8 kW continuous demand, which would be equivalent to 0.8 * 24 = 19.2 kWH per day. On the other hand, if they can maintain a modern lifestyle on 0.8 kWH per day........
Is this because the gas mains don't run into those places?
I would think ground source heat pumps might be a good substitute. I know the Swiss are quite interested in this area (the Swedes have about 350k installed). This fits the Swiss way of life: I think they live in their houses for a long time, and they are (famously) frugal people, so a 10 year risk free payback looks very good to them.
Germany houses are much larger than their UK equivalents, I recall reading. Partly because they have basements, but also the planning/zoning is laxer.
In the UK, more wall insulation is seen as a bad thing-- it makes your house look smaller when you sell it.
the big 'wiring up' of the UK domestic gas sector was in the early 70s I believe, when central heating became almost universal.
I was throwing words around and got sloppy (I am the son of a power engineer, I do know diff between KWhr and KW but that doesn't mean I don't get rhetorically imprecise ;-). mea culpa.
I haven't yet begun to check our power consumption. Living in a 180 year old house where I don't own the freehold there isn't much I can do about our heating and lighting needs.
So let us bow to Mecca and Medina for they have shown the shining light of the path and the 'clearing at the end of the path'(S. King material quoted).
Survival and spirituality. I can hear the sound of puking all across the liberals fruited plain in the background.
I do note that Howes tractor looks to be a IH -Farmall Cub. Not a very high powered tractor as original and the tires are surely not up to draging the 4 ganged large pull disk across any but very very well worked ground. Its biggest task is usually and estate tractor with a belly mounted White finish mower. Even a single bottom plow would mire my IH-Farmll 140(circa 1975) if not careful(25 or so hp).
I would like to see the electrical motor and drive train that is capable and any serious work. Small gardens of 1 acre? Yes. but a higly reduced set of disks. Plowing? Bushhogging? Its not certain that many here would understand just how much of a loblolly stand of weeds can grow up in a very short time. Without animals (the reasons why we all had animals) to help control the vegetation you would be hopelessly out of hand.
I applaud Howe's exposition. Seems it follows exactly the plans I have or have made to date yet I was largely pooh-pooh as a red neck and christian ner do well.
Unless this society is able to follow Howe's advice it will be as I previously stated:
"Doom as far as the eye can see."
And most here are simply (from my readings) toast for they haven't the slightest clue as to how to work or live on ought but fine cultured creeping red fescue lawns in McMansion enclaves and sucking down bon-bons from the local deli and posting bon mots on this forum.
Full ahead cornucopians..its your future to destroy.
PS. I recall the creator of this post wished to impose large gas taxes upon the consumers. When I pointed out that this would create chaos out here in the farmland his repsonse that suffering was to be endured by all. My response was and is that the farmers and those who are the farmlands infrastructure didn't need to be taxed out of jobs and a livelhood but that the city folk and not the agrains need to be the ones who pay the penalty for the bon-bons and bon mots as well.
airdale--call it payback, call it reality...its still doom
and gloom and a massive dieoff for those who chose any other way. 'I told you so....but nnnnnooooooo'.
P.S. For because I said my last post was my last post but this hit just too close to home to ignore ....and now I cease and go to prepare my new garden spot for the ground is 'in case' and our gas tanker still has fuel. This is a time to pray that we have been given a small reprieve and use it wisely.
Can I get an AMEN on that? Nahhhh...guess not. Didn't expect one anyway.
P.P.S. Leanan I started digging my sweet potatoes yesterday. The will cure and last way up til next spring planting time. What is left will be new seedlings. Thats the way it works. They DO NOT ROT. Only if left in the ground. Trust me on this. We eat a lot of sweet potatoes down chere in the Red States Southern latitudes.
Actually, you asserted this, but never seemed to have an answer for the fact that it should be revenue neutral. The gas taxes you pay would be offset by reduced income taxes or tax credits. You also never had an answer when I kept asking what those poor people in farmland would do when the market imposes those high prices with no time to prepare and no tax credits to ease into the preparation. I find your thinking on this matter extremely short-sighted.
Take tax money from an earner and give it to a non-contributor - then call it a tax break.
Hahahahahahahaha
Uh, I hate to break up the misinformation-fest, but tax credits are taken on your tax return. Tax returns are typically filed by wage earners.
I am always eager to educate. The cases you mentioned above, interestingly, are all from tax returns. So where are the non-contributors in the equation? That was the whole point here - that this isn't welfare.
If I tax your gasoline, but reduce your income tax rate (or give you a tax credit), that isn't welfare except perhaps in Bizarro world.
But I would be interested in hearing your solution for helping reduce our consumption. Or do you maybe think we don't need to?