The New York Times published an article yesterday about a conference that we advertised on The Oil Drum, and several staff attended, called the 2nd Annual Biophysical Economics Conference.

New School of Thought Brings Energy to 'the Dismal Science'

The financial crisis and subsequent global recession have led to much soul-searching among economists, the vast majority of whom never saw it coming. But were their assumptions and models wrong only because of minor errors or because today's dominant economic thinking violates the laws of physics?

A small but growing group of academics believe the latter is true, and they are out to prove it. These thinkers say that the neoclassical mantra of constant economic growth is ignoring the world's diminishing supply of energy at humanity's peril, failing to take account of the principle of net energy return on investment. They hope that a set of theories they call "biophysical economics" will improve upon neoclassical theory, or even replace it altogether.

A fierce debate now rages among economists, investors, pundits and the puppetmasters of fiscal policy: What’s next, inflation or deflation?

Has the most massive money-printing spree in history successfully stimulated the global economy and put it back on an upward course with rising inflation? Or are we still in a global downturn, temporarily masked by the stimulus, with prices, wages and employment still falling?

A comforting 30% gain in the major stock market indexes since the March lows has given renewed confidence to the “green shoots” trumpeters who dominate the airwaves and the press.

But grayer and wiser heads in the investing community—like Dave Rosenberg, John Mauldin, Nouriel Roubini, Gary Shilling, Peter Schiff, and Dave Cohen—have a more bearish view. The financial sector must now deleverage, they argue, which means liquidating assets, repaying debt, saving instead of borrowing, and contracting in general. In their view, the process will take years, not months, and what we have seen since March is a classic bear market rally.

This story has been edited to make it clearer that the analysis relates to US wind rather than European wind and to clarify the problem with excess generation at night. I also added an Item 10.

I think we think we know more about wind-power than we do. These are a few things that I have recently discovered about wind that make me think that plunging headlong into electricity is not necessarily a good idea. At this point, we don't seem to have a plan that does much more than address wind turbines themselves.

I should make it clear that this discussion relates to US wind power, not European wind power. Many of the issues directly or indirectly relate to the fact the US is facing a multi-faceted problem--lack of wind turbines, needed grid upgrades, and lack of electrical storage. In a time of financial problems, the price of such a big change makes it difficult to tackle all these problems on the necessary scale at once. If we only add wind turbines, and make minimal upgrades in storage and transmission, the change is still likely to still be expensive and will likely leave us with the need for large subsidies. Without extensive grid upgrades and electrical storage changes, wind generated electricity will continue to play only a supporting role, acting mostly as a fuel substitute.

Europe has been dealing with this issue longer and has better addressed the wind transmission and storage issue, so it is in better shape in this regard. Jerome Guillet has prepared a write-up focusing more on the European perspective.

In August 2007, a post titled Extracting Heavy Oil: Using Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAI) introduced readers of The Oil Drum to a technology for producing an upgraded extra-heavy oil from Alberta Tar Sands without the environmentally messy and energy-intensive surface mining procedures that currently dominate extraction. The post provided a first-look at producing and partially upgrading Alberta bitumen in situ. In this post we make preliminary estimates of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of the THAI process.

The Alberta Tar Sands continued to garner interest through the first half of 2008 because of declining conventional oil production in Canada, the apparent success of the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process and the increasing price of crude oil. Today they are still of interest as the countries of North America (and around the world) desire cheap, abundant crude oil from politically stable regions (See Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 6). However the subsequent financial collapse during the second half of 2008 has caused many tar sand projects to be deferred. In fact, Canada's oil-sands industry has hit the skids, spreading a deepening gloom over Alberta's economy, and to some degree, across the country. Some expansion projects that were under way in the Fort McMurray region have been put on the shelf, as oil companies slash their budgets to reflect the new economic environment in which they operate – that is – a world of lower oil demand and, at least compared to the summer of 2008, low oil prices.