SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

[Sapiens]

The Fading of the Oil Economy

1. Transition of the industrialised countries of the temperate zone into a post-fossil-fuel world
2. The Human Animal has burnt most of the black sunlight from long ago
3. Tropical countries are less affected
4. Industrialised temperate zone countries are most affected
5. Short outline of the unfolding situation
6. Easiest to find and most profitable giant fields and large fields have all been found, pump pressure is falling as they deplete
7. ...
8. ...
9. ...

Overview of the unfolding of recession and depression as the oil economy fades

Response to recession as the oil economy fades Immediate responses

Timing of a depression triggered by high oil prices

Recession in the USA

...

...

[Starving Steve]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

We could have a very sustainable and very high standard of living with atomic power, thank you.

Atomic power could heat Alberta's tar sands and free-up the natural gas that is now used to heat tar sand. This would LOWER the price of natural gas, and it would make available the oil locked in Alberta's tar sand to LOWER the price of oil. There is said to be more oil locked in Alberta's tar sands than in Saudi Arabia.

Atomic power might be able to free-up oil in the Bakken Field in North Dakota. One use of atomic power could be to break-up the hard dolomite rock and to make the drilling easier. But this would have to be worked-out with the Lawrence Livermore Lab, because I am no expert on this possible use of atomic energy.... Dr. Edward Teller used to suggest using atomic bombs for such a productive use underground as breaking-up rock, and this comes to my mind now.

I might remind readers that the Bakken Field in N.D. and Saskatchewan has more oil in it than Saudi Arabia. But the drilling cost for tapping the oil is $5million per well--- a bit risky for wildcat drillers. Atomic energy just might turn this situation around in favour of cheap oil available through broken-up dolomite.

Finally, using atomic energy in power plants, the world would be able to LOWER electric costs. This would make travel in electric cars possible because electric cars could be charged-up at affordable electric rates. Needless to say, electric cars would preserve the world's limited oil reserves for other uses in future.

And I don't want to keep harping on atomic power but the world's fresh water shortage would be solved by atomic energy, because cheap electric power would make desalinization of sea water feasible and cheap.

Not that I would like to see a world so over-populated that we all live in skyscrapers in a Blade-runner type of existence, but there is no reason why the world's population has to suffer from shortages of fresh water and energy.

Starving Steve

[sadsack]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

We could have a very sustainable and very high standard of living with atomic power, thank you.

Atomic power could heat Alberta's tar sands and free-up the natural gas that is now used to heat tar sand. This would LOWER the price of natural gas, and it would make available the oil locked in Alberta's tar sand to LOWER the price of oil. There is said to be more oil locked in Alberta's tar sands than in Saudi Arabia.

Atomic power might be able to free-up oil in the Bakken Field in North Dakota. One use of atomic power could be to break-up the hard dolomite rock and to make the drilling easier. But this would have to be worked-out with the Lawrence Livermore Lab, because I am no expert on this possible use of atomic energy.... Dr. Edward Teller used to suggest using atomic bombs for such a productive use underground as breaking-up rock, and this comes to my mind now.

I might remind readers that the Bakken Field in N.D. and Saskatchewan has more oil in it than Saudi Arabia. But the drilling cost for tapping the oil is $5million per well--- a bit risky for wildcat drillers. Atomic energy just might turn this situation around in favour of cheap oil available through broken-up dolomite.

Finally, using atomic energy in power plants, the world would be able to LOWER electric costs. This would make travel in electric cars possible because electric cars could be charged-up at affordable electric rates. Needless to say, electric cars would preserve the world's limited oil reserves for other uses in future.

And I don't want to keep harping on atomic power but the world's fresh water shortage would be solved by atomic energy, because cheap electric power would make desalinization of sea water feasible and cheap.

Not that I would like to see a world so over-populated that we all live in skyscrapers in a Blade-runner type of existence, but there is no reason why the world's population has to suffer from shortages of fresh water and energy.

Starving Steve

This may be a superfluous post, but long ago I read a tract which "rang true" (I can't remember the reference - sorry :confused.

The gist was that the level of civiliation depended proportionately upon the degree of available energy. Higher energy-density fuels provided greater energy - just as coal was a quantum jump from wood, and incidently made possible the Industrial Revolution, so nuclear energy must logically represent the next quantum jump in energy production/utilization.

Some of the geek-quad (cosmologists/engineers/... ) went so far in the 1970's to develop a cosmic scale for civilizations. To the possible mortification of Bart, it was a logarithmic scale, where the lowest level represented the utlization of a single planet, followed by a single star system, etc. At current energy utilization levels, we don't even rate a "1" . . .

In this context, "Renewable Energy" is nothing but a euphemism for a return to medieval civilization, as well as medieval population levels (AKA under 1 billion). No renewable energy source can have an energy density greater than that of photosynthetic plants & bacteria. As such, the clarion call for "Renewables" is in fact an invitation to a multigenerational die-off and a re-institution of feudalism on a wordwide scale (shudder) . . .

[Guest]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

... the level of civiliation depended proportionately upon the degree of available energy. Higher energy-density fuels provided greater energy - just as coal was a quantum jump from wood, and incidently made possible the Industrial Revolution, so nuclear energy must logically represent the next quantum jump in energy production/utilization. ... No renewable energy source can have an energy density greater than that of photosynthetic plants & bacteria. As such, the clarion call for "Renewables" is in fact an invitation to a multigenerational die-off and a re-institution of feudalism on a wordwide scale (shudder) . . .

Spot on.

Only caveat being that the renewables, alt-energy and conservation are probably the only things we have to mitigate this transition period, which will probably encompass the better part of the rest of all our lives. Got to be grateful for whatever relief we can get. But the point about the level of a civilization being greatly determined by it's access to energy is highly relevant.

Of course in prior eras, very high civilisations existed without any special access to energy (although it is fascinating to the thesis to note that archaic civilisations who utilized slavery abundantly also leveraged this principle) - so perhaps the reference to "civilisation" being dtermined by access to energy might be modified to refer to "materially wealthy" civilisation. Lack of material wealthy is not the final arbiter of that thing called "man's civility" which is instead merely a product of man's culture.

Apparently the ability to "overcome entropy" is a lynchpin of what we refer to as "civilisation" and it's a fascinating insight.

Clearly, in the modern, greatly overpopulated and resource depleted age, the affordable energy is probably indeed the single most critical ingredient. Without it, our entire society is a massive bundle of impossible conceits. This is a point I've reiterated also - that in our era it is abundant energy, not "money" which is the real money. No surprise whatsoever that petroleum and hydrocarbons generally offer such a superb inflation hedge.

[GRG55]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

This may be a superfluous post, but long ago I read a tract which "rang true" (I can't remember the reference - sorry :confused.

The gist was that the level of civiliation depended proportionately upon the degree of available energy. Higher energy-density fuels provided greater energy - just as coal was a quantum jump from wood, and incidently made possible the Industrial Revolution, so nuclear energy must logically represent the next quantum jump in energy production/utilization.

Some of the geek-quad (cosmologists/engineers/... ) went so far in the 1970's to develop a cosmic scale for civilizations. To the possible mortification of Bart, it was a logarithmic scale, where the lowest level represented the utlization of a single planet, followed by a single star system, etc. At current energy utilization levels, we don't even rate a "1" . . .

In this context, "Renewable Energy" is nothing but a euphemism for a return to medieval civilization, as well as medieval population levels (AKA under 1 billion). No renewable energy source can have an energy density greater than that of photosynthetic plants & bacteria. As such, the clarion call for "Renewables" is in fact an invitation to a multigenerational die-off and a re-institution of feudalism on a wordwide scale (shudder) . . .

I don't quite understand the bolded part above.

We don't use much energy in "raw" form. Coal is processed for fluidized bed combustion, oil is refined, etc. Isn't ethanol a higher energy density packaging of plants?

Isn't wind a "renewable" energy source independent of photosynthesis?

I think I got the overall point you make, however.

[Starving Steve]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

This may be a superfluous post, but long ago I read a tract which "rang true" (I can't remember the reference - sorry :confused.

The gist was that the level of civiliation depended proportionately upon the degree of available energy. Higher energy-density fuels provided greater energy - just as coal was a quantum jump from wood, and incidently made possible the Industrial Revolution, so nuclear energy must logically represent the next quantum jump in energy production/utilization.

Some of the geek-quad (cosmologists/engineers/... ) went so far in the 1970's to develop a cosmic scale for civilizations. To the possible mortification of Bart, it was a logarithmic scale, where the lowest level represented the utlization of a single planet, followed by a single star system, etc. At current energy utilization levels, we don't even rate a "1" . . .

In this context, "Renewable Energy" is nothing but a euphemism for a return to medieval civilization, as well as medieval population levels (AKA under 1 billion). No renewable energy source can have an energy density greater than that of photosynthetic plants & bacteria. As such, the clarion call for "Renewables" is in fact an invitation to a multigenerational die-off and a re-institution of feudalism on a wordwide scale (shudder) . . .

I hate to discuss feelings, but your last sentence really sums-up what I am feeling about those in the extreme environmental movement to-day: The extreme environmentalists want to see the world go back to fuedalism and the population of the world drop in a multi-generational die-off to something like what the world's population was during the Middle Ages. Ekk! :eek:

[GRG55]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

I hate to discuss feelings, but your last sentence really sums-up what I am feeling about those in the extreme environmental movement to-day: The extreme environmentalists want to see the world go back to fuedalism and the population of the world drop in a multi-generational die-off to something like what the world's population was during the Middle Ages. Ekk! :eek:

I have to deal with one of these in my wife's family. It's absolutely impossible to have a rational discussion on anything beyond organic tomatos with this relative. Sometimes I walk away with the same impression as you; nothing short of returning to the days of tilling with oxen will do.

[Guest]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

I have to deal with one of these in my wife's family. It's absolutely impossible to have a rational discussion on anything beyond organic tomatos with this relative. Sometimes I walk away with the same impression as you; nothing short of returning to the days of tilling with oxen will do.

And don't forget the ploughshare must be made of wood otherwise we are "cheating" by adding modern convenience to the way our forebears really did it!! I agree, (and with all due respect to GRG55's relative) such people's worldview is unutterably foolish, and a royal pain in the neck. When you see them using a toothbrush you get an aching, urgent need to say "Ah ah! Can't have that! Our distant forebears didn't have toothpaste and toothbrushes!". And should you see them gratefully splash hot water onto their face in the morning you get an urge to say "Ah ah! Can't have that! Our distant forebears had to stoke up the fire and boil the hot water first every morning (took about half an hour too)! Then you will be rewarded with a (cognitively dysfunctional) look of irritation.

[sadsack]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

I don't quite understand the bolded part above.

We don't use much energy in "raw" form. Coal is processed for fluidized bed combustion, oil is refined, etc. Isn't ethanol a higher energy density packaging of plants?

Isn't wind a "renewable" energy source independent of photosynthesis?

I think I got the overall point you make, however.

To clarify, "renewable" energy, as I refer to it, is any form of solar energy storage. I.e., wind, tides, and biomass all ultimately depend on the energy input of the sun.

The most efficient (to date) processors of solar energy are the photosynthetic organisms inhabiting this planet. Even after billions of years of evolutionary trial-and-error, they are unable to reap more than a meager percentage of the total photonic energy reaching the surface of the Earth.

Photovoltaic cells, while promising, ultimately have to compete for insolation area (more PV, less plants). Wind power is a second order effect of solar irradiation, and as such is much less efficient overall than direct conversion of solar photonic energy.

The grand irony is that the sun itself is a non-renewable resource. It is burning multiple billions of tons of hydrogen each minute to irradiate our little world . . .

[Rajiv]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

No renewable energy source can have an energy density greater than that of photosynthetic plants & bacteria

Not True!

The overall efficiency of photosynthesis is only 6.6% (actually between 3 and 6%.) Some solarcells today are getting 35% efficiency at direct conversion to electricity -- the most usable form of energy. -- The theoretical limits of photovoltaic conversion approaches 85%

From Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis converts the energy of light (photons, electromagnetic waves) into chemical potential energy stored in organic structures such as plants. (Select photons to see a more detailed description of how light interacts with matter)

The process is very complex but can be represented by the chemical equation
CO₂ + 2H₂O ----> O₂ +[CH₂O} + H₂O

The overall process takes place in two stages:

1. The reaction in the first stage requires light (the light reaction) in which light energy is absorbed by the chlorophyll removing electrons from water moleules and liberating molecular oxygen. An excellent detailed technical description is available in Photosynthesis - The Light Reactions of the MIT 7.01 hyertextbook

2. the reaction in the second stage does not require light ( the dark reaction) and converts CO ₂to carbohydrate. An excellent detailed technical description is available in Photosynthesis - The Dark Reactions of the MIT 7.01 hyertextbook
Plants are divided into two classes, C3 and C4 which are compared in the following table

Property	C3	C4
type of carbon compound intermediate	3 carbon	4 carbon
Zone	temperate	tropical
examples		sugar cane, corn, sorghum
Saturation	200-300 w/m2	Little or no up to 800 w/m2
Water transpiration per gram of dry matter	500-700 g	250-400 g

The efficiency of photosynthesis is determined by the following:

1. At least eight photons are required to store one molecule of CO₂ which means 1665 kJ of light energy are required to store 477 kJ in the plant. Max efficiency is 0.286 or 28.6 %

2. Only light in the range 400-700 nm can be used. This amounts to 43% of total solar incident radiation.

3. Canopy limits absorption to 80 %

4. Respiration required for translocation and biosynthesis requires about 33% of the energy stored which leaves 67%

The overall efficiency is then .286x.43x.8x.67 = .066 or 6.6%

Another good source of information is the "Renewable biological systems for alternative sustainable energy production (FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin - 128)"

[Guest]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

Sadsack - best advice? Don't bother arguing this kind of point with Rajiv. Nobody ever wins arguments with this guy on these issues.

[ Caveat: Rajiv, there is indeed one point here which you don't acknowledge as pertinent. The photosynthesis by which petroleum has stored sunlight may be far less efficient than photovoltaic cells, but it trumps tjhem by a thousand miles by virtue of having had billions of years in which to concentrate itself. Photovoltaics, with their 80% capture potential, have only REAL TIME within which to emulate that feat. Not a small point. In fact, it's arguably the only point. ]

[Jam]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

We could have a very sustainable and very high standard of living with atomic power, thank you.

Atomic power could heat Alberta's tar sands and free-up the natural gas that is now used to heat tar sand. This would LOWER the price of natural gas, and it would make available the oil locked in Alberta's tar sand to LOWER the price of oil. There is said to be more oil locked in Alberta's tar sands than in Saudi Arabia.

Atomic power might be able to free-up oil in the Bakken Field in North Dakota. One use of atomic power could be to break-up the hard dolomite rock and to make the drilling easier. But this would have to be worked-out with the Lawrence Livermore Lab, because I am no expert on this possible use of atomic energy.... Dr. Edward Teller used to suggest using atomic bombs for such a productive use underground as breaking-up rock, and this comes to my mind now.

I might remind readers that the Bakken Field in N.D. and Saskatchewan has more oil in it than Saudi Arabia. But the drilling cost for tapping the oil is $5million per well--- a bit risky for wildcat drillers. Atomic energy just might turn this situation around in favour of cheap oil available through broken-up dolomite.

Finally, using atomic energy in power plants, the world would be able to LOWER electric costs. This would make travel in electric cars possible because electric cars could be charged-up at affordable electric rates. Needless to say, electric cars would preserve the world's limited oil reserves for other uses in future.

And I don't want to keep harping on atomic power but the world's fresh water shortage would be solved by atomic energy, because cheap electric power would make desalinization of sea water feasible and cheap.

Not that I would like to see a world so over-populated that we all live in skyscrapers in a Blade-runner type of existence, but there is no reason why the world's population has to suffer from shortages of fresh water and energy.

Starving Steve

The difficulty with atomic (nuclear) power, as we know it, is the spent fuel. It has been piling up at the facilities for decades, and nobody wants to take it. Nevada is fighting tooth and nail to keep it out of Yucca Mountain.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...5B_2wD913HTG01

Aha, and technically, solar energy is all nuclear .

J.

[Starving Steve]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

When the lights go out in Nevada and you freeze in the dark or swealter in the heat, don't come crying to me. And you can feel good like the eco-frauds feel good when they burn wood in their wood stoves--- dumping tons of carbon, smoke, arsenic, nitrous-oxide, carbon-monoxide, and various poisonous hydro-carbons into the atmosphere.

Just like people laughed at me when I said that Bush's policies of "deficits don't count" and 1% interest rates would lead to gas going to $4 per gallon or higher, people like you might now laugh at me when I say that the lights will soon be going out if the U.S. continues to follow these do-nothing policies about energy.... And solar energy is a do-nothing energy policy.

Best case for solar energy --- BEST CASE--- is a temporary 30% drop in electric usage per house. And you would have to use precious water resources to keep cleaning the solar roof to keep the efficiency from dropping. But over time, the system's efficiency drops, and you have junk on your roof.

To-day, nearly all atomic waste is RE-PROCESSED and RE-USED in atomic reactors to make new energy. The Yucca Mtn. debate concerns old atomic wastes that could easily be stored underground in Nevada or in the Canadian Shield, or just about anywhere.

But politicians like yours would rather keep this problem from being solved because it is politically advantageous to them to not solve the problem.... Perhaps when the lights go out in Nevada, these politicians might have an attitudinal-adjustment.

Oh, I just thought of how your so-called "pro-environment" politicians in Nevada would solve this energy problem, especially when they find-out that solar roofs would not be cutting enough electrical consumption from the grid: They would burn more filthy coal in the Mojave Desert to generate electricity. BRILLIANT!

And to think these politicians would not want to bury low-level, long half-life atomic waste--- rather benign waste--- in Yucca Mtn, but they would burn coal in the desert nearby and emit radioactive thorium right into the atmosphere. That would be their brilliant solution!

[metalman]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

When the lights go out in Nevada and you freeze in the dark or swealter in the heat, don't come crying to me. And you can feel good like the eco-frauds feel good when they burn wood in their wood stoves--- dumping tons of carbon, smoke, arsenic, nitrous-oxide, carbon-monoxide, and various poisonous hydro-carbons into the atmosphere.

Just like people laughed at me when I said that Bush's policies of "deficits don't count" and 1% interest rates would lead to gas going to $4 per gallon or higher, people like you might now laugh at me when I say that the lights will soon be going out if the U.S. continues to follow these do-nothing policies about energy.... And solar energy is a do-nothing energy policy.

Best case for solar energy --- BEST CASE--- is a temporary 30% drop in electric usage per house. And you would have to use precious water resources to keep cleaning the solar roof to keep the efficiency from dropping. But over time, the system's efficiency drops, and you have junk on your roof.

To-day, nearly all atomic waste is RE-PROCESSED and RE-USED in atomic reactors to make new energy. The Yucca Mtn. debate concerns old atomic wastes that could easily be stored underground in Nevada or in the Canadian Shield, or just about anywhere.

But politicians like yours would rather keep this problem from being solved because it is politically advantageous to them to not solve the problem.... Perhaps when the lights go out in Nevada, these politicians might have an attitudinal-adjustment.

Oh, I just thought of how your so-called "pro-environment" politicians in Nevada would solve this energy problem, especially when they find-out that solar roofs would not be cutting enough electrical consumption from the grid: They would burn more filthy coal in the Mojave Desert to generate electricity. BRILLIANT!

And to think these politicians would not want to bury low-level, long half-life atomic waste--- rather benign waste--- in Yucca Mtn, but they would burn coal in the desert nearby and emit radioactive thorium right into the atmosphere. That would be their brilliant solution!

starving steve can be seen driving his 12 yr old toyota corolla around northern cal sporting the bumper sticker...

[Jam]

Re: SUSTAINABLE LIVING:The Fading of the Oil Economy

When the lights go out in Nevada and you freeze in the dark or swealter in the heat, don't come crying to me. And you can feel good like the eco-frauds feel good when they burn wood in their wood stoves--- dumping tons of carbon, smoke, arsenic, nitrous-oxide, carbon-monoxide, and various poisonous hydro-carbons into the atmosphere.

Steve, when/where did I ever advocate burning wood in wood stoves? No need to get personal.

Best case for solar energy --- BEST CASE--- is a temporary 30% drop in electric usage per house. [...] over time, the system's efficiency drops, and you have junk on your roof.

Could you provide original sources to back the numbers and results ("junk on your roof") you are quoting?

To-day, nearly all atomic waste is RE-PROCESSED and RE-USED in atomic reactors to make new energy.

Could you provide examples of commercial-scale facilities, which re-process and reuse radioactive waste? I am somewhat familiar with the research done in this regard, but I am not aware of commercial-scale enterprises utilizing such processes.

The Yucca Mtn. debate concerns old atomic wastes that could easily be stored underground in Nevada or in the Canadian Shield, or just about anywhere.

Obviously, the problem is NOT easy. Otherwise the radioactive waste would not be piling up at facilities. And, to make it clear, I am not talking only about 'technologically easy' since the difficulties here appear to be mostly political ("not in my back yard" kind of thinking).

But politicians like yours would rather keep this problem from being solved because it is politically advantageous to them to not solve the problem....

Now, this personal attack on me is completely an utterly unwarranted. First of all, these are NOT MY politicians. I don't live in Nevada. In fact, I don't even vote in the U.S., so calling any U.S. politician 'my politician' is plain ridiculous. Second, where did I drop a hint that I even sympathize with these politicians? Please read posts carefully before rolling out your guns. Otherwise it makes you look silly. As to solving the radioactive waste problem, I merely stated the fact in as objective tone as I could. I also provided a link to a source where you could read more about the battle taking place (hint). I never took sides, so painting me as one of supporters of Nevada politicians in this battle offends me personally.

Oh, I just thought of how your so-called "pro-environment" politicians in Nevada would solve this energy problem, especially when they find-out that solar roofs would not be cutting enough electrical consumption from the grid: They would burn more filthy coal in the Mojave Desert to generate electricity. BRILLIANT!

Read my statement above.

As to the solar power, obviously you missed the smiley at the end of the sentence. I personally found it rather amusing that the proponents of nuclear energy disdain solar energy since, technically, solar energy is ALL nuclear. There you have it! (Now that I had to state it explicitly, it lost its amusing value--just as when you explain a joke to someone who didn't get it, the joke ceases to be funny. Thank you! :rolleyes.

Cheer up Steve,
J.