The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently issued a report called Report on the first Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR), which has as its purpose helping the DOE choose among conflicting priorities.
The new report sets priories based on a distorted view of the future. One issue is that it is trying to set priorities based on an overly optimistic view of energy supply presented in the EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2011 (IEO 2011). Another issue is that it overlooks the way the US and world economy can be expected to change as a result of lower oil and natural gas supply. A third issue is that its view of climate change mitigations is based on a view of fossil fuel supply that is far greater than is likely to be the case.
The DOE needs to re-think its priorities for an entirely different kind of world–a world of energy scarcity. In a world of energy scarcity, citizens are poorer and less able to pay for basic services, much less higher-priced services. Maintaining basic transportation and electrical services for as much of the population as possible needs to be a top priority. Some government agency, presumably the DOE, will need to make certain that rationing systems are set up so that essential industries get the fuel they need and essential workers are able to obtain transportation to work.
This change in approach in priority-setting requires a very different mind-set than is currently being promulgated through the press. Let me start by explaining where we are today.
Where we are today
Oil and Substitutes. If we believe the QTR, global “liquids” production (oil and oil substitutes, like biofuels) will begin rising to 110 million barrels a day, after its flat period since 2005.
Figure 1. Global Liquids Production from QTR
Data in Figure 1 is based on IEO 2011. I recently wrote a post called IEO 2011: A Misleadingly Optimistic Energy Forecast by the EIA, explaining why the forecast is unrealistic. Among other things, oil prices would need to be much higher than EIA is forecasting to reach the production amounts shown in Figure 1. Unfortunately, these high oil prices would lead to recession and economic decline, resulting in lower oil consumption. Because of these issues, the increase in production shown above is not feasible. In fact, I would expect a decrease in production by as much as 50% by 2035.
Many people do not understand the issues behind the likely decline in oil production. There is plenty of oil in the ground–this is not the issue. The problem is that the oil that is left (such as that in the Bakken and in the oil sands) is slow and expensive to extract, because the “easy-to-extract” oil was mostly removed first. There is plenty of demand for low-priced oil, but high-priced oil tends to “choke” the economy, leading to recession. James Hamilton has shown that 10 out of 11 US recessions since World War II were associated with oil price spikes.
Some people would describe the phenomenon as “peak oil,” but I am not sure that this is the best description of the issue. The problem is that the price of oil is increasingly high, partly because of the high cost of extraction, and partly because governments of the countries where the oil is extracted are increasingly “needy,” and require high taxes on oil companies to meet their budgets.
High-priced oil tends to choke economies because high oil prices are associated with high food prices (because oil products are used in food growing and transport), and people’s salaries do not rise to offset this rise in food and oil prices. People have to eat and to commute to their jobs, so they cut back on other expenditures. This leads to recession. Recession leads to lower oil consumption, since people without jobs can’t buy very much of anything, oil products included. In some sense, the reduction in oil extraction is due to reduced demand, because citizens cannot afford the high-priced oil that is available.
Natural Gas. If we believe QTR, US natural gas consumption is expected to rise modestly by 2035, because of a huge increase in shale gas production. IEO 2011 indicates the expected natural gas consumption increase to 2035 is 10% (24.1 tcf in 2010; 26.5 tcf in 2035).
Figure 2. US Natural Gas Supply according to QTR.
The huge increase in shale gas shown in Figure 2 is by no means assured. The United States Geological Survey recently produced an estimate of Marcellus Shale resources, which will cause the EIA to reduce its estimate of shale gas reserves for the Marcellus Shale by 80%. There is also considerable uncertainty about long-term decline rates of wells, which would make a major difference in the ultimate recovery of wells. Furthermore, there are concerns regarding whether fracking and disposal of waste water can be done safely, especially near highly populated areas.
If shale gas production in fact decreases, Figure 2 suggests that US natural gas consumption could drop by as much as 30% or 35% by 2035, rather than rising. So there is a wide range of possible outcomes, with DOE’s optimistic estimate being a 10% increase in US natural gas consumption. US natural gas consumption is smaller than oil consumption (about 68% as much), so the 10% increase in natural gas consumption would do very little to offset the likely oil supply decrease between now and 2035.
As with oil, there is an economic issue in all of this. How high can natural gas prices rise, without inducing huge recession? How long can shale gas producers “hang on” if natural gas prices are as low as they are now? Without higher prices, there is not much incentive to produce shale gas. If there is recession because of high oil prices, this may cut into demand for natural gas, because laid-off workers cannot afford products made with natural gas, either.
Liebig’s Law of the Minimum Effect. If we think of the economy as a “system,” it is very difficult to make changes to the economy quickly. We have a huge number of cars, trucks, trains, farm equipment, heavy construction equipment, and airplanes that are not designed to run on anything other than petroleum products. There is no way to change to another energy source for this equipment in the next several years because of the research timeline and the cost of building replacement equipment.
If there is inadequate oil, what happens is that oil prices rise. Because of the long timeframe required to change existing equipment to use other fuels, the rise in oil prices leads to recession. Recession cuts back on demand for all energy products, not just the oil that is in short supply.
If we think of the economy as a system, and oil as a necessary input, this is really an application of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum. In agriculture, this law says that if a necessary nutrient is lacking, overall output will be reduced in proportion to the amount of the limiting nutrient. With the economy, if there is not enough oil (reflected in high oil price), the rest of the economy is restricted as well–the amount of electricity used; the number of workers employed; the amount of new loans outstanding; the demand for new homes, etc. This seems to be what happened in the 2008-2009 recession, and is threatening to happen again.
Climate Change. Climate change models do not assume that fossil fuels are a limiting factor before 2100. If more realistic amounts are assumed, the CO2 amounts forecast will be much lower. See for example this estimate by De Sousa and Mearns. If fossil fuel limitations were reflected in the models, the indicated temperature rise would be lower. If the indicated temperature change is lower and if fossil fuel use is declining rapidly regardless of what happens, the need for climate change mitigations would appear to be lessened.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). CCS burns fuel more rapidly than today’s approaches, because of the large amount of energy used for sequestration. If oil and natural gas are in limited supply to begin with, CCS is likely to cause us to exhaust the economically feasible supply sooner. Adding CCS also tends to make the cost of electricity higher. Because of theses issues, CCS research should probably be halted, and CCS options should be removed from consideration in the choice of future fuel sources.
Renewables vs Fossil Fuel Extenders. “Renewables” such as wind, solar PV, cellulosic ethanol, and biogas could more accurately be called “fossil fuel extenders” because they cannot exist apart from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are required to make wind turbines and other devices, to transport the equipment, to make needed repairs, and to maintain the transport and electrical systems used by these fuels (such as maintaining transmission lines, running-back up power plants, and paving roads). If we lose fossil fuels, we can expect to lose the use of renewables, with a few exceptions, such as trees cut down locally, and burned for heat, and solar thermal used to heat hot water in containers on roofs.
What the DOE Should be Focusing On
We do not know precisely how soon oil and natural gas supplies will be declining, but it would seem to be worthwhile to start preparing now. It is clear we are already running into recessionary forces. Since these recessionary forces are tied in with high energy prices, they can only be expected to get worse with time, rather than better. The two major issues I see are
1. We need to keep some form of transportation system operating as long as possible, gradually transitioning to one based only on human and animal power.
2. We need to keep some form of electrical system operating as long as possible, probably transitioning to only local electricity, and then none at all.
What do we need to do to accomplish these goals?
This is too complex an issue to handle fully in a single post, but let me point out a few things that I can perhaps expand upon in later posts.
Low-Priced Oil Substitutes. The DOE should be focusing on dealing with a world that is in long-term recession, with many people unemployed, and governments limited in their ability to pay subsidies. Since a major reason for recession seems to be high oil prices, it would seem to be clear that any substitute for oil that is more expensive is likely to make the situation worse. What we need is oil substitutes that cost $50 barrel or less–cheap substitutes–to help counter the recessionary force of high oil prices. The idea of waiting until oil prices rise, so that some high-priced substitute is competitive, is ridiculous.
Remove subsidies. High energy costs lead to economic contraction. This is true even if the true cost is “buried” through subsidies or feed-in tariffs, because the true cost must be paid, one way or another, either directly, or indirectly, through higher taxes. Subsidies relating to high-priced energy products tend to increase the amount of high-priced energy consumed, so are counterproductive from an economic point of view, unless the subsidy is temporary, and truly leads to a lower-cost energy product.
Alternative Transportation. As the economy encounters more and more recession, fewer will be able to afford to drive. Because of this, there will be a need to provide transportation for poorer people, without adding huge costs to the system. Car pool systems would probably make more sense than adding buses, but buses might be helpful as well. Substituting bicycles for cars would be another worthwhile approach.
People will be giving up their cell phones, not adding them, so systems for using car pools should be simple (“Pick up a rider if you have room, and are going that way”) not technically complex (“Call on your cell phone, and an operator will log you into a registry and send a vehicle your way.”) Furthermore, technically complex approaches depend on oil for their maintenance and repair, so are more inclined to breakdowns over the long term.
Long-Term Maintenance of the Highway System. As oil becomes less available, highway maintenance will likely become more expensive. At the same time, the number of vehicles using the roads will likely be decreasing. Vehicles that do operate will use a variety of fuel sources–gasoline, diesel, electricity, and natural gas. In such a situation, an efficient approach for collecting needed funds for maintenance might be to use more toll roads. Eventually, as costs become too high, some roads will need to be changed back to gravel, or no longer be maintained.
Long Distance Electrical Grid. The electric grid was never set up for long distance transport of electricity, but in recent years, we have been attempting to use it for this purpose. If we want to use it for this purpose, and in fact upgrade it to add wind and solar production, it seems to me that some governmental organization needs to take ownership of the long distance transmission system. This organization needs to charge fees to long-distance users of these lines, analogous to tolls for highway use, to obtain adequate funds for maintenance, upgrades, and electricity storage. These fees will tend to raise the cost of wind and solar electricity.
Maintenance of the electric grid is petroleum dependent, so costs can be expected to rise over time. At some point, we may find it too difficult to maintain long-distance lines (because of inability to obtain fuel for repairs using helicopters, for example), and may need to abandon some long distance transmission. We need to plan our long-distance electrical use with this in mind. It may make sense to go back to more of a vertically integrated electrical utility model, applicable to individual communities, instead of a system based on long-distance trading. As with “local food,” perhaps we need to be thinking of “local electricity”.
Solidity of the Electrical System. The electric system and the oil-based transport system are very interdependent. Oil is needed for maintenance of roads and electric transmission lines. At the same time, if there is an electrical outage, oil and gas pipelines stop running, so gasoline stations lose their supplies. Furthermore, pumps at the gasoline stations don’t work without electricity. Thus, if we lose one, we lose the other.
We keep making demands of the electrical system that the system was not originally designed to handle–for example, to incorporate more renewable energy; to run the system with less slack through the use of “smart meters,” and to sell electricity long-distance using competitive pricing. It seems to me that there needs to be an organization that oversees the electrical system from the point of view of what really makes sense for the system. With the current ad hoc system, even basic maintenance is a problem–much of the transmission system was built in the 1960s, and is beyond its expected lifetime.
Some of the problem areas may be indirect. For example, if the pricing system for wind and solar electricity causes financial problems for companies generating electricity using natural gas and coal, this could lead to the bankruptcy of operators needed to keep the overall system working. In Europe, where more wind and solar PV are used than in the US, the pricing system already seems to be having an adverse impact on companies generating electricity using fossil fuels.
Rationing. At some point, rationing may be needed for both oil products and for electricity usage. The DOE should probably be the one coordinating planning for this contingency. Even if rationing is not needed for quite a few years, planning the details ahead of time would seem to be helpful.
Gail
Thanks for provoking thoughtful strategic analysis.
You assert:
I think this is unnecessarily alarmist by excluding all renewable energy as well as fossil fuels.
Tom Reed has good collection of biomass materials at the Biomass Foundation http://woodgas.com/
GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: (SERI-1979) T. Reed, D. Jantzen and A. Das, with index.
In http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbeaa/v14n8/v14n08a15.pdf>Energy performance of a production system of Eucalyptus Romanelli & Milan obtain an EROI of 58 (if I understand them properly.)
In “Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI); the case for gasification as a component of an integrated live stock based farming system”, T R Preston and Lylian Rodríguez find an EROI of 8 for labor intensive biomass gasification.
There is no need to abandon proven biomass transport technologies.
Others are developing more efficient renewable fuels that promise to be more cost effective.
Correction: Energy performance of a production system of Eucalyptus Romanelli & Milan Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental v.14, n.8, p.896–903, 2010
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbeaa/v14n8/v14n08a15.pdf
The problem I see is that at this point in time, we have way too many people for the amount of biomass. So as a practical matter, we will need to use biomass very sparingly, or we will end up cutting all of the trees down and depleting the soil. I expect heating people’s homes will get top priority, since in cold areas, this is an issue. Burning biomass to get electricity is also a fairly easy application. Using it to fuel vehicles as well will be difficult to do — at most I would expect it for a few emergency vehicles.
Yes the major limitation is ~ 2.5% conversion efficiency from solar to biomass. However, that can still be significant!
Global and regional potential for bioenergy from agricultural and forestry residue biomass Jay S. Gregg and Steven J. Smith Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Volume 15, Number 3, 241-262, DOI: 10.1007/s11027-010-9215-4
On heating homes, the major issue is extremely poor insulation in most buildings. In a cost effectively insulated home, the people provide most of the heat needed. Rule of thumb – double or triple the insulation thickness of conventional practice for life cycle cost effective design. e.g. 12″ to 15″ thick staggered stud walls rather than ~4″. It is far more cost effective to shred biomass for insulation than to burn it!
For available biomass to fuel conversion technology see Dynamotive.
For a gamechanger technology, see Oxford Catalysts Group and Velocys with their microchannel reactor technology.
Their economy of scale maxes out at 500 bbl/day, vs 150,000 bbl/day for conventional fuel synthesis. Their new technology can convert flared gas to liquid fuels
That can transform biomass gasification to biofuel synthesis.
See Velosys Biomass-to-Liquids
For coal to liquids see Linc Energy. They say they can use underground coal gasification to liquids for $28/bbl operating costs.
Solar thermochemical conversion can nominally achieve at least 7.1% from solar to fuel for $1.22/kg breakeven. (Equivalent to ~$2.44/kg for gasoline) with current technology.
Methanol production from CO2 using solar-thermal energy: process development and techno-economic analysis Jiyong Kim, Carlos A. Henao, Terry A. Johnson, Daniel E. Dedrick, James E. Miller, Ellen B. Stechel and Christos T. Maravelias Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 3122-3132 DOI: 10.1039/C1EE01311D
They assume 20% efficiency for solar to chemical portion. For DOE/Sandia’s review a 21% solar to H2 see: Solar Hydrogen Production with a Metal Oxide Based Thermochemical Cycle Siegel DOE Merit Review 2011
Solar-Thermal Atomic Layer Deposition Ferrite-Based Water Splitting Cycles Al Weimer 2010
There is plenty of desert area to provide global fuel use. e.g.
Energy from the desert: very large scale photovoltaic systems
What is needed now is to reduce installed system costs.
Thus there are numerous technologies being developed that can be used to convert gas, coal, biomass and concentrating solar thermochemical energy to fuels.
For those willing to seek for solutions see Jeremiah 33:3
One of the limits is capital to do all of these things. Some of these require fresh water. We are reaching limits on this, as well.
If we could do all these things at the equivalent of $20 barrel, or even $60 barrel, I don’t think there would be a huge problem. The problem is that nearly all of our solutions are high priced (especially when one considers the full costs, including upgrading the electrical grid–something we cannot really do the way the system is currently organized and funded). This is one reason that the current plan is to use the grid ever-more-intensively, through the use of smart meters.
We can keep adding to complexity, but at some point we start hitting limits. One example was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Another example is the problems we are encountering with fracking–possible earthquakes, as well as waste disposal issues and possible impacts on fresh water.
We have to put all of the waste products somewhere. Recycling is not working well now, with CO2 and other waste products. If we figure out how to solve other issues, we still have the waste product issue. The problem is really the Limits to Growth issue from the 1970s, that has not really gone away.
I think we still have a ways to go with solutions while population growth is decling.
Barry Solomon reviews Biofuels and sustainability. He summarizes 332.1 million dry tons/year from forest residue.
Ultimately, water can be obtained from brackish/sea water by solar distillation.
CO2 is plant food.
I’ve seen in many your posts that you have a strong belief in car pooling. This seems like a good solution, but I don’t think it will be.
I’m from Poland where gas is twice US price and income is half(maybe the numbers are little different but it’s for the general pictur). And in this reality car pooling is a marginal thing. Only examples I see is going to the same work by people living nearby themselves.
If someone looses ability to afford driving a car he chooses public transport.
What differs in the US is the lack of local public transport. I’ve been in Ulster country(NY) for a few months and the only local transportation was sparse network of small busses with few rides a day. That’s not an alternative, so car pooling may have different perespectives.
The issue here is that there really is not public transportation in most places. And even if it were set up, sidewalks are commonly lacking (although this is getting somewhat better for newer roads and upgrades,) People travel in all kinds of directions, with a relatively small percentage heading toward a city center. Carpooling seems to be the only reasonable option.
Hi Gail,
I was just poking around this evening and found this current article called ‘Supply Margins Erode’ regarding the nuclear conversion process. I thought you might be interested in the forecast contained in the paragraph toward the bottom with the heading ‘Market Outlook. ‘ It sounds similar to oil production: short term shortages can only be overcome with much higher prices due to rising costs. http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060840
La Curee
I’m sympathetic to this approach it does makes sense for peak energy to produce peak climate change.
However, as Guy points out the levels of CO2 we have now will probably produce runaway climate change even if we stopped increasing outputs immediately.
That is positive feedback has started at 3/4 of a degree.
Anywho watch the video and read the blog entry.
Roll on economic collapse!
http://guymcpherson.com/2011/09/couchsurfing-with-my-soapbox/
I need to know what assumptions the models make for the level of energy consumption to know what these models mean. Do they assume increasing energy use? I would like to see modeling results for flat energy consumption.
Hi Ed
Guy introduces a list of full references by about 10 minutes in.
Typically in the science world you read the paper and find out what the assumptions are.
Key paper referenced by Guy was peer reviewed before publication.
I think these crazy almost canuks subconsiously welcome climate change. that’s why they are laughing. overall great presentation tho. reinforces my timing of things. 1 1/2 months are the end of the good old days? i dunno i always underestimate how long it takes for the economy to turn around…
Hi La Curee,
I listened to the entire presentation. Very interesting until the last 5 minutes – then: silly stuff about growing your own veggies. I guess he has never visited Chicago or Mumbai.
Until the leadership of the political, religious, military and corporate worlds recognize the real problems facing the planet and promote rational strategies, no amount of “survivalist” stuff will help any but a few very rural folks – and maybe not even them.
Promoting individual survivalist tactics just drains energy from the kind of political activism that might actually help (but probably not much).
@Bicycle Dave:
You don’t understand the problem or the man I’m a thinkin;¬)
The man is a high flying academic who has spent his life pursuing ideas, you become good at something by the numbers of hours you put into it, by definition this restricts your expertise in other areas.
His analysis IMO is sound it is other people who provide your immediate milieux in a low carbon world and a greater proportion of available energy will come from the fruits of their manual labour.
As to the cities well the world is littered with the remains of great cities it seems you have your own limitation – imagination.
Energy to maintain trading and admin centres will come from any resource surplus…
Sad to say people are already starving another peak we have already reached is peak population growth rate, starvation will become much more common place in the future.
There are no ‘rational’ politics that will solve what is not a problem just human nature.
‘Nature bats last’ or as the limits to growth models shows any scenario is ultimately limited by ‘pollution’.
La Curee,
“You don’t understand the problem ….. it seems you have your own limitation – imagination.” Hmm…not sure where this comes from.
My criticism was not directed at you – only at the last few minutes of the video (I found most of it pretty interesting). And then only regarding the debate regarding the merits of small community action versus much broader activism. In previous posts I’ve addressed many problems, goals and potential solutions – I’ve been accused of being a dreamer, but never lacking in imagination.
I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Carnegie as instructive reading.
Oh, I see the great American dream anything is possible if a salesman.
Self realisation and other BS.
Problems, goals, solutions – super, great good for you lovely boy.
I am sure you are lovely man with lots of lovely friends who has lovely times doing lovely things.
See you six foot under with everyone else.
SUPER!
@BD: recent evidence pointing up starvation to come, enjoy ;¬)
http://news.yahoo.com/nestle-chief-warns-food-riots-115947524.html
You many have seen this as well:
The Cause of Riots and the Price of Food.
The price of oil fits in there closely as well.
Thanks, new to me.
Have you seen this:
http://permaculture.org.au/2011/09/03/german-military-peak-oil-study-full-english-translation/
P.56 – 60 are particularly good.
Yes, I saw it, but I am not sure I have it bookmarked. Thanks for reminding me.
I have seen it, but hadn’t bookmarked it. Thanks for reminding me.
Gail, I agree with your point that changing to a new system takes a long time, but we can mitigate by building as much solar, wind and nuclear as we can. Unfortunately these limited sources will not be allocated for things like schools, trains, and local use. I expect they will be built on military bases to insure continuity of the military and the government.
As much as I’d like to see this happen, I’m not optimistic about any sensible planning for this transition. However, if we ever do get a clue about this issue, I’d suggest one useful strategy is to start with kids. Eliminate school buses – maybe some rare exceptions for handicapped kids and other special circumstances. I grew up in northern Minnesota and I never saw a school bus during my elementary years. Biking 5 miles to school should not be considered a hardship – it should be seen as a healthy way to get exercise. Winter snow is not an excuse, nor rain, wind and cold.
A critical component of this strategy involves safety – parents simply will not put their kids in obvious danger for someone’s idea about a new transportation paradigm. Motor vehicle laws would need to be drastically changed to give first priority to anyone on a bicycle – with serious consequences for law breakers. And, cyclists need to be held accountable for adhering to the laws also.
It should be noted that some communities already have tough laws requiring motorists to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. In other cities, cars dominate and walkers and cyclist venture forth at their own peril. This is all about perception of the problem and willingness to make changes – it is not an impossibility.
I know I walked or bicycled to school all my life. My kids mostly walked to high school as well, even though the bus stopped close to our house each day. The school was not far away., and riding the bus took longer than walking. The problem we had was that there were no sidewalks, making the trip a little tricky. Kids weren’t expected to walk to school, so there was no real provision for them walking.
My kids walked to school; we lived in an older section of north suburban Detroit. My elder child had a friend who lived in a brand-new suburb (it called itself “the city of tomorrow, today”) who could see the high school from the bedroom window, but had to take the yellow schoolbus or get a ride from Mom the Chauffeur. Of course there was no public transportation! The ride took forty minutes. To walk was madness, as well as illegal.
That was thirty-something years ago. I get the feeling that things have not changed much, if anything, in the years since then.
I did not think there was anyone more gloomy than I am about our civilizations’s prospects. However, Gail is indeed more gloomy than I. It seems to be a natural human reaction to give in to our gloom until we meet someone even more than gloomy than ourselves. Then we find ourselves trying to be upbeat for that person. Now, I know Gail’s “gloomy” view is intellectual and empiricaly based but I still find myself wanting to say “Hang on, it might not be quite that bad.”
There is still a slight hope for a partial saving of the situation, although many regions of the world will still suffer very badly. Solar energy is really our one and only hope. I don’t quite accept that the EROEI of solar would be incapable of supporting modern, albeit more energy efficient civilization. I also don’t quite accept that a solar economy could not be “married” to our current plant and infrastructure investment.
Gail says for example, “We have a huge number of cars, trucks, trains, farm equipment, heavy construction equipment, and airplanes that are not designed to run on anything other than petroleum products. There is no way to change to another energy source for this equipment in the next several years because of the research timeline and the cost of building replacement equipment.”
There is one possibility here (although obviously personal use automobiles will become a luxury of the past and efficient mass transit will be needed). This possibility is the utilisation of large (1,000 metre) solar convection towers to generate electricity. These can generate 24 hours a day as the temperature differential between ground level and 1,000 m is even higher at night. This power can feed our grid but it can also be used to make and compress methane which is the same as CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). Our essential vehicles and agricultural equipment can have engines modified to use CNG. This is well within the bounds of possiblity and the EROEI is likely to be adequate for this.
I think the issue on all of these things is timing and investment capital. Historically, all of the changes from one fuel to another have taken a lot of time. I don’t think we have a huge supply of methane (natural gas) either, according to EIA estimates.
Correction: Where this is going does (NOT) look good.
I recently read that Russia requires oil to sell at $125/barrel in order to maintain its budget. Venezuela is in a similar suitation. Saudi Arabia is increasing monetary incentives to its citizens in order to prevent a Muslem Spring there. Oil is destined to increase in price just to keep unstable oil producing countries from imploding.
At the same time, wages in the United States are stagnant or decreasing due to the recession and high unemployment. Companies are cutting benefits and retirement plans. Pension funds face under funded obligations and Social Security is running a deficit with tax collected vs pay outs.
The Federal Government borrows 40 cents for every dollar spent. Home values, which have been used as a source of equity income, have plummeted in value and their values are still falling. Everthing points to income decreasing and tax obligations increasing and a net income decline for the American citizen.
Rising oil prices and a declining population income has got to put recessionary forces on the United States economy, especially since 70% of the American economy is due to consumer spending.
Yet for the past year, I have read countless articles touting new oil finds, higher ouputs from wells using fracking and the vast oil sands waiting to be exploited. Peak oil has fallen from vogue.
I do not believe in the theory of Climate Change, but the government does and it’s energy agenda reflects this. Wind and solar energy will do nothing to help a liquids fuel problem and corn ethanol is energy dependent on oil with such a low eroi that it makes no sense to produce it. Current transportion vehicles are oil dependent as you noted, and conversion to natural gas as a power source would bankrupt many families and place an enormous strain on natural gas supplies. Electric cars are just a dream with curent battery technology and the cost of rare earth metals is increasing as demand rises and supply falls. China is restricting the exportation of rare earth metals.
Our paralyzed and ineffectual government seems to have become fractured into two opposing and rigid camps. The federal deficit and debt are out of control and both parties are sqaubbling over just cuts or just taxes to lower the defict. Where this is going does look good.
Thank you for all the hard work you do.
You are welcome. I agree (with your correction included).
We have lots of problems.
I didn’t mention anything about Space Weather Threats to Electrical Grids. If anyone is in the Washington DC area, and is interested in going, SAIC is putting on a free conference on this subject Oct 6, from 8:30 to 3:00. This is a link to their registration web site.
http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2112469453/?invite=&err=29&referrer=&ebtv=F&discount=&affiliate=&eventpassword=
The session is called,
National Defense University Conference on Severe Space Weather Threats to the US Electrical Grids: Briefings from workshops and exercises preparing for nationwide infrastructure collapse
A Carrington event level coronal mass ejection might disable the grid for months at high latitudes where the current spikes are the greatest. After Fukushima, it hit me what that could mean. The diesel generators at the plants run out of fuel after a few days, and a whole bunch of reactors lose cooling and melt down. Or the CME knocks out the generators directly? (I’m no electrical engineer.)
Remember what happened when the electricity failed in NY during the 1970’s ( or whenever)? Looting and chaos ensued. Imagine the electricity off across the entire Northeast for weeks or months. Good luck picking up the phone and ordering a few truckloads of diesel with all that going on. And as we found out after Katrina, the communication system goes down soon after the power goes out. Batteries and propane generators only last a few days, if that long. Of course, the refineries in the area without electricity will also be down, so any fuel will have to be pumped from the Gulf Coast. But all the pumps won’t work.
So if a massive CME is discovered to be heading our way to hit as the USA is facing the Sun, head South, and fast. You will be surprised how fast our civilization falls apart without electricity. I read somewhere that if you shut down the grid in the USA, after 2 months, 80% of the population would be dead. It sounds crazy until you start to really think about the food consumed and where it comes from. Fresh water too. Almost nothing works without electricity. You can’t even get fuel out of underground tanks. No lights, refrigeration, air conditioning, communication, elevators, cash registers, you are back in the 1800’s but without the chickens, and cows out back.
Gail, you and I both know that none of this is ever happening. People in this delusional society walk around lying to themselves about reality all day long. They will never take th effort to learn any of the “whys” this is happening. They have heard too many doomsday stories in the past to take any seriously anymore.
Sorry, but we are on our own on this one. The gov will likely make things worse at best.
Gail,
One other important consideration for all of us is water supply security. Most water supply systems are dependent on electricity and/or fossil fuels. The supply in my neighborhood is pumped from a well with electricity into a water tower, and flows from there to customers by gravity. The system has a diesel generator for backup, but only has a few days of fuel.
If the grid becomes unreliable we will not have reliable water supply. Fortunately, I live in a relatively high rainfall area, and collecting rainwater is a viable option. But many people do not have this option.
I was always puzzled by our government’s lack of response to our oncoming energy-related crisis until I read Ponting’s -A GREEN HISTORY OF THE WORLD this past summer. Not recognizing or not dealing with an imminent crisis has happened over and over again in human history. I am not sure I have become fatalistic about the future, but the realization is very sobering indeed. At this point help is not on the way. Individual and small group or community responses are our best bets for now.
I’m afraid I haven’t read that A Green History of the World. Thanks for pointing it out.
The big picture is hard for people to understand. The world is very “siloed”.