TOD: The Energy Trap

[GliderGuider]

Here's an interesting analysis of the "Law of Receding Horizons" as applied to plugging the energy gap created by falling fossil fuel supplies.

The Energy Trap

Many Do the Math posts have touched on the inevitable cessation of growth and on the challenge we will face in developing a replacement energy infrastructure once our fossil fuel inheritance is spent. The focus has been on long-term physical constraints, and not on the messy details of our response in the short-term. But our reaction to a diminishing flow of fossil fuel energy in the short-term will determine whether we transition to a sustainable but technological existence or allow ourselves to collapse. One stumbling block in particular has me worried. I call it The Energy Trap.

In brief, the idea is that once we enter a decline phase in fossil fuel availability—first in petroleum—our growth-based economic system will struggle to cope with a contraction of its very lifeblood. Fuel prices will skyrocket, some individuals and exporting nations will react by hoarding, and energy scarcity will quickly become the new norm. The invisible hand of the market will slap us silly demanding a new energy infrastructure based on non-fossil solutions. But here’s the rub. The construction of that shiny new infrastructure requires not just money, but…energy. And that’s the very commodity in short supply. Will we really be willing to sacrifice additional energy in the short term—effectively steepening the decline—for a long-term energy plan? It’s a trap!

Let’s say that our nation (or world) uses 100 units of fossil fuel energy one year, and expects to get only 98 units the following year. We need to come up with 2 units of replacement energy within a year’s time to fill the gap. If, for example, the replacement:

• has an EROEI of 10:1;
  
• requires most of the energy investment up front (solar panel or wind turbine manufacture, nuclear plant construction, etc.);
  
• and will last 40 years,

then we need an up-front energy investment amounting to 4 year’s worth of the new source’s output energy. Since we require an output of 2 units of energy to fill the gap, we will need 8 units of energy to bring the resource into use.

Of the 100 units of total energy resource in place in year one, only 92 are available for use—looking suddenly like an 8% decline. If we sit on our hands and do not launch a replacement infrastructure, we would have 98 units available for use next year. It’s still a decline, but a 2% decline is more palatable than an effective 8% decline. Since each subsequent year expects a similar fossil fuel decline, the game repeats. Where is the incentive to launch a new infrastructure? This is why I call it a trap. We need to exacerbate the sacrifice for a prolonged period in order to come out on top in the end.

[kristopher]

1. More Junk Science from The Oil Drum...

The oversimplification of the problem relegates this "analysis" to the dust bin.
Just for starters our energy system is already diverse.

Petroleum
Coal
Natural Gas
Hydro
Biomass
Nuclear
Solar
Wind

There is also more than enough inefficiency in the system to render the "analysis" meaningless.

Pure garbage.

Let me suggest a real analysis:
http://www.rmi.org/Reinventing+Fire+The+Strategy

[4dsc]

3. The problem is a liquid fuel problem

thus Coal,Natural Gas,Hydro,Biomass,Nuclear,Solar,Wind and not going to replace oil.

[kristopher]

4. In most cases yes oil can be replaced with other energy carriers.

There are two characteristics that petroleum possesses - portability and high energy density. Very few applications are dependent on both of those characteristics to the degree that only liquid hydrocarbons can replace them. Personal transportation is able to be replaced with battery electric, heavy hauling and agriculture can be accomplished with biofuels, hydrogen and fuel cells.

You name an application and I can explain how to replace oil. The OP is nonsense, as is the entire premise behind it. I'd strongly urge you to read something besides garbage - the link in reply #1 is a great start.

ETA link: http://www.rmi.org/Reinventing+Fire+The+Strategy

[4dsc]

5. While they can be replaced

reality should set in and you'd realize that they will not replace the billions of barrels of oil that will be need in the future. With the reality of peak oil taking place now, in the coming decade billions of barrels of oil won't be there that are today. No alternative will take the place of that oil in scope and scale we have today.

[kristopher]

9. You're wrong and I can show you why

I offered to explain any sector you wish, but you avoided that simple exercise in favor of a pointless generalized statement. It would seem that deep in your heart even you know your position cannot withstand a confrontation with the data.

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/ReinventingFire
Take your pick, this covers ALL fossil fuels, not just petroleum. The data available at the links demonstrate the difference between the junk science on The Oil Drum and real research:
Transportation
Background on transportation sector and current fossil fuel consumption

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - automotive design

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - enhanced use for personal mobility

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - heavy trucks and domestic freight

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - airplanes

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - substituting alternative fuels for remaining oil needs

Society-wide financial and energy use implications of Reinventing Fire for transportation sector


SEE ALL TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH »
Buildings
Background on buildings sector and current fossil fuel consumption

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - business-as-usual trajectory

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - energy efficient technologies

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - smart controls

Fossil fuel reduction opportunities - integrative design

Society-wide financial and energy use implications of Reinventing Fire for buildings sector


SEE ALL BUILDINGS RESEARCH »
Electricity
Background on electricity sector

Four potential electricity futures

Reinventing Fire cost inputs

Reinventing Fire technology inputs

Reinventing Fire system operations


SEE ALL ELECTRICITY RESEARCH »
Industry
Background on transportation sector and current energy consumption

Energy reduction opportunities - energy efficiency

Energy reduction opportunities - CHP

Industry transformations

Integrative design

Fuel switching

Society-wide financial and energy use implications of Reinventing Fire for industry sector

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/ReinventingFire

[TheMadMonk]

6. Not when the whole bloody house of cards is built around just in time...

...delivery.

Virtually everything in industry from supplying energy and raw materials to getting the finished product to the shelves is done to a timetable with almost no slack in it.

And an overwhealmning proportion of everything which must be kept in motion to keep to that timetable is moved with the assistance of petrochemicals.

Any significant supply side decline in oil is going to create a huge disruption up and down virtually every single supply chain.

When oil does decline it's going to crash, not taper off in any graceful fashion.

Nothing we have available is capable of taking up that kind of slack in the time frame likely to be available when that crash comes. The power grid is not up to meeting the needs of a fully electrified transport system, neither in transmission or generation capacity. The rail system lacks both the capacity and the necessary points of access to take over from road freight and passenger transport. We lack the raw materials to electrify the rolling stock: lithium, rare earths, platinum group metals.

[kristopher]

8. "When oil does decline it's going to crash, not taper off"

Since that contradicts everything we know about natural resource depletion, the onus is on you to provide proof of your statement. Your statement about the capabilities of infrastructure and the way it evolves also lacks any connection whatsoever with reality. Ditto your assessment of "raw materials".

If you want to believe that claptrap that is your right, but that isn't the same as being right.

[TheMadMonk]

16. Overexploitation of any resource pretty much inevitably leads to a crash.

Whales, fish, exotic timbers, wild animal parts, minerals such as Blue John. Crash, crash, crash, crash, crash.

Oil too is being extracted much faster than it's being found.

What is being found tends towards lower quality, smaller amounts and lower maximum extraction rates.

Projections show demand increasing and continuing to increase for some time yet before it begins to decline.

Crunch time is coming.

[kristopher]

18. I'm sorry but your premise is incorrect - basic economic evidence is unambiguous on that point.

Declining supply leads to escalating prices, which make the alternatives worth developing. The tighter the supply, the higher the price, the more rapidly the alternatives roll out.

Case study> oil to coal US electric sector 1980s.

Present day example is found in personal transportation and is demonstrated by the multiple model roll out of EVs and series hybrids by ALL auto manufacturers.

Your beliefs on this topic are not founded in the evidence.

[GliderGuider]

12. And another case in point.

We have no idea how fast aggregated global production or net exports are actually going to decline, or what the political response or economic consequences will be. The best we can say is that there is some non-zero probability that your scenario might come to pass.

This is a brand-new situation for our current cycle of civilization, so there is no way of being sure whether the outcome will be malign or benign.

[TheMadMonk]

17. How much of your food comes from China?

Or is wrapped in Chinese made packaging? Clothing? Building materials? Medicines?

How quickly could local industries conceivably expand to meet demand when the price of shipping goods halfway around the world doubles and doubles again?

How high will prices rise when demand excedes supply on almost every single product used in our daily lives?

[kristopher]

19. If you think that is an argument that supports your position ...

...then you really need to do more thinking on the topic. I'd strongly urge to you base that thinking on higher level work than you'll find at The Oil Drum.

Strongly suggest you read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=315328&mesg_id=315371

[GliderGuider]

20. I know that story, chapter and verse.

I was a Peak Oil doomer from 2004 until a scant few months ago. I've given up "believing in" particular outcomes, though, whether it's this one or the one kristopher is fond of. Instead, I'm now content to wait and see how things turn out. The universe has a way of not meeting our expectations, whether for good or ill. As I said before, this outcome has a non-zero probability, but so do a remarkably large number of others. The real future will be some unpredictable mix of all of them.

Getting attached to one expected outcome, whether it's dystopian or utopian, is a recipe for suffering. However, if we are going to work towards a particular outcome, it's much easier on the spirit if we choose a positive one. We just shouldn't be disappointed if the future contains the same lashings of misery as the present.

I fully expect the future to contain things like oil and food shortages and high prices, famines, economic instability up to and including a quasi-permanent global depression, homelessness, joblessness, species extinctions, dust storms, wind turbines, electric cars, nuclear accidents, rising population in some areas and falling population in others, resource wars, acts of incredible altruism and community-building, increased consumption, impoverishment and inequality, and a spreading ripple of personal awakenings.

When you step away from that future it looks remarkably similar to today. It will be fascinating to watch it unfold.

[txlibdem]

2. our growth-based economic system will struggle to cope with a contraction of its very lifeblood.

I couldn't disagree more. Before oil there was coal, before coal there was wood, before wood there were twigs, before twigs... you get the idea. As the famous Saudi Prince and one-time oil minister said, the Stone Age did not end due to a lack of stones.

We will invent new technologies -- we already have -- that will take the place of all the dirty, dangerous, destructive fossil fuels that we have allowed ourselves to become addicted to. Of course, in the future we will improve upon our solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power technology, but what we have right now will do the job of 100% replacement for all fossil fuel uses. We will pass along a better world to our children and grandchildren than the one we inherited, a world NOT on the path to total environmental destruction.

[GliderGuider]

7. The only honest response is, "We have no way of knowing how this is going to turn out."

Any answer other than that, from either side of the debate, is based on personal beliefs. We are all assessing the same information, but those trying to drive a techno-political agenda are reaching opposite conclusions. The two poles are broadly characterized by these statements:

"We'll be just fine - we are well positioned technologically to transition away from oil; the transition will happen smoothly when the need is perceived."

and

"We are in deep shit - oil-powered transportation is the backbone of our civilization; any disruption to it is likely to prove fatal since it will be impossible to replace oil's functionality fast enough to keep up with the post-peak decline."

These are both faith-based interpretations of the same data regarding oil supplies, transportation, technology and the our willingness/ability to make radical change. To use a QM analogy, both these outcomes are "eigenstates". Defending one or the other is like making a definitive statement about the health of the cat in the Dr. S's box - until the probability function collapses, it's literally impossible to know. Both events have a probability of happening, but until the coin hits the table we have no way of knowing for sure if it will come up heads or tails.

The best thing to do - as in every contentious area of (science/politics/human nature) - is to keep abreast of the data and take in as broad a range of thinking as we can find about the possible denouements. Clinging to one particular set of beliefs always prevents one from objectively assessing any data or thinking that appears to support the other side. Being unable to stand back from belief leads inevitably to dogmatism, confirmation bias and error.

It's no secret that I have defended the pessimistic position for a number of years. I'm now working to qualify my views in light of the above. It's a process I'd recommend to all those who are manning the barricades on both sides of the debate. To begin that process, the first thing to do is recognize the role that your own psychology is playing in your interpretation of the facts.

Best wishes for open minds.

[kristopher]

10. That's like saying climate deniers' "opinions" are as valid as the rest of the scientific community

They aren't. The claptrap you posted is contradicted in a thousand ways by existing knowledge. Having to constantly go to "The Oil Drum" for your "science" should make you ask "Watt's Up" with the lack of support for such claims in higher level analysis.

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/ReinventingFire

[GliderGuider]

11. Case in point. n/t

[kristopher]

13. You used to claim there were no substitutes...

Now that you can no longer defend that, you shift your stance and start acting like you are just promoting discussion. Why not simply admit that you've been developing cockamamie theories in the vein of climate deniers that won't stand up to even basic informed scrutiny.

http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/ReinventingFire

[GliderGuider]

14. I still don't know if there are realistic substitutes.

A lot depends on the time frame, speed and depth of decline. We might be OK, we might not. There's no way of knowing for sure.

To turn the question back to you, why not admit that you're defending the inevitability of an inherently unknowable outcome, and in the process dismissing any possibility that the Peak Oil theoreticians have legitimate concerns? In other words, what happens if you're wrong?

[kristopher]

15. You're now being disingenuous

"dismissing any possibility that the Peak Oil theoreticians have legitimate concerns"

There are legitimate concerns associated with supply meeting demand for petroleum and they not only deserve attention but they get it. In fact, it is an integral part of predicting the pace of deployment for alternatives. However you have not and are not involved in discussing those issues, what you engage in is doomsaying ala "Mad Max". Since it isn't even very complicated to determine the availability and viability of alternative energy carriers as they fulfill the needs of various applications, the very fact that you say "I still don't know if there are realistic substitutes" shows that your bent is towards harebrained internet conspiracy theories from junk science websites.

The fact is you have the problem completely backwards - far from not having enough petroleum and fossil substitutes, we have much too much. When we start experiencing real shortages we can expect the economic signals to result in far more rapid deployment of the renewable alternatives - thus addressing the real problem, climate change.

PS Now is the usual time for you to start saying that you really reject science and attempt to start down the metaphysical truthiness path, isn't it?

[GliderGuider]

21. The "legitimate concern" I was talking about is this possibility

There is a possibility that the world's aggregated oil supply could decline fast enough that renewables (and the attendant infrastructure change-out) might not be able to plug the energy gap, causing a further destabilization of the global economy.

((Metaphysics is useful for controlling one's own reactivity in the face of unpleasant events, but it doesn't have anything to do with fossil fuels. Of course, there's a well-recognized epistemological problem with reality, be that's not really appropriate for a board like this.))

Again, what if you're wrong, and renewables don't, for either technical, logistical or political reasons, pick up the slack?