January 4, 2010 | The Oil DrumPosted by Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 10:27am
Dr. Dennis Meadows is one of the authors of the well-known 1972 book "Limits to Growth," plus two updates of the book. He has received a number of awards for his work, most recently the prestigious Japan Prize from the Science and Technology Foundation of Japan.
Dr. Meadows recently gave a talk for the Population Institute. Both the presentation and a podcast of Dr. Meadows giving his talk can be downloaded from the Population Institute site. In this post, I summarize what I understand Dr. Meadows to be saying in that talk. Readers with time are encouraged to listen to the Podcast and look at the presentation themselves. Dr. Meadows did not cover all of his slides in his talk. This post relates only to those that he did cover.
The number one take-away for me from this talk is The end of growth does not come from depletion, but from rising capital costs. In some ways, this is intuitive. When you put this statement together with the work I have been doing that shows that debt cannot continue rising in the face of peak oil, it makes this issue even more important.
A second major take-away for me (besides the importance of population in the equation) is Changes in technology may delay the end of growth by a few years, but they do not avoid it, and do not avoid the decline. A third observation I found interesting is that the biggest stresses are likely to occur at the time when growth ceases--that is now--not, as is popularly believed, as the result of the decline itself.
What follows is my summary of the presentation. The more technical parts are fairly close to a transcript. For precisely what was said, I recommend the recording itself, free from i-tunes. The application runs on MacIntosh machines. I am not certain about Windows.
Slide 1 The reason I [Dr. Meadows] am giving this talk is because I think that there is the possibility of positive change.
Much of the way that we conduct ourselves is based on habit. For example, we get into the habit of crossing our arms with our right hand (or left hand) on top. It is not that putting the right hand or left hand on top is better or worse. We have just developed a habit of crossing our arms in a particular way.
If we are going to solve the population problem, we need to learn new habits. I am hopeful that like learning to cross our arms in a different way, we can inspire people to learn new habits that will limit population growth--something that is needed with finite resources.
My [Dr. Meadows'] views regarding what is sustainable are different now than they were 40 years ago. At that time, I worked with others at Massachusetts Institute of Technology to build a simple computer model that might offer some insight into the impact of limits to growth. We did not expect the model to be predictive--only that the scenarios might provide a rough boundaries regarding what might happen in the future.
In our reference scenario in 1972, we expected growth to continue for 40 to 80 more years. The major difference I see in looking at the situation now is that things seem to be developing more rapidly than we expected then.
Slide 2 Let's start by looking at our reference scenario. The red line shows where we were when the model was first developed. I have blocked out the fourth quadrant of the chart, because the world situation is likely to be so different from the situation we modeled that the model is likely to be totally irrelevant. The area shaded in light blue represents the time period that might possibility be changed by the policies we implement today.
Slide 3 In 1972, we expected another 40 to 80 years of growth in the various scenarios. While some of the scenarios we looked at ended in orderly decline, most of the scenarios we modeled ended in collapse. This likely outcome was later confirmed by William Catton in his book Overshoot.
You will note I say that technology may delay the end of growth a few years, but it does not avoid the end of growth or the decline. I have worked in science and technology, and I have a scientific degree, so I am not saying this because I am unaware of what technology can do. When we put together models using phenomenally optimistic assumptions, it just moved the decline date back a few years.
Social changes are essential for a better outcome. Take population for example. There are two ways population can decreased:
1. The birth rate can go down, or
2. The death rate can go up.A key factor to understand is that what are normally considered problems today--for example, climate change, energy shortages, and erosion, aren't really problems. Instead, they are symptoms of attempted infinite growth in a finite world.
In some ways, the situation is like if you have a friend who has cancer, and because of the cancer he has a headache. It is not nice to have a headache, so you give your friend pain relievers, but you don't imagine you have cured the problem. The problem is cancer, and until you deal with the problem, there will be one or another manifestation, such as a head ache.
We talk a lot about climate change today. I predict that in three or four years, we won't be talking about climate change. We will be talking about energy scarcity or food shortages or declining water supplies. This will occur not because we have dealt with climate, but because it is one of a large family of pressures which are going to mount until finally physical growth stops.
Slide 4 [I do not believe that Dr. Meadows spoke directly about this slide, but I thought it was important for completeness.]
Slide 5 World population has been rising rapidly, and in our models, continues to rise.
Slide 7 World metal use is also rapidly increasing.
Slide 9 We have now reached overshoot. According to Wackernagel's analysis, we passed global capacity in 1980, eight years after our book was published. We are now about 40% above carrying capacity, according to his analysis.
In the early days, we had only models to tell us we were beyond carrying capacity. Now, we can look at the newspapers and get confirmation of the fact.
Slide 10 Kevin Noone published this image in Nature showing various areas where overshoot may manifest itself. Except for ozone, we are not making much progress in keeping physical stresses in limits. Some sectors appear not to have problems, but that is only because we do not have the situations quantified.
Slide 11 It was astonishing to me in 1972 that people could start from the assumption that there are no limits. It has been even more amazing to see the evolution to this thinking. Initially, the assumption was that people were just uninformed. The assumption was that if we can manage to give them the facts, they will change their opinion, and fall into line. Nothing I have seen in 40 years gives me support for that opinion. If you marshall enough facts to disprove an objection, then the critics will just find another objection. There are an infinite number of objections, so you are never going to come to the end of the process.
The above slide shows the sequence of objections. Now that it is clear that markets will not fix the situation, the belief is that technology will be the solution. Technology doesn't deal well with limits either. There are thermodynamic proofs of this.
Let me discuss some key assumptions in our model. William Catton mentions that there are three different ways we use space--one for extraction; one for activity; and one for basically dumping stuff. The first and third of these have costs associated with them.
Slide 12 This is a generic curve, but I could show you empirically based versions of this curve for particular reserves. When you have 100% of a given resource, you can start to use it up, and you don't perceive any particular cost increase. It is only when you get past maybe 50%, 60% depletion that you start to see a radical rises in cost of extraction. We don't have time here, but I could explain why it behaves that way, and the reasons are not ones that can be changed by technology. Technology can shift the curve a little bit, but it can't alter the fact that well before you get to zero resource, the cost will become infinite.
Slide 13 - (Above slide has been revised from that used in the original presentation, at the request of Dr. Meadows.) And there is an analogous curve for dumps, where we try to put stuff. As the fraction of the sink is slowly occupied to a greater and greater extent, the cost of dealing with the consequences of production goes up rapidly.
Slide 14 Here is one particular example of the effect of these curves. It is the declining return on investment of energy. We built this country with energy that gave 70:1 to 100:1 energy payback. With domestic resources, we are now down to 10:1, 15:1 or 20:1 energy paybacks. You can see the trends are moving in a way which mean that well before the middle of the century, we will be dealing with energy resources that hardly break even. What you can do with 100:1 payback is enormously different than what you can do with a system that is generating only 2:1 or 3:1 payback. It is just that in the case of fossil fuels, we have used up many of the resources.
In our book, we describe the consequences of declining energy return. I won't get into great detail here, except to point out a couple of important features of our model.
Slide 15 Industrial growth occurs because of the positive feedback loop that occurs, depicted on the above chart. More capital gives you more output; more output permits more investment; and more investment lets you build up your capital stock. As long as investment exceeds depreciation, you have growth--exponential growth, and rapid rates of increase. Depending on how equitable society is, people, at least some people, get richer.
However, as we start to draw down our resources and fill up our sinks, more and more of the capital has to be drawn off to provide for the other needs. Eventually, you get to the point where you can't sustain production around the industrial capital loop sufficiently to sustain growth.
In our world model, it is the failure of model to produce enough output for capital reinvestment that tips you over into decline. We are moving now into that period.
Slide 16 Some people now looking at our curves would imagine that the periods of greatest stress would be after the peak--once the declines have set in. I don't think that is true. Right now, around the globe, we (that is corporate, political, and religious leaders) are working as hard as we can to sustain growth. For growth to stop, negative pressure have to mount until they are strong enough to offset our positive pressures. That's the period that we are in now. So I anticipate the big stresses are the ones we are going to encounter over the next couple of decades.
Slide 17 Let me give one very quick example in the two minutes that remain. Take CO2 concentration. Here again, we published this in 1972. You can see the red line and notice how quickly things accelerated after our book came out. No causal relationship there, but, on the other hand, it is pretty clear that no one paid any attention either. [Note by Gail: I wonder if the shift to debt based financing in this period helped "goose" growth.]
Why is it doing this? Everyone in the world wants greenhouse gasses to go down, but, by and large, they keep going up. Not only in the United States, which didn't sign the Kyoto Accord, but in all of the countries that did sign the Kyoto Accord.
Slide 18 Well, here we see the crucial role of population. The chart shows CO2 emissions as a function of four factors:
1. Number of people.
2. Number of units of capital per person, which is a surrogate for living standards.
3. The amount of energy required to build and operate that capital.
4. The fraction of that energy that comes from non-fossil sources.So far, our concern about climate change had manifested itself through efforts to improve efficiency and to implement alternative energy sources--the so-called technology options. I will just close by pointing out that as long as we ignore demographic and cultural issues, the growth in the first two factors will continue to offset all of the improvement we make in factors 3 and 4. And so until we can understand how to begin reducing the growth in the first two factors, climate change is a foregone conclusion.
[Dr. Meadows finished with a little clapping game to show that actions speak louder than words with respect to reducing population growth. He did not finish all of his slides--which is why I have omitted some.]
[Postscript by Gail. Dr. Meadows clearly sees capital somewhat differently than I have been looking at it. His model does not seem to incorporate debt. To me, it seems like debt allows resource developers effectively to obtain capital temporarily for nothing, by promising some of the future output of the positive feedback loop shown in Slide 15, including interest, back to lenders. When returns start slipping (because of the two forces Dr. Meadows mentions--higher resource extraction costs and higher costs of handling pollution sinks)--there is not enough money to pay back money lenders, and the system starts unraveling quickly, as we have recently been witnessing.
I think that inequity in the sharing of the outputs of the resource loop shown in Slide 15 is helping the system to continue to provide the level of capital investment that is now being provided. If the outputs were being shared equally, we would find that workers would be benefiting proportionately with bankers, and rich countries would be benefiting proportionately with poor countries. Our children would have an equal chance at getting high-paying jobs that we who are parents of young adults have had. This inequity in sharing seems to me to play a big part in what funds for re-investment remain.
The recent emphasis on renewables is in the direction of causing even higher capital needs. To the extent that this takes needed capital away from unglamorous parts of the system that are necessary for the system to survive, it could lead the system to fail earlier than it otherwise would.]
184 comments on Dennis Meadows - Economics and Limits to Growth: What's Sustainable?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ShareThis| Show without comments | PDF version
noutram on January 4, 2010 - 10:54am
"What you can do with 100:1 payback is enormously different than what you can do with a system that is generating only 2:1 or 3:1 payback"
-I agree with this statement but wonder whether a system that is much more efficient with the extracted energy might be able to overcome the lowering EROI "upto a point"...
Somewhat extreme example to illustrate:
consider two identical Lumen output bulbs: a 100Watt Incandescent that was 2% efficient vs a 4Watt LED that was 50% efficient. The first bulb at 101:1 payback [100 useable 'units' of energy] and the 2nd bulb at 5:1 payback [4 useable 'units' of energy]] would generate the same useful amount of light...
I think this is where someone chips in with "Jevons Paradox" but you get my drift.
Nick.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.jeppen on January 4, 2010 - 11:41am
I agree - there's a lot of efficiency gains to be had, and they will come automatically in reaction to price increases. (Copenhagen should have decided to disallow subsidised gas first of all - then negotiated a really small global carbon tax. Then we would have been on the right track. The current nonsense about carbon targets is not helpful.)Also, we might have had 100:1 at the well-head at some point, but then there is transportation and refinement. All included, I'm not sure EROEI of oil has changed all that much.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Grautr on January 4, 2010 - 3:55pm
I would think EROEI has changed a great deal considering that we first began to extract it on land and now all the big finds are at sea. The difference in infrastructure costs must be enormous.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
speedy on January 4, 2010 - 11:04am
I worked with others at Massachusetts Institute of Technology to build a simple computer model that might offer some offer some insight into the impact of limits to growth.
Typo with the words "offer some" being repeated.
Thanks for the excellent post. It is very interesting to hear what someone who wrote TLTG thinks about the situation now.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 11:54am
Thanks. I fixed it. I will never make a good secretary.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jjhman on January 4, 2010 - 9:11pm
Are there any secretaries left?There's an example of modern improvements in "efficiency". We now have engineers, scientists and other high paid functionaries typing their own memos, scheduling their own meetings and making their own photocopies. Result: crappy writing, missed meetings, copiers without toner half the time, and unemployed people who can do those jobs better than engineers.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Jim MacInnes on January 4, 2010 - 11:06am
Are there ecological limits to economic growth? Or can GDP continue to grow? featuring Professor William Rees, UBC School of Community and Regional Planning; director, UBC Centre for Human Settlements and Professor Mark Jaccard, SFU School of Resource and Environmental Management.
In 1972, the Limits to Growth report called the world’s attention to constraints on growing human economy on a finite planet. Today, most claim that economic growth is a prerequisite to raise all income levels, create jobs and make environmental protection affordable. Others argue that activities required for sustained economic growth use non-renewable resources and deplete natural capital, while increasing income disparity. Who is correct? What does this mean for traditional measures of “progress” like the GDP? This debate will look at whether there are limits to economic growth, ecological or otherwise.
This is a very interesting podcast on this topic.
http://www.cstudies.ubc.ca/podcasts/index.html
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 11:58am
Thanks! I look forward to listening to this.I am increasingly being asked to participate in symposiums on the topic of the impact of peak oil on the economy, and need to know who else is involved in the analysis. Also, I would like to see what perspective they are taking, because looking at other perspectives can help fine tune mine.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Jim MacInnes on January 4, 2010 - 1:23pm
I think you will find this debate very interesting. You might also enjoy some of the other listed sustainability podcasts from UBC. UBC's Professor Reese offers one of the clearest explainations I have heard regarding the ecological economics point of view on "growth." The other speaker offers a perspective that we can continue to grow as long as we reduce our throughput of energy and materials (E&M) per pop. While this may work for a while, I don't believe it is sustainable.Am about half way through The Ecotechnic Future which I learned about from your recent post on books. Greer is a very good and clear writer. He offers some of the same comments as above regarding the importance of reducing E&M throughput.
Interesting but unknown times ahead. thanks for your work at TOD.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Peter Salonius on January 6, 2010 - 6:48am
Dr. Meadows puts up Slide 9 as he agrees with/quotes Wackernagel's thesis that we reached overshoot about 1980.UBC's William Rees (who worked with Wackernagel on the Ecological Footprint Analysis) admitted to me in writing that overshoot "probably" occurred much earlier than 30 years ago, when I suggested that we got onto the slippery slope to unsustainability at those moments we allowed ourselves to become dependent upon:
NON REREWABLE fossil fuel, NON RENEWABLE fossil water, and the increased food production that was made possible by cultivation agriculture that mined soil mass (erosion) and plant nutrients (leaching) at higher rates than natural processes could renew them.The increased food production based on NON RENEWABLE soil mining began when we first employed bare-ground tillage about 10,000 years ago, and it is this destruction of soil productive capacity that has facilitated exponential population growth and overshoot; see my essay entitled:
‘LONG TERM AGRICULTURAL OVERSHOOT”
Reposted December 28, 2009 at:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6048 ------
------ including the comments and discussion that appear UNDER the essay; some of these flesh out aspects of my thinking that have become better developed since the original essay was posted on THEOILDRUM in October, 2008.
The essay is the culmination of my ~ 40 year investigation into the relationship between humans and their supporting ecosystems. If my thesis is correct -- then the 'population bomb', that continues to make natural resource and economic management problematic, exploded a long, long time ago.
My 'guesstimate' for sustainable human numbers in the 100s of millions, if correct, suggests that the present global population has so far overshot the carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystems that most analyses of the relationship of excessive human numbers to SPECIFIC ASPECTS of environmental damage and economic dislocation are simply indulgent academic exercises.
There are more people on the planet (and have been for millennia) than it can sustainably support.
Many of us have concluded that even TWO CHILD FAMILIES -- that would only slowly stabilize the human population -- are not an adequate response to this problem; we require the VOLUNTARY adoption of NO or ONE CHILD PER FAMILY behavior to orchestrate the Rapid Population DECLINE that is necessary now.
Peter Salonius
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Jim MacInnes on January 6, 2010 - 10:01am
yes, we have been borrowing from the ecological "bank" for a long long time and will eventually be required to pay it all back. Nature will not forgive these resource loans (consumption) as
governments and traditional banks forgive debt. You make a good case for long time overshoot.I would be interested in Smil's thoughts on your analysis. He has some interesting writings about the earth's biosphere and food producrtion. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/select_books.html
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Have you discussed it with him?Peter Salonius on January 6, 2010 - 2:11pm
Feel free to send my OILDRUM essay to Smil. I do not think that I have sent him any of my writing recently.Smil has been concentrating during the last few years on the decline of fossil fuels and the resulting expected collapse of global food supplies -- while the soil depletion and ecological overshoot that I write about began long before we became dependent on fossil fuels.
Our access to fossil fuels has simply delayed the Malthusian consequences of our open-ended expansionism and made the extent of our overshoot at least ten times larger than it would have been without the 200 + year non renewable geological (fossil and nuclear) energy subsidy.
Peter Salonius
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Jim MacInnes on January 6, 2010 - 6:59pm
I will leave that up to you as I have already queried Vaclav enough over the past six months or so. It could be well worth your while, especially given all of the research he has done studying the earth's biosphere. He may have some insights that could be helpful in your work. He is usually fairly easy to reach through his web site and does not travel much in the winter. He is a real multidisciplinarian and it is always interesting to get his perspective on things.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 11:07am
I think the first step in acheiving any level of sustainability (what works) is to eliminate the things that don't work (as a society). If we can't eliminate waste, we are just injecting more complexity and waste into an already overly complex/wasteful system. While subsidies and bailouts work well for a few, it is unsustainable for the collective. In my case, keeping things simple has been an efficiency boom, so KISS.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 12:16pm
Those sound like good points.The huge amount spent on airport security today seems to me to be pretty close to waste. Expanding airport security seems to me to be craziness. I am sure others can come up with better examples of waste.
Regarding subsidies, feed in tariffs for wind are a form of subsidy. If wind costs more than alternative electrical sources, they are likely an inducement to trade a relatively high net energy source of electricity for a lower net energy product--thus move us farther down the EROI curve. (Coal is probably our highest EROI source of energy.) We can't print money forever, so feed in tariffs are not something that is very scalable, unless living standards decline. If we decide this is a step we need to take, we need to understand the indirect impacts as well as the hoped for positive benefits.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 12:25pm
It's the little things that add up and kill us. Our local law enforcement and State Troopers began driving big SUVs (FSPs) this year. I asked a friend on the force why they purchased these huge, inefficient vehicles. He said that they needed them because the roads in some areas have gotten so bad and that they got some kind of grant to buy them. This in a year that property taxes have skyrocketed.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jjhman on January 4, 2010 - 9:26pm
A couple of years ago I heard the same kind of excuse from the local fire chief who "really needed" a Chevy Tahoe SUV. After some negotiating it turned out that the big need was to have as macho a truck as the other chiefs when he went to meetings. The city council was really good. He ended up with an hybrid Explorer.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 9:57pm
Poor guy. Ours have Expeditions and new Chargers. I wonder what the EROI is on those. This kind of policy is hard to get changed. Kind of like criticizing the war.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
shrimppop on January 4, 2010 - 1:10pm
Hi Gail,What you call craziness, Orlov calls a boondoggle and we should encourage them wherever possible.
My town, here in New York State, recently elected a slate of Republicans to the town board on a "lower taxes" platform. As you may know, NYS has some of the highest property taxes in the country and people here in the western part, at least, complain about them in every third sentence.
Of course, the good fiscal conservatives in my town who elected these folks, went out barely a month later and approved a bond measure for the schools, including a tax levy if needed, to the tune of $30M, and that's just Phase I. The next day (this is true) Gov. Patterson said he was cutting or delaying payments to schools to try and stem the massive billion dollar deficits at the state level.
Who believes the state will fund the $30M? Yet groundbreaking goes on in 2010, come hell or high water. This last gasp money grab is going on in every school district in NY, I'm guessing. I don't know how other states work (or don't). Much as I want my kids to have world-class education in middle school, the district serves a grand total of 1500 children, so we're talking $20K per kid over 15 years, on top of already top taxes.
What did the new board have to say about it? Crickets.
I have some other proposals that I think could equal or surpass this type of GDP-inflating investment.
I read last week that Minnesota / North Dakota have too much water as evidenced by flooding in Fargo, so they're building diversion canals around Fargo. Meanwhile, poor multimillion $ farmers in the San Joaquin valley are short of water, so much so that the desert is becoming a desert again. Why not divert the Fargo water to Bakersfield and Fresno? Pumping it over the Rockies is sure to create jobs. Maybe the worlds biggest, loudest ram pump...
Las Vegas should be expanded and so should Phoenix, Tuscon and Reno.
We could eradicate all the pine bark beetles and emerald ash borers by rapidly harvesting all that wood. Just a few ideas. ;-)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.shrimppop on January 4, 2010 - 2:35pm
On a more serious note, we ought to define some terms around "sustainability."Permaculture offers the following categorization of resource use:
Rules for resource use: Ranked from regenerative to degenerative, different resources can:
1. increase with use
2. be lost when not used
3. be unaffected by use
4. be lost by use
5. pollute or degrade systems with use.An example of the first is knowledge. The final one is the killer- resource use that pollutes or degrades other resources. One example is the profound degradation of forest, river and human ecosystems by topping mountains to obtain coal, as well as the other downstream degradation of the air, downwind lake and soil pH, and atmosphere in the burning of coal.
These total costs are externalized out of our electricity bills, so we don't pay the real price. Also, the multiple service values displaced by the destruction of each of the many degraded resources (natural capital) are not accounted for. Therefore, markets don't correctly allocate the resource to its best use.
Additionally, sustainability is based on the ethic of "enough" and the constraint on all resource use, that as a condition of its use, a resource be replaced with a resource of equal or greater quality. This replacement can be over time (like paying off debt or cash flow analysis) so that use of earth moving equipment, non-renewable resources, etc. can in some way "pay for themselves" if they are seen as investment in a sustainability-positive system.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Jason Bradford on January 4, 2010 - 2:45pm
This is a nice list and would make a good Campfire type article. Feel free to put something together. Ca. 500 words with a graph and reference is all that may be required. Draw out each with an example.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
shrimppop on January 4, 2010 - 3:22pm
Hi Jason,Will do. I need to revisit this anyway as we are teaching a new PDC starting in February.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.JWS on January 4, 2010 - 11:30am
It was the original publication of TLTG that made me aware of the issues, and a believer.I suggest that peak stress will correlate more with peak die-off.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 12:22pm
I think there may be some truth to what you are saying about stress.Someone who works with retirement homes told me that the death rate among residents jumped when the values of their stock portfolios started declining dramatically last year.
Quite a while ago, my mother told me that my grandmother died ( in her 90s) shortly after she found she had run through her savings, and would have to move to a double room in her retirement community, to live within the amount Medicaid /Social Security would provide.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.john milton on January 4, 2010 - 5:37pm
I think there may be some truth to what you are saying about stress.
Someone who works with retirement homes told me that the death rate among residents jumped when the values of their stock portfolios started declining dramatically last year.Did they jump or were they pushed? :(
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Robin15733 on January 4, 2010 - 8:33pm
You have a great memory! Stress, statistically, results in some 75% of all illness and disease. In a recent investor Board meeting, the investors were so agitated I had to remind them they were lucky not to be 80+ years of age, or they'd die from their stress.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
KODE on January 4, 2010 - 11:37am
Thanks Gail, very interesting!Concerning slide 10: It originates with this paper, Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity (Rockström & al. / Ecology and Society). A Kevin Noone is mentioned in the list of authors.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 12:50pm
Thanks! I will fix it.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
farmerscott on January 4, 2010 - 11:41am
nice posting, the last comment got me thinking:The recent emphasis on renewables is in the direction of causing even higher capital needs. To the extent that this takes needed capital away from unglamorous parts of the system that are necessary for the system to survive, it could lead the system to fail earlier than it otherwise would.]
Maybe some people are a whole lot smarter than I give them credit for. What if even some of those who advocate high capital, low EROI renewables are really intrested in causing the sytem to fail quicker (and less painfully)? Just a crazy idea. As a farmer I'd make a pretty good ethanol advocate and no one would have to know how I really feel.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.farmerscott on January 4, 2010 - 11:43am
sorry, i guess i don't know how to use block quotesComments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 1:02pm
I fixed it for you. The trick is to use blockquote, enclosed in < > arrows at the beginning only. At the end, you want to use /blockquote, again enclosed in < > arrows.The same approach is used for a lot of things. For bold, you use b enclosed in < > arrows at the beginning, and /b in < > at the end. Italics uses i and /i, again, in < > arrows.
If you want to check whether what you did works, push the preview button.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Darwinian on January 4, 2010 - 1:21pm
sorry, i guess i don't know how to use block quotes
Farmer, it is so simple. You got the opening blockquote right but you failed to close it. Put a / before the closing blockquote. Chevron, /blockquote, close chevron. If you fail to put the slash bevore the closing blockquote, it just openes another blockquote, which is what happened in your case.
And don't forget you can test it by using the "preview" button instead of the "save" button. If it is correct then you can hit save. If not, then correct it, preview it again, and again until you get it right, then hit save.
Ron P.
Edit: Sorry Gail, I posted this before I saw your post.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.barrett on January 4, 2010 - 3:29pm
Like this,<blockquote>
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sorry, i guess i don't know how to use block quotes
</blockquote>ThatsItImout on January 4, 2010 - 4:06pm
Please think about what is being said, that renewables (with a historic trend of rising EROEI that rises the longer it is used) will SPEED collapse when compared to non-renewable fossil fuels (with a historic pattern of declining EROEI that gets worse the longer the technology used) and of course all this true if you completely externalize the carbon factor (which now seems to be the way everyone who is linked does the calculations, by their own admission.Make no mistake, we are seeing an intelluctual attack on renewable energy that is so dishonest it barely deserves being read at all, but we must read it to understand the sheer nerve and the sheer duplicity being used and reply to it.
RC
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 5:59pm
You need to understand that there are three alternatives:1. Fossil fuels (and uranium extraction and plants which use a lot of fossil fuels)
2. So called renewables - wind, solar PV, ethanol
3. Biomass used within the limits that nature intended; human energy; animal energy
The only one that seems to "work" is biomass used within the limits that nature intended. Unfortunately, getting biomass for to support 6.8 billion people for food, transportation, and heating is not feasible. Back in the 1800s, there was a severe problem with deforestation, when we were trying to support a much smaller population.
The so called renewables are called renewables by marketers and by politicians, but in no real sense of the word are they renewable with the resources available. They have high front end capital costs. In the case of ethanol, they use a lot of resources (fertilizer, water, soil degradation.) We could never make wind turbines using only the output of wind turbines, or solar panels with the output of solar panels. I think the only energy source that can be truly be considered renewable is the third category above.
One cannot go from the belief that "fossil fuels are bad" to the conclusion "the so-called renewables are good". I am sure Dennis Meadows would agree that my category three renewables are fine.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.JN2 on January 4, 2010 - 7:43pm
We could never make wind turbines using only the output of wind turbines, or solar panels with the output of solar panels.I'm confused. Where do you get this idea from Gail? I've read that wind turbines generate the energy required to manufacture them in 6 - 12 months. And that solar panel payback can be in 3 years or less (in sunny locations). Sure, they can be more expensive that fossil fuels whose externalities are not costed in, but that doesn't make renewables incapable of profitable self-replication.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.BlueTwilight on January 4, 2010 - 10:13pm
More than energy is required to manufacture a PV panel. When a PV panel breaks, are all of its components and no others used to make a new PV panel? Manufacturing and operating a crystalline PV panel requires silicon, aluminum, glass, plastic, copper, acid and more. How many PV panels could humans manufacture before depleting a critical resource?Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 10:59pm
People tend to focus on PV when considering solar, but solar thermal systems have a lot to offer, especially in large scale applications. I'm partial to PV 'cause I think it's sexy technology. Once in production, there is no simpler, low maintenance way to produce electricity and I feel that in distributed and stand alone applications it will play an important role. For large scale conversion of solar energy to electricity I like the concentrating solar thermal systems.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Solar_Power
Comments can no longer be added to this story.jaggedben on January 5, 2010 - 1:12am
When a PV panel breaks, are all of its components and no others used to make a new PV panel?
No reason it couldn't be that way for all practical purposes. It's just a matter of having an efficient recycling program.
How many PV panels could humans manufacture before depleting a critical resource?
Can't say for sure, but the rarest element necessary in any quantity is boron. Current annual production of boron is 1 million tons according to Wikipedia. Silicon production (not availability) is more a limiting factor at just under 4 million tons. Since a panel weighs 50 pounds and is mostly silicon, roughly 160 million panels could be produced anually with present production. I'd say the minerals are probably there to manufacturer a few billion panels over the next few decades, if the energy to do so were available.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Engineer-Poet on January 5, 2010 - 10:43pm
Current panels are mostly glass, not elemental silicon, so your limits are the availability of sufficiently pure silicon dioxide. (Don't grasses incorporate lots of silica?) If you assume Evergreen Solar cells at 200 μm thickness and a density of 2.33, 4 million tons of elemental Si could produce 8.6 billion m² per year, or 1.46 TW at 17% and 1000 W/m² incident radiation.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BlueTwilight on January 6, 2010 - 4:01am
The refined silicon also has to be used to make integrated circuits. The PV industry is expanding the production of photovoltaic grade silicon which may create an oversupply of refined silicon this year.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 5, 2010 - 1:41am
There is always some loss with recycling. In addition, one needs a recycling plant, a factory, and transportation of the panel back and forth. One probably also needs workers for the plant, and they need homes and cars. So there is a fair amount of materials of some kind that have to go into the operation.You may have read the article in today's Drumbeat Shell accused of abandoning solar power buyers in the developing world
One other thing you need is a company that is making enough money from the process, to train workers and keep the plant open for replacements, when you need them. Otherwise you have the dumping situation we already seem to be running into with Shell.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.anyone on January 5, 2010 - 9:27am
How many PV panels could humans manufacture before depleting a critical resource?Definitely more than what the world needs.
Thinfilm PV modules mostly need window glass, which there is no shortage of, as window glass consist of the two most common elements in the earth crust. The silicon layer which produces electricity has a thickness of 0.002 mm and is negligible compared to the silicon needed for silicone production in other industries.
The world spends over $2000 billion just on crude oil every year.
If during the next 10 years only 5% of this money would be spent on photovoltaic thinfilm factories instead, the world will produce 533 GW (the power of over 533 coal power plants) of PV-modules every single year.
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_press_releases_d...Photovoltaic thinfilm modules have a pay back time which can currently be low as 1 year (and keeps declining) and these PV modules last over 30 years:
http://www.bo.cnr.it/www-sciresp/OLD/GdL/Energia-Crisi_Globali/Materiali...The built area of the US is 120,000 km2. If 10% of that area is covered with PV modules with an efficiency of only 10% that is already 1200 GWp. And if 10% of that area is covered with solar hot water collectors that is more than 9600 GWp(th).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.BlueTwilight on January 6, 2010 - 4:02am
Before one can cover all the roofs in America with PV panels, industrial civilization must manufacture 12,000 km2 of semiconductors using your numbers. Since a significant fraction of these roofs are facing the wrong direction or are partially shaded, assuming 115 million buildings, I think an average usable roof area of 100 m2 is a bit high.Some of the thin-film PV cells use the relatively rare elements Indium, Gallium and Tellurium which may cause difficulty manufacturing them in the Terawatt range.
Although presented from the perspective of hazards, Key Chemical and Physical Hazards in PV R&D/Manufacturing contains a list of various chemicals used to manufacture PV panels which include:
silane
phosphine
hydrazine
ammonia
arsine
arsenic
cadmium
copper
indium
gallium
selenium
cadmium telluride
cadmium selenide
hydrochloric acid
hydrofluoric acid
phosphoric acid
sodium hydroxideWith China moving rapidly to secure the market for PV panels combined with their reputation for environmental abandon, one must not forget that pollution can be as deadly as resource depletion.
As for Oerlikon Solar the economic carnage caused by peak oil and a reckless financial system may overwhelm the desire for exponential expansion as Oerlikon Solar Lays Off 60, Shortens Work Hours, April 24, 2009:
Sales for the first quarter of 2009 fell by 32.5% to 51 million Swiss francs ($44.87M). This, however, is one of the stronger performing market sectors for the Oerlikon Group, which saw sales down 42% overall for the quarter. Nonetheless, Oerlikon Solar did not win any significant new orders in the first quarter, so is working on its existing backlog only.
Not to be deterred by pesky critters like a global credit crisis, they press ahead: Oerlikon Solar Presents Record Cell Efficiency confirmed by NREL Sept. 22, 2009. Getting the fresh-off-the-assembly-line efficiency of thin-film amorphous silicon panels above 10% is impressive. I was not able to find a confirmed source, but I think the efficiency after it has been exposed to sunlight for a few months will be around 8%.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.anyone on January 6, 2010 - 5:34am
I think an average usable roof area of 100 m2 is a bit high.You can also use facades, parking lots, bridges, road-walls, wind farms, closed landfills, closed surface mining areas, closed military airfields, nuclear testing sites, abandoned industrial parks, hydro power lakes etc.
There's no shortage of area.Indium, Gallium and Tellurium
These elements are not used on thinfilm silicon cells.
As for Oerlikon Solar the economic carnage caused by peak oil and a reckless financial system may overwhelm the desire for exponential expansion as Oerlikon Solar Lays Off 60, Shortens Work Hours, April 24, 2009:
True: While the banks got saved by tax payer and still receive cheap credit from the national banks, the same banks actually increased the interested rates on Oerlikon.
Besides, while thinfilm PV factories have much lower energy and labor costs, they do have higher capital costs (costly equipment) and while banks receive cheap credit from the government (to gamble with oil futures and tax payer funded government bonds) the industry does not. And since banks are still not interested in giving out credit to the real economy, capital intensive thinfilm PV factories won't be built.Oerlikon Solar Presents Record Cell Efficiency confirmed by NREL Sept. 22, 2009. Getting the fresh-off-the-assembly-line efficiency of thin-film amorphous silicon panels above 10% is impressive. I was not able to find a confirmed source, but I think the efficiency after it has been exposed to sunlight for a few months will be around 8%.
This is just the amorphous silicon layer. They are using a tandem structure (Micromorph) with micro-crystalline silicon in addition to amorphous silicon in the production and their stabilized cell efficiency has already reached close to 10%:
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
http://www.inventux.com/pics/products/inventux_datasheet_mc-si_en_v0008.pdfBlueTwilight on January 7, 2010 - 6:30pm
Thanks for the link to the data sheet as I looked for one unsuccessfully. Inventux does not appear to list a retail price for their PV panels, and the best I could find was Thin-Film Technology Is About To Make Its Breakthrough (US Glass Magazine, Aug. 4, 2009) listing a manufacturing cost of $1.42 / (rated watt), about half of crystalline PV. I do not think the current retail price is half because the manufacturers need to pay off their investments.Edit: Here is a 130 W Micromorph PV with a regular price of $650.00 and a sale price of $228.80 although it is not available until May 2010. The regular price is $5.00 / (rated watt) and the sale price is $1.76 / (rated watt).
According to Inventux – The Technology their thin-film PV panels use a TCO (Transparent Conductive Oxide) layer. If the TCO is zinc oxide, there will eventually be a problem with the supply of zinc because it is not super abundant and massive amounts are being used to galvanize steel.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Progress in Amorphous and "Micromorph" Silicon Solar Cells, J. Meier, U. Kroll, J. Spitznagel, S. Fay, C. Bucher, U. Graf, A. Shah; October 2002, (PDF warning)daxr on January 5, 2010 - 12:21am
I don't know that anyone smelts steel using electricity, or burns limestone for cement using electricity. I'm sure there would be a way, but as energy intensive as it already is, it wouldn't be an easier process.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
paleobotanist on January 5, 2010 - 12:34am
May I mention electric arc furnaces?Comments can no longer be added to this story.
daxr on January 5, 2010 - 1:31am
dang...senior moment on my part.And they are well suited for using scrap. Now wondering what the bulk energy inputs would be for a given wind project...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.oldfarmermac on January 5, 2010 - 7:19am
I am not expert in these fields but as I understand the terminology making steel is a far different thing fron reprocessing scrap steel which basically involves melting it down and rolling it out into useful shapes a second time.Electric arc furnaces are indeed efficient and profitable when used to reprocess scrap steel.A large part of the efficiency results from savings in transportation and a smaller investment in the plant required-the scrap doesn't have to be hauled as far, and the finished product is usually sold mostly in local markets.Electric arc furnace steel mills are often located far from any traditional steel mills.Refining iron ore involves reducing the oxidized ore to elemental iron and is requires a lot more energy and sfaik is only done on a large scale with coke as the energy source, wich is made from coal.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 10:21am
One important thing to consider with wind and solar is that these technologies are modular. This means:They can be mass produced (assembly line)
They are redundant (failure of one doesn't bring the system down)
They are portable (they can be moved where needed)
They can be distributed (requiring less intense infrastucture)
Wind generators can be replaced and repaired on site quickly:
Last spring I got to watch a swap-out of a unit in PA. They had the new/refurb unit on site. The foreman said that the new unit would be on-line in about 8 hours. This was an upgrade program. While one unit was being replaced the other units were spinning away.They can be standardized. The bulk of most other systems is custom, sight-built, requiring long lead times to construct.
And.... they never run out of fuel! The intermittancy problems are solvable.
The technology is mature, here now, despite what some people want you to believe. If you use grid power, you are already using wind and solar.
In our war on declining energy, would you rather have one Goliath or a thousand Davids?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.ThatsItImout on January 4, 2010 - 11:31pm
Gail,First, I wouldn't consider any of th alcohol fuels with the possible semi-exception of bio-butane to be a renewable. They require a constant imput crop, which requires (at this time) a constant imput of natural gas based fertilizer, not to mention topsoil and water issues. I view alcohol as essentially a gas to liquids program, using crops (mostly corn) as the method to drive the cycle. The only reason I give bio-butanol some leeway is because it could use biomass in a uniquie way, but the transition so far isn't as efficient as need be (you have to distill off huge amounts of water. This could be driven by solar, but then the program becomes something of a solar to liquids program, and that could possibly be better done with methanol, using hydrogen and re-combining it with carbon.
Now let us turn to renewables wind and solar, which because they require imputs of raw materials have been downgraded in your calculation to a class called "so-called renewables". The issue here seems to be one of nomenclature. There can be no energy supply that I can conceptualize that would not require imputs of raw material at the front end, and at least for ongoing repairs and updating on an occasional basis. We should recall that it was not oil based energy which birthed the oil industry. There were no oil driven vehicles or machinery then to use to extract and move the oil.
The contention that solar or wind can never manufacture metals from thin air as the standard by which we would them "so-called renewables" seems to be raising the bar to a standard that pretty much disallows any and all alternatives. Now if the discussion is kept to the basis of energy in vs. energy out, I am not sure the case can be made that wind and in particular concentrating solar mirror solar could cannot make that test. Concentrating mirror solar can deliver not only large amounts of energy but extremely high concentrations of heat for industrial use including smelting metals and producing industry standard steam at tempeture and pressure. Again, it is true that it cannot make raw ores appear out of nowhere, but then no known science can.
We have to assume (and again the historical pattern supports us on this) that the amount of raw mineral ores needed will decline per kilowatt of energy produced, and we should also be able to assume that a considerable amount of ores can be recycled. Given that we are now using metals to build things like the tallest building in the world in Dubai, can we make the case against what you refer to as "so called renewables" on the basis that yes, at some point we will face depletion of minerals? Are any of the other energy providing technologies EXCEPT wind and solar held to these fantastically rarified standards of sustainability?
I'm sorry, it just seems to me that there is a consistent, repetitive rhetorical attack on renewable energy. This is fair enough, let's make sure the technology can stand the test and get even better. But constantly raising the standard of what can qualify as "renewable" each time the technology leaps the prior hurdle seems to be a bit unfair...sometimes more than a bit unfair.
Let me just ask directly: Should we assume that no matter how successful wind and solar are able to become on an EROEI basis, these technologies will find no friends here on the basis that they must use mineral resources to be built? Is that now the standard?
RC
Comments can no longer be added to this story.bicycle dave on January 5, 2010 - 12:02am
Hi RC,Now if the discussion is kept to the basis of energy in vs. energy out, I am not sure the case can be made that wind and in particular concentrating solar mirror solar could cannot make that test
This seems to be the key issue. My bias/hope is that it "can make the test". But, I'm not qualified to pass this judgement. This is a debate that I'd really appreciate. It would seem that if we made a full-fledged effort (funding/prizes/whatever) to support creative innovation in this area we could achieve a positive EROEI.
But, this should not be an ideological issue - it should be an issue debated in hard science. I think much of our collective future has a powerful interest in this debate.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Bandits on January 5, 2010 - 12:17am
Let me just ask directly: Should we assume that no matter how successful wind and solar are able to become on an EROEI basis, these technologies will find no friends here on the basis that they must use mineral resources to be built? Is that now the standard?
Have you a description of your understanding of EROEI as it applies to "so called renewables"?
IMO opinion until renewables are capable of being reproduced and maintained with their own energy outputs, they are just buying time and even that could prove to be illusory.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.daxr on January 5, 2010 - 12:34am
IMO opinion until renewables are capable of being reproduced and maintained with their own energy outputs, they are just buying time and even that could prove to be illusory.
...the worry being that they will just be more examples of "stranded infrastructure", such as if CA were to pour all of its declining wealth and resources into a cross-state "hydrogen highway", only to find that it has no practical whatsoever use one more step down the energy depletion ladder.
I'm not dead set against wind and solar myself, but I don't see them as large-scale solutions.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 12:53am
The idea of stranded infrastructure doesn't apply, IMO. A wind generator or a solar farm make electricity for the grid, just like a coal plant (with less maintenance). I really am having a problem with those of you that have a problem with wind. Wind is old news, going up all over the world by the thousands. It's like arguing if we should put up cell phone towers.... kind of late for that. Ditto solar.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
daxr on January 5, 2010 - 1:50am
I don't think we actually disagree - emphasizing the "large-scale" in my statement. If I had to live off the grid I've already got the windmill design selected for electrical generation, along with a solar oven design worked out that I'd like to build this summer to test for heat and cooking.Its when you have to look at large-scale solutions for whole regions farther down the road that it doesn't really look good. You can build a wind farm with a 50 year lifespan using fossil fuels, but you can't very well build another wind farm using just the products of your existing wind farm. The same goes for solar. A whole new technology could be developed, but based on where we are now "Big Solar" and "Big Wind" are not solutions, they just perpetuate existing habits of consumption; and 50 years or so down the road when you need to replace your infrastructure you can't, because it was designed around and built with energy that's not available anymore on sufficient scale.
On the other hand, if you say that we have to have a general collapse in energy consumption, along with a collapse in population (hopefully gently and natural), on a smaller scale wind and solar technology may be very nice features of "a world made by hand", as one model of the future has been called, and there should always be enough coal and wood and kilns to keep things in repair.
...and on belated edit: I could be entirely wrong about the utility of large-scale wind and solar installations, and their long-term practicality. Their dismissal shouldn't be made without much more in the way of numbers and study, which I don't have in hand.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Engineer-Poet on January 5, 2010 - 11:22pm
You can build a wind farm with a 50 year lifespan using fossil fuels, but you can't very well build another wind farm using just the products of your existing wind farm.
And you wouldn't expect to be able to. On the other hand, recycling 80 tons of steel for a new tower for a 2 MW turbine (assuming you need to) could easily be done with wind-generated electricity. The figures I see for electric furnaces are 500-640 kWh/ton of steel, so assuming the full rework takes 800 kWh/ton, a 2 MW turbine operating at 30% capacity factor would supply enough energy for its own tower in 107 hours, or 4.5 days.
Four and a half days out of a lifespan of decades leaves a lot of time to work steel for other things, light lights, cook food, run cars and trains, and all the other things we want to do. If you need to reduce metal oxides to metal, you can do that electrolytically or just combine electric heat with biochar; that's how it all used to be done, after all.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 12:57am
IMO opinion until renewables are capable of being reproduced and maintained with their own energy outputs, they are just buying time and even that could prove to be illusory.
Would you apply this same test to nuclear?! I know first hand the extreme engineering required to construct a nuke plant. Even the secondary plant in a pressurized water reactor system is constructed of alloys that require huge amounts of energy to produce. And the so-called rare elements are used in all kinds of components, control systems and pumps/motors. Factor in the fuel, its development and its eventual disposal, I'll bet it's in the same ballpark as renewables. Since when are nuke plants, or hydro, or natgas, or coal required to be constucted with their own power? This double standard makes no sense. If it's OK to use NatGas or coal to make steel for a nuke plant, why isn't it OK to use it to make silicon cells or a wind turbine?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Bandits on January 5, 2010 - 1:33am
If it's OK to use NatGas or coal to make steel for a nuke plant, why isn't it OK to use it to make silicon cells or a wind turbine?
Do you consider "nat gas" and "coal' to be renewable?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.ThatsItImout on January 5, 2010 - 7:23am
I do not consider nat gas to be renewable, but it does have a longer time window and we are burning it for some pretty non-essential building every day...we will have some methane by way of recaptured waste methane, but not nearly on the scale we now have natural gas (however we should dismiss it, full efforts to recapture methane worldwide would make for a pretty sizable amount). This is why I am such an advocate of methane recapture, it gives us something of a "psuedo nat gas" at least for purposes of transition to renewables.Again, we still face the deeper questions as to whether any energy production type that would require non-renewable metal ores would be "acceptable" to be referred to as renewables. There is no denying that metals are depleting. We can stretch the time window out by recycling and trying to reduce waste, but unless someone counts in space based metals the earth only has so much. What time frame would assume we are looking at before the limit on ores stops any further human building and construction cold?
RC
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Engineer-Poet on January 5, 2010 - 11:29pm
What time frame would assume we are looking at before the limit on ores stops any further human building and construction cold?
It depends how clever we get with chemistry and materials science. Imagine for a moment that the conductive nanotube work of Richard Smalley has been brought to full fruit: carbon conductors lighter than aluminum and more conductive than copper. You can encapsulate them in plastic for insulation (organic resins, possibly with chlorine or fluorine). All of the materials come from common salts, air and water; how do you run out?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Termoil on January 5, 2010 - 7:47am
Since when are nuke plants, or hydro, or natgas, or coal required to be constucted with their own power? This double standard makes no sense. If it's OK to use NatGas or coal to make steel for a nuke plant, why isn't it OK to use it to make silicon cells or a wind turbine?
It's a question of scale. Nuclear, coal and natural gas production are all dependent to some extent on oil. Take away oil, or even restrict its availability, and none of each of these energy sources will suffere a corresponding restriction of the scale they are currently produced and consumed.
Solar (both varieties), wind and bio-fuels fall into the same category but are further down the EROEI scale which is why they are only being considered now when we are desperate to harvest more energy. Calling these technologies renewable is misleading IMO as only biological lifeforms renew themselves (which is why I agree with Gail's assertions about bio-mass). Solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal etc should be re-classifed as Harvested Environmental Energy Technology (HEET)
The test therefore for any energy source or technology is this: what is the expected EROEI profile and what is the horizon for diminshig returns.
As a society/market/species we need to make better judgements about our total future energy sources and how we will structure the rest of our economy around it. The faster we burn through the oil, the fewer energy options we have in toto regardless of wether they are fossil origin, nuclear or the HEET's. None of them can really support themslves at large scale without oil.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Magnus Redin on January 5, 2010 - 1:32pm
Why should new energy production be unable to compete for oil and biofuels during the post peak oil downslope?I find mass abandonment of suburbia far more likely then not having enough oil for chainsaws, distribution trucks, grid maitainance and powerplant building.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Termoil on January 5, 2010 - 9:09pm
Magnus,I'm not arguing that HEET's shouldn't be prevented from using oil. My point is that they are dependent on oil and will therfore need to compete for it. You can't seperate the oil inputs from the manufacturing and installation of wind turbines, just because the net EROEI may be +ve in x years. If a large chunk of the energy investment turns out to be oil and the energy return is electricity, then a judgement needs to made about the profitability of the venture vis-vis some other investment such as nuclear, solar or other fossil fuels. IMO, post peak the market will decide that we'd rather burn the ramining oil in our cars to satisfy immeediate wants rather than invest some of it to extend the electric age. Time will tell.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.paleobotanist on January 5, 2010 - 12:36am
Um The Dutch did alot with windmills pre-Industrial Era.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 1:03am
And they still are:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3192557920070903
Once again, while we talk, they do.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.daxr on January 5, 2010 - 1:22am
And probably will again, if they can keep above-water. This was an excellent article not long ago:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5913
Comments can no longer be added to this story.jaggedben on January 5, 2010 - 1:00am
We could never make wind turbines using only the output of wind turbines, or solar panels with the output of solar panels.
I don't know about wind turbines, but regarding solar panels this is close to complete nonsense. The entire PV manufacturing process is electrically powered, with the exception of the cover glass. Even the aluminum for the frames is smelted with electricity. In fact, it requires direct current like that provided by solar panels.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Termoil on January 5, 2010 - 8:02am
this is much too narrow an assessment of the systemic energy required to go from raw materials to producing energy delievered inot a consuming appliance. Just becasue I have a solar oven in my backyard does not make it useful if I have no food to cook in it. The same applies to the manufacure or production of any energy fuels or harvesting technology. You need to look at all the other inputs that make both the supply and the consumption possible.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jaggedben on January 5, 2010 - 3:45pm
My assessment is certainly far less narrow than the blanket assessment that solar can never be manufactured using power from solar panels. Sure there are systemic issues, but Gail's statement above implies that the obstacles are not merely systemic but also technological. That is bunk.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
anyone on January 5, 2010 - 5:14pm
This Chinese photovoltaic module manufacturer has 1010 kWp PV capacity on its facade and roof:http://www.suntech-power.com/products/docs/Casestudies/CaseStudy_GreenEn...
Who knows. If a Chinese manufacturer can put 1010 kWp see-through photovoltaic modules on a building, which covers 80% of the buildings energy needs, maybe non-producing banks, who received over $700 billion from the American tax payer to reward their record losses can do to?
Btw, with $700 billion one can purchase efficient thinfilm photovoltaic factories which produce over 370 GW per year. (More than the entire coal power plant capacity in the US every single year.)
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_press_releases_d...And modern PV factories not only reduce the unemployment rate, they also reduce the dependence on fossil fuel imports and money flow to corrupt regimes - bonuses for bankers with private jets and inefficient mansions on the other hand do none of those.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Termoil on January 5, 2010 - 10:10pm
...which covers 80% of the buildings energy needs...
Thanks for underlining my point. The energy produced from this building forms part of a wider system which is still going to be dependent to some extent on oil. The building didn't get built on soalr energy, it required transport of many materials to the site and no doubt has many deliverys in and out, all on oil powered vehichles (notice the road at the front and the lack of train lines). This doesn't mean that it is not a good investment or that it shouldn't happen. It is a much more intelligent use of the oil than say NASCAR or recreational shopping. But we need to understand the limitations of every new technology and be blinkered by uninformed prejudice when weaknesses are idenitified.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.anyone on January 6, 2010 - 4:00am
Sure we need to understand the limitations but at the same time we must not ignore the possibilities.If you are 5 times less dependent on oil, you can also spend 5 times more on oil: From $80 per barrel to $400 per barrel.
Modern thinfilm PV has a pay back time of 1 year including inverter. After one year it can already power the production of its PV fab including the energy needed to resource the material.
If banks get huge government support and technology does not, doesn't mean that technology is of no use - it just means that the government is not interested in solving problems at hand.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Termoil on January 6, 2010 - 7:20am
including the energy needed to resource the material.
How can electricity alone be used to source and transport the materials necessary to produce solar panels? This is just a naiive assertion that ignores every fossil energy input in the real world of todays manufacturing complex.
The banking argument has no releveance whatsoever to the support or not of government for technology. If the tech works that well, then it it will survive and thrive on its own merits.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.anyone on January 6, 2010 - 8:55am
How can electricity alone be used to source and transport the materials necessary to produce solar panels?Besides that mines and trains can be electrically operated and commercial ships can even partially run on wind: It simply doesn't have to:
As means for transportation also run on natural gas and coal or at least gasified coal (which there is plenty of - in addition, methane can be produced from biomass).
And even if you refuse to use natural gas or gasified coal or gasified biomass instead of oil: If you save 80% of your oil dependence, the oil price can be $400 per barrel.
A commercial ship gets 500 miles per gallon and ton. Therefore: To ship 10 kW of thinfilm PV modules which produce over 400'000 kWh over their lifetime over a distance of 500 miles you need one gallon of oil. So what? How many gallons does a non-kWh-producing banker need for his private jet in his tax-payer dependent lifetime?And at $400 per barrel oil heater operators will switch to heat pumps and Ford F-150 commuters will switch to more efficient means of transportation and leave more for those who do not have alternatives.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Termoil on January 6, 2010 - 9:46pm
A commercial ship gets 500 miles per gallon and ton. Therefore: To ship 10 kW of thinfilm PV modules which produce over 400'000 kWh over their lifetime over a distance of 500 miles you need one gallon of oil.Thats OK if your factory sits right alongside the dock, and the installation site is right alongside another dock. Its the rest of the logistical chain that you conveniently overlook. I realise it is difficult to quantify every oil input that goes into the manufacturing and distribution of any product including HEET. But you need to includse the daily commute of workers to the factory; the commutes of the specialised installers who will need to travel from job to job; the maintenace crews over the whole lifetime operation; the transportation of materials to and from mine sites; transportation of mining crews and the variosu consultant speciaslist that service them; the crews and installers of the electcity grid itself; dare I say it, even the bankers who finance multi billion dollar projects and fancy hybrid ships are going to have to travel in order to arrange these gigantic enterprises (perhaps private jet may be the most efficient way to utilise their specialist skills); all those people have support organisations and services that also need transport to function. If those support services start to fail becasue of restricted transport due to peak oil, then it doesn't matter what industry you are in, its going to make your operations more difficult.
What we are facing after peak oil is nothing less than than the entire re-design and reconstruction of the industrial society. Even if we could replace the entire worlds fossil fuel consumption with renewable electricty, it still doesn't solve the liquid fuel restrictions.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.anyone on January 7, 2010 - 3:13pm
What we are facing after peak oil is nothing less than than the entire re-design and reconstruction of the industrial societyWhich will reduce the unemployment rate. Btw, the first transcontinental rail-road across America was completed 1869 even before the Battle of the Little Bighorn and definitely without the tools, machines, roads, liquid fuels, population, knowledge and private-jet-bankers available today.
Even if we could replace the entire worlds fossil fuel consumption with renewable electricty, it still doesn't solve the liquid fuel restrictions.
Again we don't need to get rid of fossil fuels entirely. We just need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Remember: Denmark with a higher GDP per capita produces 45% less CO2 per capita than the US even though it still depends mostly on fossil fuels regardng its energy needs.
80% fossil fuel reduction is entirely feasible.
Besides: Liquid fuel can be produced with biomass or synthetically using excess electricity from wind, PV, CSP etc. :
http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/(perhaps private jet may be the most efficient way to utilise their specialist skills)
What skill? Losing money without taking responsibility?
But I see your point: What we would we do without world-economy-harming-derivative-bankers?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
After all, they developed democracy and the rule of law.
After all, they developed medicine and health care.
After all, they developed modern agriculture.
After all, they created all the literature, music and film.
After all, they developed clean water distribution.
After all, they developed any means for transportation including ships, trains, cars, aircraft's, bridges and tunnels.
After all, they developed electricity and artificial lighting.
After all, they developed the telephone, radio, TV, computer, satellites and the internet.
After all, they developed efficiency and renewable energy.
After all, they freed the world from the Nazis and got rid off all evil-doers singlehandedly.
And of course, it was them who were the first on the moon.Bellistner on January 11, 2010 - 2:43pm
I realise it is difficult to quantify every oil input that goes into the manufacturing and distribution of any product including HEET. But you need to includse the daily commute of workers to the factory; the commutes of the specialised installers who will need to travel from job to job; the maintenace crews over the whole lifetime operation; the transportation of materials to and from mine sites; transportation of mining crews and the variosu consultant speciaslist that service them; the crews and installers of the electcity grid itself;
Oh for crying out loud. Talk about receding horizons. hey, don't also forget the supermarkets where all these workers get their food from, and the distribution systems to get the food to those supermarkets, the energy and materials that went into building and maintaining the warehouses, the roads and rail they are delivered on, the workers in those warehouses and transport companies, and on and on and on and on.
All these things are required for Renewables, Nuclear, Fossil Fuels, and Biomass (the logic of 'burning soil' is lost on me). Counting them against only Renewables is intellectually dishonest at best.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Andrew in Texas on January 5, 2010 - 12:48pm
You need to understand that there are three alternatives:
1. Fossil fuels (and uranium extraction and plants which use a lot of fossil fuels)
2. So called renewables - wind, solar PV, ethanol
3. Biomass used within the limits that nature intended; human energy; animal energy
Exactly what makes these "alternatives"? What makes them mutually exclusive?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Andrew in Texas on January 4, 2010 - 12:00pm
This is a good assessment of where we are now, but I disagree with his assertion that technology is no good.In slide 12, he shows how technology can only delay an end to growth by showing how it affects resource extraction. In essence, saying "technology cannot make more oil"... this is true. But it seems to focus only on those technologies of advanced recovery of traditional energy reserves and not those that exploit alternative resource bases. If we have technology that can exploit new reserves (methane hydrates, solar, wind, thorium, etc...) then they would not be on the same curve as fossil fuels... it's a new curve. This is what we see happening now with shale gas. In the case of nuclear, many of us believe this new curve to be huge.
Here is where someone says that those technologies produce electricity. Obviously there are ways to turn electricity into liquid fuels (or to extract neg eroi oils) for mission critical uses and for redundancy (generators).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.aangel on January 4, 2010 - 1:13pm
I, for one, think there will be lots of technologies coming down the pike. That's why I go to cleantech conferences and such, to keep an eye on these things. I need to know what the most valuable technologies are (or are going to be) for my work.But I've long ago concluded that these technologies will provide just a fraction of what we are getting now from the one-time endowment of fossil fuels, and they won't get all the capital they require to be fully built out to what's possible. I saw many companies at the last conference I attended that I thought were worthwhile — if they could just get their next round of funding (many were having difficulty). Even if they get the funding, they are entering a market in which every dollar spent is scrutinized more than during a boom time. There is simply no guarantee they will get enough sales to become stable companies that offer solid warranties that potential buyers are willing to trust for mission-critical systems. Despite the cleantech hype, turning a startup to a mature company is still perilous business.
Add to that several other fundamental forces at work that people like jeppen don't yet see (I'm not going to list them here, we've been discussing them on TOD forever), and it seems to me that this decade we are at an inflection point, if not a discontinuity.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 2:41pm
By the way, thanks Andre for pointing out Dennis Meadows' article a few days ago. If it weren't for you, this post probably wouldn't be here.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on January 4, 2010 - 3:45pm
Happy to contribute. Thanks for running with it!Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on January 4, 2010 - 5:48pm
One of my predictions for the decade of the 2010s is that we will enter in earnest into a decade-long "capital crunch". There simply isn't going to be enough capital to do all the things that we need and want to do and that might look good on paper.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Paul_the_engineer on January 4, 2010 - 9:17pm
It's hard to make a case for a shortage of capital. At the start of the Industrial Revolution chronic hunger and maluntrition were universal, yet we developed metal industries, mining, steam engines, roads and railroads, with primitive tools and technology and very low energy conversion efficiencies.What is laking today is a shortage of investment opportunities (in developed countries), which typically marks the end of the Kondratieff cycle. Saturated markets include automobiles (over one car per licensed driver in USA) housing, commercial real estate, telephony.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.gregvp on January 5, 2010 - 9:55am
At the start of the Industrial Revolution ... we developed metal industries, mining, steam engines, roads and railroads, with primitive tools and technology and very low energy conversion efficiencies.
Precisely - the amounts of capital employed were minuscule. Capital was scarce, but the demand was even less.
Remember, "capital" here is economists' capital: the physical stock of productive resources - those primitive tools.
The "low hanging fruit" in energy and metals, that only require tiny amounts of capital, are long gone, however.
An analogy: computer games. Immediately after the launch of the IBM PC, a guy in a garage could make a killing with a few weeks' work. Now, you need a "physics engine" and a "rendering engine" and a "plot engine" and and and ... in your game to hope to sell it. The required investment has increased by millions of times.
Similarly with resources. 8,000 years ago, a guy could pick nuggets of copper up off the ground, in the right places. Zero capital. 300 years ago, it was in 50% - 70% concentration in ore, 0 to 200 feet down, and only pick-axes and a rudimentary furnace were needed. Now it's in 0.25% concentration ore, in thousand-foot pits, and needs huge amounts of processing capital in order to be 'freed'.
This kind of capital wears out, and has to be replaced, if we still want the goods it provides.
Is it possible that we'll eventually need more capital than we can (or are willing to) provide? A "shortage of investment opportunities" suggests that we're becoming unwilling to convert money into capital.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Bellistner on January 11, 2010 - 3:10pm
An analogy: computer games. Immediately after the launch of the IBM PC, a guy in a garage could make a killing with a few weeks' work. Now, you need a "physics engine" and a "rendering engine" and a "plot engine" and and and ... in your game to hope to sell it. The required investment has increased by millions of times.
True, to a point. Sure, if you want the latest and greatest GPU-crushing visual spectacular, you have to pour a lot of time, effort, and money into the project. But if you don't want to be right on the bleeding edge, you can just licence the Physics and Rendering engines (say, Source, Unreal, the various id Engines - many are now GPL'd - , irrLicht, CryEngine, LithTech, X-Ray, etc), and still have a success. Release it via Source (Valve) and you don't even have to bother with the hard-copies. Look at Garry's Mod: no real point to it, uses an existing Engine, and sells for $10.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.eeyores enigma on January 5, 2010 - 8:43pm
I would stress the"...and that might look good on paper." as being the HUGE elephant in the economic room, which will prevent all of the wonderful things that we WISH would happen.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on January 4, 2010 - 6:04pm
I, for one, think there will be lots of technologies coming down the pikeAnd this worries me. Not because of change, but because of the typical pitch of the 'new tech' - all upside, no downside.
In the 1940's apes were exposed to carbon dust (aka nano-carbon) and the research found the small bits of carbon were a neuro-toxin. Buckyballs don't get along with fish.
Yet, I don't see environmental toxic effects get a whole lot of discussion.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Paul_the_engineer on January 4, 2010 - 9:33pm
I keep hearing about these new technologies and innovations, but no one can name them. Biotechnology is promising.The last major technology of the 20th Century was fiber optics, which allowed the Internet. Before that was the computer (mainframe) plastics and jet aircraft.
Looking at the early 20th Century we had electrification, agricultural mechanization, chemical fertilizers, telephony, highway system, automobile, airplane, household appliances, air conditioning, dicovery of vitamins, radio, television, chlorinated water.
Looks like a slow down to me.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.gregvp on January 5, 2010 - 7:54am
Hmmm... I'd say the last major technology (in terms of distribution) was digital packet radio (cellphones). We're a long way from fully exploiting that, I think, despite Time magazine stories about African farmers using cellphones to check market prices before loading up the donkey.But I agree. I wonder about these "new technologies", too. What does "biotechnology" mean, exactly? What costs can we avoid with it? How will it change our lives, apart from making them longer and more expensive? Ditto for nanotechnology and neurotechnology. It seems to me that new technologies like these, and others such as high-temperature superconductors, aren't really game-changers.
Who knows? Maybe one of them, or the combination, will allow us to harvest all the vast fossil-fuel and mineral wealth that's just lying about on the deep-ocean floor, and on Titan. (/sarc.)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.dare100em on January 5, 2010 - 4:54am
You will note I say that technology may delay the end of growth a few years, but it does not avoid the end of growth or the decline. I have worked in science and technology, and I have a scientific degree, so I am not saying this because I am unaware of what technology can do. When we put together models using phenomenally optimistic assumptions, it just moved the decline date back a few years.
This is true. But it's true only for a closed system. The only really closed system we know is the hole universe. In the end all will be equal distributed anergy (heat) - even black holes will be gown in the far future.
So what? Kill us all now because it makes no sence fighting entropie growth in the long run??? From an absolute point of view it doese'nt matter in the long run if we now overshot or some 10exp100 years later.
Becoming natural/real sustainable (going back to the woods hunting animals and so on) makes now sence at all - in 100 million years earth will be cooked either way :-( 100 million years more or less nature is nothing in the backdrop of the universe.
Better we try to go behind our home habitat (earth). If we fail because of "overshot" it would be still better we have tryed than waiting to the inevitable end (sun heating up) dancing around (camp)fires!
Yes we must chance our lifestyle. Yes we must reduce the energy usage per capita in the west by a factor of 4 in the us and around 2-3 in europe. But it's not "the end".
The next issue is that the autor suggest that the population grwowth continues everywhere. That's not true. More and more countries go into decline (Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, soon China,South Korea, ...). The world population growth is slowing in relative and absolute terms and will be (likely) zero around 2060-2100.
The comments on wind and PV are of course not true, the EROI of a wind turbine can reach 100 in some cases and is seldom below 20...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.gregvp on January 5, 2010 - 8:51am
- No, it's not only true for a closed system. The "phenomenally optimistic assumptions" are about the length of time it takes to deploy a new technology. For energy-saving and resource-recycling technologies, 50% per annum sustained growth is "wildly optimistic". At that rate of growth, how long does it take to get from a 10 MWe pilot programme to, say, 10 percent of US electricity consumption -- when that's growing at one percent per year?When one models the processes, with "optimistic but realistic" time delays and growth rates for introducing "optimistic but realistic" changes, one finds it's pretty hard to make a dent in the timing of the peak.
- Go beyond Earth? Let's say the nearest earth-like planet is 20 light-years away. At an optimistic average speed of 1% of the speed of light, it'd take 2,000 years to get there. At a more realistic speed, 200,000 years or more. The chance of perishing on the way would be great. How would this help?
- The author doesn't suggest that population growth continues everywhere. Only that it continues overall, until it stops and reverses.
Yes, the total fertility rate (lifetime chidren per woman) has decreased over the last 30 years. What will it be in 30 years' time? (The evidence so far suggests that in most places, "poorer" people have more children. Will this be true in future?) What will be the mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 per year) in 2040? Each could go up, just as easily as down.
Extrapolations are dangerous, as Paul Ehrlich discovered. It's too soon to say what the population growth rate will be in 2060 -- or why it will be that particular number. Dr. Meadows's model presents one possibility for what could happen, a scenario that is likely to occur if there are no changes in behaviour or miracle technologies.
The author's model has "built in" to it the declining trend in fertility, and IIRC it does extrapolate the trend. The model assumes that mortality rate depends on per-capita spending on health, and in the extreme case, on per-capita food.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Kye Bay on January 4, 2010 - 2:04pm
I cannot find Dr. Meadows' podcast on iTunes. Can someone please provide an alternate link?Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 2:46pm
Is this link better? The i-tunes download site opens in another window, which is sort of confusing. I have also heard a report of having difficulty getting the download to work on a Windows machine.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on January 4, 2010 - 5:57pm
And shock of shocks - the site does not find iTunes on my machine.A machine that is not Microsoft nor Apple OS based.
Does anyone have the actual MP3's?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.George the Philosopher on January 4, 2010 - 6:44pm
You are not >>gasp!<< using Linux are you?? I'd also be interested in the mp3 if anyone has it and can send it or link it without the DRM police closing down The Oil Drum.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 9:12pm
It is an m4V which is a huge file (215 MB). I crashed my computer when I tried e-mailing it (without checking the side first. It takes quite a while to download.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on January 4, 2010 - 9:53pm
Here is the direct link to the file
http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/04_DennisMeadows.m4vYou can find all the talks here
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/itunes.xmlKye Bay on January 4, 2010 - 10:17pm
Got it. Thanks all.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
George the Philosopher on January 5, 2010 - 11:38am
Fabulous! Many thanks!Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Delphinus on January 5, 2010 - 9:49pm
Thankyou, much appreciated.
Linux also.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on January 4, 2010 - 9:55pm
using Linux are you?Ewwwww. Why would I do that when FreeBSD exists.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.George the Philosopher on January 5, 2010 - 11:40am
I was tempted once by FreeBSD, but Slackware kept me on the straight and narrow. ;)Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sunson on January 4, 2010 - 10:33pm
A "Me too" comment. I found this link, a podcast by Mr.Meadows from a year ago. I had to do with it, given Apple's monopolistic behaviour of not regarding non-apple/non-microsoft OSes.Would be very helpful if someone can provide the same MP3 elsewhere. If need be, I volunteer to host it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.sunson on January 7, 2010 - 11:28pm
Here are some more related podcasts:Comments can no longer be added to this story.
- http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/02_WilliamCattonJr.m4v
- http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/03_LaurieMazur.m4v
- http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/04_DennisMeadows.m4v
- http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/05_RichardHeinberg.m4v
- http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/06_PeterVictor.m4v
sunson on January 4, 2010 - 11:05pm
A "me too" comment. I just wrote an email to the populationinstitute.org folks asking if they can put up a plain version of the mp3 on their site or if need be, I can host it too.In the meanwhile, I googled up to find this podcast from 2008 by Meadows.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Mark.S on January 4, 2010 - 4:31pm
The end of growth does not come from depletion, but from rising capital costs.
Surely "depletion" and "rising capital costs" are just different ways of saying the same thing: that the effort needed to extract any more of whatever is just too much".
For example you could envisage a socialist society where everyone works to their ability and receives what they need to live on and still at some point, extracting more resources from the earth becomes impossible because the effort outweighs the benefit. EROI.
The recent emphasis on renewables is in the direction of causing even higher capital needs. To the extent that this takes needed capital away from unglamorous parts of the system that are necessary for the system to survive, it could lead the system to fail earlier than it otherwise would.]
Surely this is a chicken and egg situation that needs to be solved (starting may be with all chickens and ending with all eggs). By definition non-renewables are non-renewable. So unless Technology comes up with a game changing solution that creates energy basically for free, we perforce end up eventually with all renewables.
We cannot sit around waiting for Technology to deliver but need to build out renewables as fast as possible and reduce fossil fuel usage even faster. This should be possible and needs to be done in conjunction with many other policies addressing other facets of the problem rather than the symptoms.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 5:47pm
There are basically three alternatives:1. Fossil fuels (and uranium extraction and plants which use a lot of fossil fuels)
2. So called renewables - wind, solar PV, ethanol
3. Biomass used within the limits that nature intended; human energy; animal energy
The only one that seems to "work" is biomass used within the limits that nature intended. Unfortunately, getting biomass for to support 6.8 billion people for food, transportation, and heating is not feasible. Back in the 1800s, there was a severe problem with deforestation, when we were trying to support a much smaller population.
The so called renewables are called renewables by marketers and by politicians, but in no real sense of the word are they renewable with the resources available. They have high front end capital costs. In the case of ethanol, they use a lot of resources (fertilizer, water, soil degradation.) We could never make wind turbines using only the output of wind turbines, or solar panels with the output of solar panels. I think the only energy source that can be truly be considered renewable is the third category above.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Magnus Redin on January 4, 2010 - 6:06pm
I would go for biomass within the limits that nature intended.That is cultivation of crops and trees with fine tuning of the nutrients in the soil and handling the cultivation as a special kind of ecosystem. We can get the nutrients by breaking down rock with electrical machinery and making nitrous fertilizer with electricity.
Then we use a significant part of the biomass grown for manufacturing fuel and lubricants for farming, distribution and running various machines maintaning the infrastructure including running nuclear powerplants.
And we use nuclear powerplants and other means for generation electricity to get plentiful power for running most of our society.
This leaves a need for bulk carbon for metallurgical anodes and reducing iron ore but the volumes are reasonable and tar sands etc can suffice for a long time.
But this is a long term solution that requires a gradual rebuild and retooling and a lot of habit changes, we got to do a lot of work and give up things like non productive parts of the service economy.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Paul_the_engineer on January 4, 2010 - 9:04pm
50% of all biomass is currently harvested. It will be difficult to go much beyond that.Switching to biofuels equals an economy that has collapsed.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.oldfarmermac on January 5, 2010 - 7:44am
Given our ways, once we are well started down the biomass highway,there will be no turning back-and I can assure everybody with perfect confidence that the biomass highway is a highroad straight to hell.In PRINCIPLE, BIOMASS IS FINE.
In practice it will result in the wealthy elite(of whom I am a class member by world wide standards but not American or Eruopean standards) finishing off the worlds ecosystems, the death of billions of people,and more than likely WWIII.
If this seems unlikely to any individual , I urge him or her to find a quiet spot and sit for an hour contemplating the fact that politically we find it much easier to go to war than to raise the fuel economy standards of new cars.
We may have passed the critical point of no return already but I don't think so-there is still a possibility that wind and solar will outcompete biomass.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Mark.S on January 4, 2010 - 6:52pm
Hi, I'm not an engineer but am science educated and find it hard to believe that wind particularly would not pay for itself quickly. Most people may need to adjust somewhat to the erratic nature of the beast. Don't see why you rate wind so poorly.These don't seem political/marketing puff to me. Seems to me that, once built, a wind turbine should be able to go, with maintenance obviously, for hundreds of years, may be being recycled on occasion.
"The life-cycle energy requirements were shown to be offset by the energy produced within the first 12 months of operation."
http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=17822
"This article reviews 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2006. This survey shows average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n=114; std. dev=22.3). The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n=60; std. dev=13.7). This places wind energy in a favorable position relative to conventional power generation technologies in terms of EROI."
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Engineer-Poet on January 5, 2010 - 9:09pm
... within the limits that nature intended.
Ascribing intent to nature is reification ("nature" does not exist as a thinking thing). Besides, given the number of times that nature has busted limits, torn up the "rule book" and gone on to bigger and better things (emitting oxygen and going multicellular, to name two), there's another way to view humans even in the Gaia context: we are the only real "intent" on the planet, so we must become the change we want to see.
We could never make wind turbines using only the output of wind turbines, or solar panels with the output of solar panels.
Why not? Both are essentially the products of energy used to transform materials. They both produce far more energy than is needed to make them. If you mean that a wind turbine doesn't dig up and smelt steel or produce resins for composites, you are right of course... but the chloroplast doesn't extract water or minerals from soil or build its own foundations either.
If you want to take ideas to extremes, wind turbines (incl. towers) could be made largely from fiber composites with the fibers built out of carbon captured as biomass and transformed to graphite or Spectra and resins. Epoxy and polyester resins can cure at ambient temperature, so towers could even be spun in place from bulk material delivered to the site in small lots. Does this begin to sound like a tree to you? It should. A plant which evolved a means to convert mechanical stress into chemical energy (piezochemistry) might even do much the same, and bust some of those "limits of nature" you're worried about. Growing like mad in a cold, dark but windy place would tear up a bunch of that old rulebook.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.michaeld on January 9, 2010 - 6:51am
hello friendand happy new year for testing mine and your and other hypothesis about what is going to come!
(try to make some to see how wrong you are and improve over time!)here are my questions to you:
>Ascribing intent to nature is reification ("nature" does not exist as a thinking thing).
Do you mean it was the intent of "god" to invent man and put him in charge?>Besides, given the number of times that nature has busted limits, torn up the "rule book" and
>gone on to bigger and better things (emitting oxygen and going multicellular, to name two),I tend to remember that "dinosaurs" disappeared. .
Too strong body and too little brain
(worked better in german .. zu viel Panzer and zu wenig Gehirn)
We have also stopped to construct big cathedrals.. the list is long>there's another way to view humans even in the Gaia context:
>we are the only real "intent" on the planet, so we must become the change we want to see.may be "we" are just an accident/error in evolution leading to the self made "meteorite impact"
to clean up.just some philosophical questions.
michael
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ps..
2009 was not a good year for demonstrating how great nuclear energy will be!
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/tvorce on January 4, 2010 - 4:52pm
When "Limits To Growth" was first published there were others who had become vocal about the need for alternative planning. Gerald Feinberg, a physicist at Columbia had put out a book entitled "The Prometheus Project" which addressed the need for long range goals. And John Garber, in the planning department at Columbia was lecturing on desertification and climate change in 1973. George McRobbie at the Center for Appropriate Technology at the London School of Economics was also active which was no doubt being influenced by Schumaker's, "Small Is Beautiful." There was a "big picture" to act on then.But taking this information to Washingtion met with closed doors because GM was still considered to be the fate of the nation.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.ET on January 4, 2010 - 5:21pm
It seems like whenever we have a post like this the discussion has a certain tendency to devolve into a 'cornucopians vs doomers' slingfest. In this case we have jeppen representing the cornucopian views found elsewhere in places like the Cato Institute or the writings of Bjorn Lomborg, while the doomers are citing Lester Brown, Dennis Meadows, Jay Hanson, et. al.I don't have the wherewithal myself to do it, but it would be good to see an analysis of both ends and what their respective strengths and flaws are, rather than having dueling URLs and "I'll see your Julian Simon and raise you 2 Lester Browns." Full disclosure: I think the Julian Simon/Cato Institute side is rather wallowing in 'Arm-Waving, Cherry Picking Denial' but they do have some data that I'd like to see subject to hard scrutiny on one of these forums.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 4, 2010 - 6:18pm
I don't like the slingfest either. I would just observe that Dennis Meadows has amazing credentials, while none of the rest are in the same category. Dennis Meadows has sat down and modeled a large number of interactions, and so far (40 years later), his indications have been amazingly accurate. He received the highest science award available from Japan this year, the Japan Award (worth about $500,000) for his 1972 analysis.The others have picked out various things they think are good ideas. Most of them have never consider whether they are really doable, or scalable, and what the consequences of interactions with other systems would be. For example, see my summary of Lester Brown's book Plan B: 4.0. The costs that he estimates for various tasks like eradicating poverty and stabilizing population are ludicrously low. He certainly doesn't think through what the consequence of eliminating poverty would be (lots more cars on the road??).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.oldfarmermac on January 4, 2010 - 8:43pm
The cornucopians at both ends of the spectrum are cheerleaders, not thinkers in any serious sense.I go up to Barnes and Noble once or twice a month and drink the four dollar coffee all day and read both sides, which obviously puts me in a very select club even here.
The people at places like the Cato Institute do have some useful things to say and do score some good political points occasionally.
This forum, good as it is, would be even better if a few more regulars were to be better informed in regard to genuinely conservative positions and reasoning.
A lot of regulars would find that they are advocating many philosophically conservative positions and policies without even realizing it.(Real conservatives and republicans of the current stripe are two different animals.)
For example nearly all the vast regulatory apparatus that makes it difficult or impossible to return to sustainable farming and marketing of farm products is the result of the liberal mindset.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 9:01pm
Agreed Mac. Most of my friends who call themselves conservative are "neocons" who have no concept of true conservative issues. Nowadays it seems that a "liberal" is anyone who disagrees with a "conservative" and a "conservative" is anyone who doesn't want to be called "liberal", at least around here. Both dismiss folks like me who remain independently "unaffiliated". It seems they invalidate anyone who refuses to choose sides.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
waterplanner on January 4, 2010 - 10:23pm
The definitions of Liberal and Conservative are getting more hard to figure out every year, mostly because they get slung back and forth as insults so that every opinion someone doesn't like gets labeled as one or the other whether it fits or not. And that's when we're being polite and not calling each other Socialists and Nazis.Here's something you should try out: Political Compass It's a quick series of questions that identifies where you fit on two scales: Economic Left/Right (rigidly controlled economy / unfettered free markets) and Social Libertarian / Authoritarian. It appears that I'm still an unreconstructed left-libertarian DFH after all these years: -5.25 / -4.77.
From what see in the Drumbeat comments, I would guess that Oil Drummers are all over the Economic axis, but most would tend toward the libertarian side of the Social one.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.paleobotanist on January 5, 2010 - 12:30am
hmmm I'm -9 / -7 ;^)Comments can no longer be added to this story.
daxr on January 5, 2010 - 1:47am
I tend to think that most of the politics I grew up with are obsolete, and the slingfests you can find in most cases are about as relevant to our current conditions as the old Tories vs Whigs, Papists vs Royalists, Scholasticists vs Humanists, etc.Where the future was wide open for the success of any ideology one might cook up and it all worked out about the same anyway, then it was fine to pick sides just to have a side to belong to and to feel needed. All that changes when resources start running thin...facts are important now, but the media and politicians still act like they're there for entertainment purposes.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.jaywfitz on January 5, 2010 - 12:13am
Nah, disagree with that. Both parties are whores of big money. It just depends on what industry rules them.Gun control regulation is a paragon example. That comes from the republican right wing pro business lobby--where they wanted to disarm and alienate the "wobblies" at any cost to aid union bashing. No joke, and that's a matter of record. You can't have people shooting thugs or corrupt cops can you? Well, there you go. Of course, culturally that got turned into a peacenik issue, but the matter remains.
Please believe I don't want to get into a gun control/gun ban fanatic discussion. No agenda here--just stating a fact of the historic record. Gun control regulation comes from an attempt to disarm labor unions. That's all I'm saying.
The reality is reality is difficult to realize. LOL.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.HARM on January 6, 2010 - 3:02pm
Gun control regulation comes from an attempt to disarm labor unions.
Wish my enthusiastic gun control-loving Democrat friends would wake up and acknowledge this. It's not about controlling guns or violent crime --it's about controlling YOU. The founding fathers knew it and said so often.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788Starship Trooper on January 6, 2010 - 2:51pm
For example nearly all the vast regulatory apparatus that makes it difficult or impossible to return to sustainable farming and marketing of farm products is the result of the liberal mindset.
I find it interesting you would register the complaint about what people do and do not know and then throw out the canard of liberal mindset and regulations.
Would it be okay with you if we changed the regulations so that ONLY sustainable farming and the resulting farm products would be allowed in and to be used in this country? And by sustainable, you must mean no growth and no use of non-renewable resources in the production, transportation and marketing of farm products.
But the very fact that you are able to communicate widely through this medium (besides the obvious physics) is based in regulation. The very liberal idea that there is a distinction (and that we do this through a regulatory structure) of "private" and "public," that we grant "easements" and "rights of way" or that you even have the concept of "property" and "ownership" for the basis of "marketing" are all based in...wait for it...regulation.
When you do away with regulation/rules, "sustainable" becomes self-sufficient, as in your personal survival becomes dependent upon your own ability and resources.
The typical response is "I don't want all rules and regulations eliminated" (even though you broadstroked the phrase by terming "nearly all." What constitutes "nearly all" and be specific about what you would keep? If you wish to eliminated the regulations that you don't like, how is that any different from the current situation?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.jeppen on January 4, 2010 - 9:32pm
Well, it seems the slingfest was removed, so I guess that's it for me. So long and thanks for all the fish.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jerry McManus on January 4, 2010 - 5:50pm
Thanks Gail, it's great to see this important work get more exposure here.Dr. Meadows clearly sees capital somewhat differently than I have been looking at it.
I may be misinterpreting your question, but my understanding is that capital in the LTG model refers to physical plant and not capital in the financial sense of the term. Slide 15 should make that clear.
Meadows mentions Catton, who I see also had a presentation. Anyone working on a similar post for him? I would volunteer my services in that regard if I thought it had any chance of being published, but the editors at TOD have completely ignored similar offers from me in the past.
Cheers,
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jerrydandyone on January 4, 2010 - 9:36pm
I would love to see a similar post from Catton.BTW, both Meadows' Limits to Growth and Catton's Bottleneck (or is it Overshoot... I can't remember) have been updated and re-released.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.ExtraO on January 5, 2010 - 1:25pm
Catton's 1980 book was "Overshoot" (can't recommend it enough!) and he now has a new book, a sort of nearly 40 years on re-evaluation of where we're at "Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse". As you can tell from the title he is anything but optimistic.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 5, 2010 - 11:15pm
Jerry,I sent you an e-mail to discuss.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.mkkby on January 4, 2010 - 6:08pm
I would love to see growth slow and reverse. However I see no evidence of it. Despite all the pretty presentations, these are the facts on the ground... Oil is so cheap it is being wasted. Capital is essentially free to large corporations. Labor in most of the world is in massive oversupply (i.e cheap).Growth may have peaked in the US and western Europe, but it is nowhere near a peak in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East. Given how undeveloped massive areas are, the ready supply of oil, capital and labor virtually guarantees rapid growth for many decades.
This saddens me because I'd like to see the planet heal. But there is no end in sight.
Follow the money. When the inputs are getting constrained, price increases will tell all. We won't need to guess or argue.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.dare100em on January 5, 2010 - 5:18am
This saddens me because I'd like to see the planet heal. But there is no end in sight.
Nonsense. In around 100 million years this planet will be cooked up badly by sun - no matter what we do or not do. 100 million years are nothing for the universe!
This nature-healing shit drives me insane. There is no staeady-state anywhere at any time in the universe! There is no flying spaghetti monster and no equity in the universe. This things (staedy-state nature for example) are only constructed by our brains!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 10:05pm
Sorry, GailComments can no longer be added to this story.
Chriszenji on January 4, 2010 - 10:31pm
Gail,While I appreciate your efforts in keeping the commentary civil and of quality, to remove a whole section, the "slingfest", seems extreme. Others signing on now won't know what I'm talking about, however I did enjoy reading the posts, and even learned a few things.
I had the thought that an adversary in dialogue, even if contrived (a troll) can serve a good purpose: it brings out the creative adrenaline. Sometimes useful information pops out!
Chris
Comments can no longer be added to this story.FMagyar on January 4, 2010 - 11:22pm
I had the thought that an adversary in dialogue, even if contrived (a troll) can serve a good purpose: it brings out the creative adrenaline. Sometimes useful information pops out!
Agreed! while upon occasion I have had my comments removed and while I may not have agreed I did not protest.
This time it really crosses the line into pure unnecessary censorship. There was nothing in the back and forth that warranted removal of an entire dialog. Bah! Ridiculous!! :-(
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 11:35pm
I wish I had a copy of it. We were on a roll. That whole "nazi" thing was........................unexpected. A misunderstanding, perhaps. Gail, you're OK by me.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on January 5, 2010 - 1:49am
I felt like there is so much of it, that it interfered with anyone else trying to read the thread. They are not really gone--they are hidden.I was also thinking about sending Dr. Meadows a link, and did not want him to thing that this was the usual way Oil Drum posters carried on. About 10% as much of it would have been OK, but it was getting out of hand.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.phil harris on January 5, 2010 - 8:24am
Gail
Could you open a new post (with an up-front explanation) and transfer the now hidden razz / tazz to it, and let them keep at it? (There was a nice one in there by OFMac, for example).Some of the assertions were pretty wild though, in my judgment especially some embedded provocatively in jeppen's comments, and badly supported. (ToD is about getting some reasonably checked or checkable facts and figures into argument. You are correct that properly supported challenges to assertions were getting lost in the slanging match.) Apparently, for some, the view of industrial 'progress', as seen in the rear view mirror having reached our putative Zenith, does not lend itself to their seeing it as having been ... well, most likely, ... the approach to The Zenith. That there were 'improvements' globally until 2007 and perhaps some continuing even now, is not proof of continuing success for this way of expansion. Even during the approach to our recent Zenith-in-the-West, there were queasy-making pictures showing up in my rear view mirror. I have seen, for example, inequality increase markedly in my country UK. It was instructive also to listen to Elizabeth Warren's expert account (a 'model' presentation of evidence made shortly before the recent downturn) of the increasingly vulnerable 'American Middle Class'.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
To what extent nuclear or wind, for example, will 'scale' in the next decades is open to question. Those who still envisage another billion or so people becoming 'American', or getting even halfway, in the next while, need, IMO, some better facts and figures to back their prediction than were on show in yesterday's, now hidden, comments thread.FMagyar on January 5, 2010 - 6:07am
I guess I missed the "nazi" thing, just as well, that can really derail any civilized discussion.
C'est la vie!Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeppen on January 5, 2010 - 4:22am
This troll can understand the site owners' decision, in a way. However, I was sad to see it all go away.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on January 5, 2010 - 9:50am
FWIW, jep, I'm glad to have your contrarian technocopian views around. We need them to balance out the doomer views here, of which there are many. As a declinist I may disagree with you, but it is helpful in developing my own thinking to have someone on your side of things to disagree with.Let's all do keep things civil and intelligent here, though.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 10:31am
+1Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeppen on January 5, 2010 - 11:30am
Thanks. I've also learned a lot from declinists/doomers at TOD, even though I typically don't agree with your projections of the future.If I participate again, I must obviously be much more low key.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.eeyores enigma on January 5, 2010 - 9:22pm
yes lets us cultured gentlemen have another drink and a smoke while the titanic sinks.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on January 5, 2010 - 11:59pm
Excellent idea! Although I don't smoke, I do think I have some brandy in the house.In various movies in which people are finding themselves at the end of the world they have parties celebrating, well, I suppose just celebrating for the sake of celebrating. At some level, what else is there to do? We all end up six feet underground in the end anyway.
Here's one movie I remember that had parties:
Last Night
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156729/N.B. I don't think it's the end of the world, just the end of this way of life. I was just running with your comment.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.jaywfitz on January 4, 2010 - 11:13pm
It's impossible, is it not, to address the issue of "sustainability" without first, of course, quantifying one's level of consumption or standard of living, right?Before asking what is sustainable, one must ask what "level of consumption" is ethical.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.mrostron on January 5, 2010 - 1:02am
Right as far as you go, but the "level of consumption that is ethical" is realtive - relative mostly to population density. One could cavalierly use far more resources with a clear conscience if world population was a quarter of what it is at present. Imagine if China had not taken draconian birth control measures under Mao. I am not an advocate of such measures, but ultimately human population must be controlled and even reduced if any kind of quality of life is to be maintained for most. It seems to me most these discussions ignore the elephant in the room.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Peter Salonius on January 6, 2010 - 8:29am
mrostron says of Chinese draconian birth control measures that were imposed on the population by their government, that:
"I am not an advocate of such measures, but ultimately human population must be controlled and even reduced if any kind of quality of life is to be maintained for most. It seems to me most these discussions ignore the elephant in the room."I am also not an advocate of population control measures being imposed by government in the absence of consultation with the electorate. This consultation can be accomplished by plebiscites and/or referenda during the lead up to which -- all sides / opinions would get an airing as proponents and opponents of birth rate reduction policies attempted to sway the final vote in their direction.
We can attempt to convince the global human populace that overshoot of ecosystem productive capacity requires some sort of planned rapid population decline, such as the adoption of NO or ONE CHILD PER FAMILY behavior. The people can demand population reduction policies that operate by government orchestrated incentives (cash grants, tax relief etc.) for those couples who respect the will of the democratic majority -AND- government orchestrated penalties (fines, withdrawal of social benefits and/or incarceration) for those couples who flaunt the will of the democratic majority ---- that has chosen "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon" to reduce the size of the collective human ecological footprint, instead of waiting for natural resource scarcity to harshly impose this reduction by 'DIEOFF'.
The species with the large brain has the opportunity to choose between planned contraction or chaotic collapse.
Peter Salonius
Comments can no longer be added to this story.bicycle dave on January 4, 2010 - 11:22pm
Changes in technology may delay the end of growth by a few years, but they do not avoid it, and do not avoid the decline.
On public radio today there was a discussion (wtih some technically oriented media folks) about the future as regards energy issues. The concensus seemed to be that new technologies will create a wonderful new world of abundant energy for people all over the planet and, in addition, create huge employment opportunities for us folks here it the USA.
There was no meaningful criticism of these predictions. There was no discussion of the need for reducing population and consumption growth. Nothing on this show sounded logical considering my my TOD centric POV. And, NPR is usually considered left leaning.
My observation, of the good old USA, here in the heartland, is that 99% of the folks firmly believe that there are political (drill baby drill) and technological (especially nukes) solutions that will keep BAU on an even keel - maybe a few bumps, but nothing to write home to mother about.
I would like to see TOD to revisit this issue of small nukes in every neighborhood that are supposed to be our salvation. I find it hard to believe. But, this is the one thing that comes up all the time.
I keep thinking that even if we could perfect the small nuke technology, this does not solve all of our problems on this planet.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 4, 2010 - 11:46pm
A nuke powered pickup truck would be nice!I listen to NPR, but they seem to be mainstreaming more these days. My guess is that they don't want to risk funding, so they're careful to choose their battles accordingly.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.WNC Observer on January 5, 2010 - 9:45am
I would like to see TOD to revisit this issue of small nukes in every neighborhood that are supposed to be our salvation. I find it hard to believe. But, this is the one thing that comes up all the time.
I suppose what they would envision are district heating plants, with a reactor about the size of what powers naval ships providing the heat (and probably electricity for the area as well).
Of course, just one accident, and there goes the neighborhood!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.DelusionaL on January 6, 2010 - 12:46am
small nuke....
I have been asking for a Mr. Fusion for 4 years now.
I have been flatly denied - "...that is the last thing you should have...."Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on January 5, 2010 - 1:04am
I am personally undecided on the whole collapse of civilization issue. I take a skeptical position about it here mostly because I do not find the arguments for collapse convincing, not because I'm convinced it won't happen.I know some geniuses who know far more physics than I do who tell me that given enough energy shortages of individual precious metals or other elements are of little consequence. You can always use a different material and if you have enough energy you can make an industrial society function. Maybe your magnets won't be as efficient but it doesn't matter if you have a lot of energy.
If we can not scale up energy production the question becomes why? I can see why in the short term energy production could decline as oil production declines. But are replacement energy sources destined to have low EROEI? If so, why?
Look at wind, someone above quotes a range of EROEI for wind of 19-25. Sounds like a range that is capable of sustaining an industrial society.
Or look at solar. Are we going to run out of minerals that make PV practical? If so, which ones? Just because we run out of gallium for CIGS doesn't mean PV becomes impractical. There are many approaches to making PV.
Then there are batteries. Are the nanotech researchers wrong to think they can make great batteries from common materials like nanotubes?
Why is a huge decline inevitable? I do not see it myself. But I'm open to convincing evidence.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.daxr on January 5, 2010 - 2:13am
If it were only one problem...Now I'm not an expert, but I would list the "big three" as energy depletion, population growth, and climate change. There's lots to look at there, but for starters, if you look at how dependent agriculture is on declining fossil fuels, then there's one problem that has no real solution. Then look at how climate change is predicted to effect an already in trouble agriculture.
Then you could go on to look at how we got that climate change, by massive energy consumption, and all the "tech" solutions to our energy problems begin to look like ways to fine tune and continue the high-consumption lifestyle...
So that's part of my perspective. I tend to focus on "we need to change our lives" first. There is no tech solution for 6.8 billion, but if we can learn to enjoy living with less, that's one easy first step down.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Peter Salonius on January 6, 2010 - 2:37pm
daxr suggests that "we got that climate change, by massive energy consumption".I suggest inspection of Figure 3 in the paper dealing with historical temperatures recoded in the Greenland ice sheet -- see:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5387/268/
The fact that OBSERVED temperture, during the 4000 year long Holocene Optimum, was more than 2 degrees C warmer than present should cause you to ask whether or NOT our carbon containing gas emisssions - from today's fossil fuel utilization - drive the global climate -and- should case you to question the plausibility of the climate catastrope PREDICTED by IPCC models that are based on the assumption that carbon containing gases are the primary climate drivers.
Peter Salonius
Comments can no longer be added to this story.gregvp on January 5, 2010 - 7:10am
But are replacement energy sources destined to have low EROEI? If so, why?
Take wind. In ideal circumstances (trade winds), Jerome a Paris tells us, wind has a load factor of 60%. In temperate climates the load factor goes down. Say the average is 33%. So you need backup generation for the other two-thirds of the time while your windmill is idle, or storage, with all its attendant capital (embedded energy) costs and energy losses. EROEI is bound to be lower than a state-of-the-art fossil fuel-powered generator that runs at 98% load factor.
Another argument: the "low-hanging fruit" argument. We've done the easy, small-amount-of-I stuff, so yes, replacements (which need a larger I) are almost certain to have lower EROEI, barring stunning* breakthroughs in materials and process science and engineering.
- Yes, an EROEI of 19-25 would be enough to operate a society. But not for long, if it requires us to move up, to the left, along the resource depletion curve (slide 12). Energy is important, but you can't build a house or a wind turbine out of kilowatt-hours alone. And if, over time, you are using more and more of the generated energy to obtain the resources to replace worn-out windmills, eventually you don't have enough left for other needs.
Then there are batteries. ... nanotech...
XKCD seems relevant here. When do you expect nanotube batteries in commercial quantities? Five years? Ten?
One of the main assertions in Limits To Growth (and The Shock Of The Old, which I recommend) is that it always takes much longer to roll out new technologies than people think. (And consumer gadgets are irrelevant here. We're talking about a basic industrial system, not this year's yuppie toy.) Getting to the "take-off" level, about 1% market penetration, seems to take 30 years or more, outside wartime. (And war has its own needs. The Cold War is why we ended up with Uranium-powered nuclear plants, despite Thorium seeming more promising... for generating electricity.)
The situation we're in, if a technology's not ready for the production-line right now, today, it's not going to help. 30 years of R&D, training inspectors, and writing material safety data sheets is just too long.
- Regarding PV, here's my guess for the limiting material: copper. But it's just a guess, and probably it'll be something unconsidered, such as a material used in manufacturing the tough, smooth glass PV requires to be feasible at large scales.
- Decline is not inevitable. But avoiding it requires major changes in behaviour, as Dr. Meadows said.
None of this is convincing, I realize. Good luck with your search for the truth.
--------------------
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
*stunning: because they can be rolled out using existing manufacturing plant, are vastly superior in resource economy, and are at least as good in other respects as their predecessors. They'd be "d'oh! *slap head*" breakthroughs.FuturePundit on January 6, 2010 - 12:59am
Worries about timelines for new technologies miss out on how much we can do with existing technologies.Look at transportation. Do we all have to stop moving around at faster than walking speed net oil exports start declining? I argue we can keep moving around in several (mostly affordable) ways:
- Regular bicycles.
- Electric bicycles.
- Electric scooters.
- Gasoline scooters.
- Electric golf carts. I see them on the road now occasionally.
- Pluggable hybrid cars.
- Pure electric cars.
- Electrified trains.Battery tech keeps getting better. I come across lots of promising battery research reports. The battery coming in the Chevy Volt is a substantial step forward past the lithium batteries used in laptop computers.
We only face a liquid hydrocarbons shortage in the next 20 years. We have lots of ways to generate electricity. A more electrified society can work.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Paul_the_engineer on January 5, 2010 - 10:40am
Collapse has happened in the 20th Century. The Weimar hyperinflation and the collapse of former Soviet Union are a couple of high profile cases.The inevitability arises from the long times required to transition to a new system, for which I cite transportation. Canals, railroads, highways all took 100 years or more to build out (Grubler). Also, electrification took over 50 years. Oil will be in seriously short supply in 10 years or less and this will cause major disruptions to the economy as auto related employment (auto makers, dealers, refineries, service stations, mechanics) all start to go out of business, right at the time when the social security and pension system will be insolvent.
We have no new technologies even at the penetration stage, defined as the first one percent. Not wind, not hybrid autos, not electric vehicles. There is no chance that any of these can make a difference in the required time. However, nuclear power is well established and has a chance of supplying a much larger share of energy.
A lot of people were skeptical of the housing and debt bubble and several books were written (Bill Bonner 2004,05) predicting the sort of economic disruption that happened. In the meantime real estate speculators, including many homeowners, bid prices to insane levels (CA, FL, NV). The point being that ignoring the problem does not make it go away. Also, the government is clueless.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 10:58am
P_T_E,
I was in the CCCP prior to "the collapse", and have to say they were already in severe decline, for the most part. I see some of the symtoms in the U.S. today.As a former nuke, I have a good feel for the nuke issue. Nuke plants are like the Ferarris of power plants: when they run well it's a beautiful thing, but, they can be expensive to maintain, requiring highly qualified techs. The regulations are tight, violate them and your speeding ticket will be huge, and if you let all of their power get away from you it's gonna be very messy. Like the tires on a Ferarri, the balance of system costs are very high.
The newer technologies are still a paper pipe dream, decades needed to go through the regulatory process.
And one more thing: we still haven't addressed the spent fuel disposal problem. Until we do that, I'll never agree that nukes are a good choice. We've been kicking that big, nasty, lethal can down the road for a long time and this can doesn't rust for millenia.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Engineer-Poet on January 6, 2010 - 9:59am
we still haven't addressed the spent fuel disposal problem.
Need I point out that this is because there have been powerful interests which did not want it addressed, and attempted to use overflowing cooling pools to shut down the US nuclear industry? (They were defeated by the approval of dry-cask storage.)
The problem is not hard to handle with a two-step strategy:
- Use fast-spectrum reactors (e.g. revive the IFR) to completely burn the Pu, Am and Cu in spent LWR fuel.
- Store the fission products for ~500 years, after which they are less radiotoxic than the original ore.
The bonus of this is that fast-spectrum converter (breakeven breeding ratio) reactors would have a century of fuel just in our spent LWR fuel, and several times as much more in our DU tails; whatever the energy cost of mining, it would be moot until the second half of the millenium.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.anyone on January 5, 2010 - 3:22pm
We have no new technologies even at the penetration stage, defined as the first one percent. Not wind, not hybrid autos, not electric vehicles. There is no chance that any of these can make a difference in the required time. However, nuclear power is well established and has a chance of supplying a much larger share of energy.Btw, besides the fact that nuclear power plants produce electricity and your Ford F-150 commuter-car doesn't run on electricity (neither do airlines, commercial ships, fossil fuel heaters, wood burners in badly insulated buildings etc.):
Denmark produces 45% less CO2 per capita with a higher GDP per capita than the US, despite not having any hydro and nuclear power.Granted renewable power options face lots of opposition, but like efficiency measures, they do work and sell:
40 GW of renewable power (excluding large hydro) was added last year:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdfChina installed 14 GWth of solar hot water capacity in one single year:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdfAnd the world's largest export nation (Germany) already gets close to 10% of its electricity from Wind and PV.
Fuel efficient cars have been available for well over 10 years and so has insulation, efficient lighting, efficient heaters/AC, efficient appliances etc.:
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/profitable_dat.htmlFuturePundit on January 5, 2010 - 9:42pm
But we have one really big advantage that is rarely mentioned: We currently use far more energy than we need to. So we have huge potential for cutting back our oil usage while still maintaining an industrial society.Look around at all the easily avoidable waste. People drive even a quarter of a mile to go to a store. People go on extra errands rather than plan in advance. They drive when they could bicycle. They go on road trips.
People who have multiple cars sometimes drive their biggest car even when just by themselves with nothing to haul. People can buy smaller cars, electric bicycles, electric golf carts, and other much lower energy means to get around. We have so many ways to cut energy that outright collapse isn't necessary.
Will our living standards decline? Sure. Will unemployment rise up to Great Depression levels? Probably. But I do not see why that means collapse will happen.
I agree the government is clueless. Adaptation will come from the actions of millions of individuals and businesses. Government's role in adapting to the declining availability of oil will be small.
Personally, I've cut back on travel and do much more walking. I also have gone thru and found ways to cut energy usage at home. I work very hard, save more, and learn how to adjust to declining oil production.
Bubbles: We've been having them for centuries. How many of them have caused a total collapse of a society? That is very rare and unlikely.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.geewiz on January 5, 2010 - 1:58am
say what? bank runs illegal?http://www.zerohedge.com/article/government-your-legal-right-redeem-your...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.deuterium on January 5, 2010 - 3:54am
Nuclear breeder reactors have an excellent energy return, even better than an oil gusher, but the real way for man to control his energy destiny would be nuclear fusion. The integral fast reactor has placed a cap on the cost of electricity for many future generations, if not until the sun consumes the Earth billions of years from now. Whether or not nuclear fusion will match this, and eventually displace the breeder, remains to be seen.http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf
Comments can no longer be added to this story.noutram on January 5, 2010 - 5:54am
I'm fascinated with these models of stuff and done a bit myself. So far I've only used Excel. I've heard 'finite state models' can be used and that Excel can do this as well bt not so well.Are there any simple free modelling tools I could use that might give good results?
Nick.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.gregvp on January 5, 2010 - 7:26am
http://www.vensim.com/venple.htmlVensim personal learning edition is great for the System Dynamics method, used by Dr. Meadows and his co-authors of The Limits To Growth. It's a stepped-time stock-and-flow simulator, and can produce charts like slide 2.
Allow 20 hours to work through the tutorials and examples, though.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Escape Artist on January 5, 2010 - 10:03am
Nick,
You can also download the World-03 model for Vensim, and there is a discussion from an April 09 TOD post by Dolores García which describes the inputs/outputs to the model. A paper by Lucia Breierova Generic Structures: Overshoot and Collapse, might also be helpful, as well as Graham Turner's A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality. I recently bought Donella Meadows' Thinking in Systems: A Primer, but I've only started it, so I don't know yet how helpful it will be. You could get Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update at the same time, which I have read and highly recommend.Gail, thanks for posting this. It seems that much of the discussion here on TOD has been concerned quite naturally with energy issues and how to solve them, but it seems that this is missing some of the key points that LTG tried to make. We need to think more holistically (in systems) rather than trying to solve a single issue in isolation. As Meadows et al correctly point out, BAU or even some form of alternative energy BAU will do nothing for biodiversity loss, for instance. Also, they never claimed that the model was trying to make predictions, rather it was designed to create scenarios. The fact that the one scenario called the Standard Scenario has fairly closely tracked reality has happened simply because the model was reasonably accurate, and humanity did not change course. Given that, one might assume that the maximum likelihood path for the future is continuation of this scenario.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Rice Farmer on January 5, 2010 - 6:56am
Hello Gail. I always learn much from your posts, and I've always thought that you are really on to something with your treatment of debt.Anyway, I see that several other people have found the last three lines of your postscript interesting. When I read them, the first thing that came to mind was Jeff Vail's post "The Renewables Gap." It would seem that building renewable capacity requires that we take both energy and capital away from our regular economic activities, leaving the question of how long it will take us to make them back, if we can fully recover them at all.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Gail the Actuary on January 5, 2010 - 2:27pm
It would seem that building renewable capacity requires that we take both energy and capital away from our regular economic activities, leaving the question of how long it will take us to make them back, if we can fully recover them at all.
That is pretty much the way it looks to me, too. Robert Rapier has shown a few places where biofuels make sense (using old cooking oil ?), but these tend to be very limited niches, that cannot possibly make up for our total need.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 5, 2010 - 8:18pm
It would seem that building renewable capacity requires that we take both energy and capital away from our regular economic activities, leaving the question of how long it will take us to make them back, if we can fully recover them at all.
So what? The alternative is BAU, our "regular economic activities"?
Since when have renewables NOT been part of our regular economic activities? You folks seem to put these technologies into a vaccum. We've built 10s of millions of cars, thousands of hydro plants, interstate systems, railroads and ships and theaters and shopping malls and stadiums and universities, and ships to secure and transport our oil, but we can't or shouldn't do this? How much of our economic activity is pure consumption? We can mass produce millions of inefficient ICE vehicles in a year, yet we can't apply the same priciples to RE (especially with so many empty plants available)? Somethings very wrong here!
Build them and they will generate!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Rice Farmer on January 5, 2010 - 9:10pm
Ghung, I think you are missing the point. Renewables don't deliver the high net energy that fossil fuels do, so the more energy and capital we invest in them, the farther behind the curve we fall. Read Jeff Vail's "The Renewables Gap" for a more detailed treatment of this problem. It's like drinking ocean water to quench your thirst.That said, I am personally all in favor of building as much renewable capacity as possible now, while it is still possible. That would at least leave us with something after fossil fuels become too expensive.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 6, 2010 - 11:28am
Having converted over 80% of our home energy use to renewables over the last decade we have a very personal feel for "the Renewables Gap".
13 years into this project, if asked if we would we do it again, the answer is yes. Would we have done some things differently. Sure! I know this is a crude analogue to society as a whole but I felt the need to pay things forward at a time when I had the resources and the technology to do it. From a purely economic standpoint, many might question the wisdom of doing this (fewer do every day, btw), but to us it's energy capital in the bank.Common TOD wisdom says that we are going to need all of the non-ff energy we can muster, and the jobs that come along. As I said, if we can collectivly mass produce millions of ICE cars, trucks,boats, jet skis, ATVs, etc, and the infrastucture to support them, then we can certainly offset much of our energy production with renewables. It's about the choices we make looking forward. The various nuke technologies discussed further up the thread sound good. The renewables I'm disscussing are "shovel ready". Time's awasting!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Bandits on January 6, 2010 - 2:49am
Have you read limits to growth? For pity's sake get a grip. Engineering for BAU will just murder us all with a fall of a cliff too steep to recover from.It doesn't take a genius to describe what "WE" can engineer to enable a semblance of BAU. I've read it all here on TOD, from thorium reactors to millions of electric cars to covering half the planet with solar panels and windmills.
Why not now describe how you will engineer solutions to over population, pollution, soil degradation, species extinction and the destruction of fisheries and water supplies.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
I suspect that's too hard, much easier to BS us all into believing that the answer is to keep building.Ghung on January 6, 2010 - 4:15pm
Bandito:
My response was to the question of renewables. I have often posted on the question of reduced population and consumption, as well as the issue of soil degradation and the larger issue of environmental/ecological destruction, etc. You will be hard pressed to find anyone on TOD who has "put his money where his mouth is" more than I. As I've said in the past, we need to do all of these things now, but I have yet to see a good proposal for a drastic reduction in population (in a peaceful manner) that is workable, IMO. Feel free to post any suggestions (I suggested a sterilization lottery once, went over like a Led Zepplin). In the mean-time, I continue to encourage our society to fight the battles that I feel that we can win, at least to the point of mitigation. I agree that to build for the sake of building is just BAU, but moving our energy infrastucture towards a more sustainable paradigm is worth discussion, IMO. Or we can all just start stockpiling food, ammo and fuel (probably not bad advice). If you read some of my posts you'll see that I'm no cornucopian.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ghung on January 6, 2010 - 4:15pm
Bandito:
My response was to the question of renewables. I have often posted on the question of reduced population and consumption, as well as the issue of soil degradation and the larger issue of environmental/ecological destruction, etc. You will be hard pressed to find anyone on TOD who has "put his money where his mouth is" more than I. As I've said in the past, we need to do all of these things now, but I have yet to see a good proposal for a drastic reduction in population (in a peaceful manner) that is workable, IMO. Feel free to post any suggestions (I suggested a sterilization lottery once, went over like a Led Zepplin). In the mean-time, I continue to encourage our society to fight the battles that I feel that we can win, at least to the point of mitigation. I agree that to build for the sake of building is just BAU, but moving our energy infrastucture towards a more sustainable paradigm is worth discussion, IMO. Or we can all just start stockpiling food, ammo and fuel (probably not bad advice). If you read some of my posts you'll see that I'm no cornucopian.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ghung on January 6, 2010 - 4:15pm
Bandito:
My response was to the question of renewables. I have often posted on the question of reduced population and consumption, as well as the issue of soil degradation and the larger issue of environmental/ecological destruction, etc. You will be hard pressed to find anyone on TOD who has "put his money where his mouth is" more than I. As I've said in the past, we need to do all of these things now, but I have yet to see a good proposal for a drastic reduction in population (in a peaceful manner) that is workable, IMO. Feel free to post any suggestions (I suggested a sterilization lottery once, went over like a Led Zepplin). In the mean-time, I continue to encourage our society to fight the battles that I feel that we can win, at least to the point of mitigation. I agree that to build for the sake of building is just BAU, but moving our energy infrastucture towards a more sustainable paradigm is worth discussion, IMO. Or we can all just start stockpiling food, ammo and fuel (probably not bad advice). If you read some of my posts you'll see that I'm no cornucopian.Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldfarmermac on January 6, 2010 - 12:44pm
Ghung, They will indeed generate if they are built.And thre is no doubt in my mind that we could build enough to make things work on a sustainable basis,although we would have to go whole hog on conservation as well.
I 've recently been redeading The Rise and Fall of thre Third Riech .The Nazis managed to build a war machine as well as support the German population using local low grade iron ore previously considered worthless(they were importing Swedish ore previously ) and burning synthetic gasoline made from coal.
I am not a fan of totalitarian govts in general and the Nazis in particular were among the very worst ever but they proved conclusively that if there is a will there is a way when confronted with resource shortages.
If we were to divert even half of the money that is wasted in various programs in this country into conservation and renewables I believe we would be in pretty good shape and avoid the collapse that looks inevitable under the bau paradigm.
The money spent on just one new car would be more than ample to convert an ordinary house to a near zero energy house.If we mandated serious energy conservation standards into a national building code,an extra ten thousand incorporated into a new house would eventually pay a satisfactory return from the word go in enrgy expenses.Your need save only five hundred dollars per year to get a five percent return on ten grand.Most of the houses in my nieghborhood are old enough that ten grand spent on upgrades would save a lot more than five hundred bucks annually just on heating and airconditioning.
Supposedly we can't afford a hundred billion for a hvdc grid but that's peanuts on a per capita basis.It's not even beer money !
But of course it's much easier to go to war in this country than it is to pass energy conservation leglisation.
Of course efficiency and conservation probably cannot prevent an ultimate day of reckoning from arriving sooner or later but if the later is late enough may have turned the corner on population growth, poverty , and ignorance, making it politically possible to continue implementing ever more stringent measures as necessary to preserve the environment.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Ghung on January 6, 2010 - 4:37pm
+1 Mac.Ain't gonna happen, is it? Too little, too late....
Comments can no longer be added to this story.ExtraO on January 5, 2010 - 1:59pm
In his comments about slide one Dr. Meadows says: "The major difference I see in looking at the situation now is that things seem to be developing more rapidly than we expected then." He then went on to cover up part of the curves on slide two because he now thinks things are going to be very different from what they modeled almost 40 years ago.One thing that seems to leap out at me about the original LTG and the 30 Year Update -which I am reading now- is that again and again in the text the authors -at least to me, anyway- appear to go into some detail about all of the complicating (i.e. pessimistic) factors that will influence the progression of events about the subject being modelled (resources, population, land use, etc). Then, because so many of these complicating factors are not adequately quantified (translation: justifiable in an academic/scientific setting) they are not included in the model or what it projects -with the result that the projections are optimistic. So I am not in the least surprised that "things seem to be developing more rapidly than we expected" . This is not a criticism of the work, as they were surely trying to minimize the potential for points of contention in their findings. Nevertheless the result is that the models often appear to have been "best case" or close to best case scenarios; the other "not included" information having been laid out so the "jury could hear it even if it wasn't admissible as evidence". Just sayin'...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.ExtraO on January 5, 2010 - 2:07pm
I'd like to add; that if proposals, or policy decisions are to be made on the basis of models that are skewed toward the positive for whatever reasons, what possible hope can they have of being appropriate?Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GlobalMakeover on January 5, 2010 - 9:59pm
Couple of points:1) There are huge piles of resources being wasted, number one being the military industrial complex, which according to Chalmers Johnson is probably up at close to 1 trillion dollars yearly -- and much of that is manufactured, that is, if you make wind turbines instead of fighter jets, you would be in good shape, repowering society-wise (swords into plowshares, or swords into wind turbines). Another huge manufacturing waste are the millions of cars being produced globally. Cars are used about 4% of the time according to Gore's new book. You basically have a good chunk of the world's manufacturing capacity built to output cars, and the demand has fallen drastically, yielding a huge surplus, no less (seen Michigan lately?). So between just the military and auto industry, you have plenty of capacity to make wind and solar. As for solar, build more silicon purification plants....
2) Manufacturing does not require oil. This point seems to be lost in quite a few peak oil discussions. The civilization is not dependent on oil, transportation is dependent on oil. The motors that are used to do almost all manufacturing run on electricity. Yes, chemicals require oil, but much of that (1/3rd of plastics are for packaging) is not life or death, civilization-wise. So, transportation -- prior to 1920, when industrialization in the US was doing just fine, thank you, transportation ran on rail. And could now as well, so add that to what is needed for a self-sustaining transformation, but rail does not require much in the way of exotic materials, and is built using electricity and can run on electricity.
To sum up, there's plenty of waste that could be directed to building up renewables, and once you have the renewables, you can power manufacturing, sustainably, without oil.
-- Jon Rynn
Comments can no longer be added to this story.Starship Trooper on January 5, 2010 - 11:32pm
The LTG was actually the second introduction to synergistic effects and exponential consequences. My first intro was a paper by Jay Forrester on System Dynamics. It was part of the required reading and discussion of the first engineering course I took. I read LTG as paer of an environmental impacts (Humanties) course. It altered the way I viewed the world and had me look down the road to what I could do (or how I might prepare) for what lies before us.The one thing I remember most strikingly was that in order to survive and thrive would require something so radically different from what we were (and still are) committed to that it would tkae the actual catastrophic effects to get our attention (too late). "I told you so," presuming some form of survival, did not seem very satisfying.
As I recently told someone, the ecosystem does not care what we think or what our politics are. Some of us will be less surprised than others when it is discovered that nature does not do 'bailouts.'