 | To Forbes - A Gentle Cough of Correction at TOD's End | The Oil Drum | Will the Bakken “Red Queen” Have to Run Faster? |  |
Tech Talk - Of Egyptian Bread and Oil
Posted by Heading Out on July 28, 2013 - 7:29am
The turmoil in the Middle East shows little sign of ending in the near future, and the potential lack of enough cheap fuel for the population is a warning that the levels of unrest may continue and even get worse. There is, however, some hope for enough local supply in the near term to help with some of the indigenous problems. Consider, for example, Egypt, which has the largest population of the countries in its immediate vicinity, a population that has grown 200% in the last 50 years.
By last December Egypt was populated by some 83.66 million folk, with little sign of change in the growth rate. Over that time, energy demand has grown, while domestic supplies of fuel have not kept up.The most significant change, perhaps, is in oil consumption, with recent data, as previously noted, showing that the country has now switched to one that must import oil to meet demand.
The EIA puts consumption at 811 kbd, set against a production of 555 kbd of petroleum products and, for natural gas, the country produced 2.1 bcf , which can be set against a consumption of 1.8 bcf, but the balance there also is trending downwards as recent levels of discovery and development have failed to match the increase in domestic demand.
The developing need for oil imports is made more difficult by the subsidies that have become an accepted part of the Egyptian economy, including not only fuel, but also bread. Fuel subsidies are reported to be at around $17.4 billion and about a fifth of total state spending. Bread subsidies, though a similarly critical part of picture, run only at about 20% of the fuel cost. To help manage costs and encourage domestic production, the Morsi government had cut back on foreign purchases of wheat, but this has now been reversed with the take-over even as the new government works to transition away from the subsidy burden. With the change, foreign governments are now also more willing to provide fuel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will send around a million barrels of oil this month, and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are promising more aid packages.
This may help with the short–term problem, which has too many political entanglements to allow any solid predictions for longer term help from outside the country, but there are potential sources of increasing domestic supplies from both the Western Desert and the Nile Delta itself.
Egypt has been supplying natural gas to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel through the Arab Gas Pipeline, with flow starting in Arish, and the leg to Ashkelon being underwater.
Because of the connection to Israel, the pipeline has been the subject of a number of terrorist attacks (the latest a couple of weeks ago). However, these more often affect the flow of gas to Jordan, rather than to Israel, because of the pipeline locations, with the pipeline being vulnerable in the Sinai where it is flowing south to Taba. This problem has led Jordan to consider importing natural gas from Israel and the recently found offshore natural gas deposits being developed in that country. Flow from the Tamar field started on March 30th tapping into the estimated 8 Tcf therein, while flow from Leviathan is anticipated in 2016.
The possible presence of oil-bearing strata at a lower depth in the Levant Basin has led Noble to plan an offshore well to go down 31,200 ft to a potential field holding perhaps as much as 1.8 billion barrels of oil. However, Noble estimates the chance of success at 25%.
The recent success in finding these resources within the Levant Basin suggests that the potential for other discoveries in future years, with significant possible impacts on the local economies.
The problems limiting future exploration in the region tie in with the conflicts and internal disruption that seems to spread to most of the countries in the above map. But in the more immediate short term, Egypt is reducing exports in order to meet the growth in domestic demand, while importing natural gas, currently as a gift, from Qatar.
In the longer term, as the Israeli fields come on line, it might be possible to change the direction of flow of the Arish-Ashkelon pipeline to carry Israeli gas into Egypt. There are thus potential technical solutions to getting fuel to Egypt to meet their growing need.
However,this does not address the underlying problem of how Egypt is going to be able to pay for that fuel (not to mention the bread). Even with a potential glut in global natural gas prices, without a stable economy Egypt is not going to be able to pay its import bill. This was evident towards the end of the Morsi government, when a lack of cash or hard credit made it more difficult for the country to assure itself of enough imported oil to meet demand. The continued turmoil will keep away the tourists that could provide the economy with enough funds, while the lack of international recognition of the current regime is currently keeping the IMF from providing any help.
A couple of hundred years ago, deriding the people's need for bread reputedly led one ruling family to the guillotine. In the time since the people have also come to expect that they can also get fuel. Until both demands are satisfied it may be more likely than not that rule in Egypt will remain unstable, with the presence and influence of the competing mobs making rational decisions less achievable and the situation worse. (And they are also blowing up pipelines in Iraq.)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
In 1947, the population of Egypt was about 19 million. The growth in the population of 84 million at the end of 2012 represents an increase of 342%. Their problem is the ultimate limits to growth problem, that is, their population has grown beyond their environment's capacity to provide the resources needed to support all those people. Egypt isn't the only nation in that predicament, as humanity overall isn't able to face such limits at the very local level of the bedroom.
There's no easy way out, as shown by the attempts of China and India to curb population growth. The US is also going to be facing the same limits, except that we have had more resources to start growing at a rapid rate. The US may actually be in a worse situation, given the massive propaganda campaign to promote growth, including efforts to ban abortion, which is, after all, birth control of last resort. Our political leaders refuse to admit that growth must stop, like it or not, because of the political consequences in a society which has almost no clue about science and which has been brainwashed to think the future will bring forth ever more energy resources to feed our demands...
E. Swanson
Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels - CBS News
Houston, we have a problem...
China has very successfully reduced fertility to below the replacement level. US fertility rates are also slightly below replacement.
Egypt needs to educate women and allow them to do something with their lives besides have children.
"China has very successfully reduced fertility to below the replacement level...." while very successfully increasing their collective consumption.
As recently as 1965 the thermodynamic footprint of the ordinary Chinese citizen was on the order of slightly more than 2.5 H.E. (baseline Human Equivalent based on caloric intake of early hunter gatherers).
By 2011 they had crossed above the average global of 20 H.E.
So yeah, those 1.2 billion Chinese are now consuming the equivalent of 20.4 billion hunter-foragers.
So while their population growth rate may be just under replacement, their thermodynamic impact is devastating. Especially if they plan on continuing on a trajectory of 7% annual growth. That means their economy and consumption of natural resources would double in a decade.
Currently the Chinese consume 43% of all the coal in the world. In ten years they would be consuming another 43%. Of course that will never happen, something is going to give, long before then.
Well lets be careful pointing fingers at other countries...the U.S is still a huge wasteful country...The responsible thing for world leaders would be to let us go into a deep worldwide depression. That is hard for leaders to do and still keep their heads and not have World War. People think that we had WW2 because of Hitler and Stalin and such, but it was because economic conditions were ripe for these people to come to power. There are really no good options.....
Who's pointing fingers at other countries?
I'm just making the point that as Chinese citizens start to consume more this is a big problem for the whole world including the Chinese. Limits to growth is a global problem no one is exempt. The Chinese are growing their economy at about 7% a year. That's a doubling every decade. If we are reaching global resource limits right now there aren't enough resources on the planet to allow the Chinese to double their economy in the next ten years.
And yes, the US with roughly 5% of the global population has a Thermodynamic Footprint of roughly 2.5 billion H.E. so it is a hugely wasteful country. Which doesn't mean the rest of the world can now do as we have done.
According to Paul Chefurka's TF calculations the average US citizen has an H.E. equivalent of 79 and the average Chinese is at an H.E. of about 20. The Canadians are among the worst offenders with an average H.E. of about 103.
Cheers!
Fred
I don't hae a Phd, but I put US HE footprint at 27 billion.
Correct, roughly 25 billion. Not 2.5 billion as I wrote. The point still remains.
Thermodynamic Footprint
Is a little misleading. Chinese coal consumption would be unsustainable even if they cut it by 95%. On the other hand, the same level of energy consumption would be entirely sustainable if it came from wind or solar.
Here's another way to put it: the Chinese and US aren't wasting energy, they're using a polluting energy source.
It's not reaching a limit to growth, it's reaching a limit to pollution.
With fossil fuels, the correct term is mining energy rather than consuming energy.
Any way you cut it, the human experiment on planet Earth is reaching a limit. The die is cast as far as climate change is concerned, and that means that food supplies will reach a limit. The warming, acidifying seas have been mined out of fish (see any of Jeremy Jackson's horrific videos for the evidence) energy costs are increasing, driving up prices at the same time as real wages are declining.
All the "coulda woulda shoulda" in the world doesn't change where we are. All the "If only's" and the "All we need to do's" won't change the trajectory that the human collective (in all its statistically deterministic "wisdom") has decided to follow.
We are Burning Man, and we have decided that the best way to get quick energy is to burn stuff. We have at most 30 years before the road we have paved with the best of intentions reaches the gates of our self-made hell. In the coal mine of global techno-industrial civilization, the canaries like Egypt have already begun to die.
So it goes.
Could be. We really don't know that.
FF costs are increasing a little, but renewable energy costs are declining - they're already lower than most FFs.
Humanity may be able to prevent the worst of climate change - we don't know exactly what the dynamics are. Humanity can and has moved quickly in the past - we really aren't a mass of statistics, like Asimov's Foundation envisioned. For better or worse human history is "chaotic" and led hiearchically, meaning a small group of people can make big change. At the moment a small group is preventing change, but that can reverse quickly.
We may be able to prevent the worst but we probably won't do it. Too many people are in denial, ignorant, uncaring, or have a vested interest in not addressing the problem. We'll continue to burn until we are smacked down by something big. And by that time, the die will be cast, there will be too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere already.
Slavery was a losing business proposition for the United States. Much of Europe had already abolished it. The free worker was simply better, and it was only in the interest of a class of slave owners that it be kept. Who are the slave owners of the present age? The fossil fuel industry.
Nice discussion from CommonDreams:
"On this Earth Day, those of us fighting for climate justice and an end to the world’s fossil fuel domination should take heart from the struggle against slavery.
Imagine for a moment that it is 1858 and you are an abolitionist. Talk about discouragement: The previous year, in its Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no black person—whether enslaved or free—was entitled to become a U.S. citizen. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that the framers of the Constitution believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…" The decision declared that the federal government could not ban slavery in U.S. territories. A few years before, Congress had passed the Fugitive Slave Act, which vastly expanded the U.S. government’s authority to seize and return to slavery individuals who had fled to freedom—or even those blacks born free in the North. Many Northern blacks crossed into Canada rather than live in constant fear.
And abolitionists were waging not just a moral struggle against the enslavement of human beings. Slavery was the largest industry in the United States, worth more than all the factories, banks, and railroads combined. In effect, the abolition movement aimed to expropriate without compensation the wealth of the most powerful social class in the country.
On the surface, abolitionists had made little, if any, progress. In fact, by most indicators, things had gotten worse. The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833. After about 30 years of antislavery activism, twice as many people were enslaved, more U.S. territory was dedicated to slavery, slaveowners possessed more wealth, and the federal government’s commitment to slavery was greater than ever before. Yes, talk about grounds to be discouraged."
It was only possible to abolish slavery because the Industrial Revolution was under way. Slave power was less economically productive than coal power. Slavery was abolished first in Europe because the Industrial Revolution started there, so the economic shift created by coal was more advanced, so slavery was abolished first. It's that simple.
Fossil fuels stopped slavery by creating a new economic climate - abolitionist social values simply followed along behind to explain, justify and support the shift. Marvin Harris can lay out how that works if you need a voice of authority.
Slavery will probably be back...
"Slavery will probably be back"
Probably not slavery, but serfdom. Slavery is too costly to maintain by violence. Feudal serfdom is much more effective in this regard.
Slave power was less economically productive than coal power.
Slaves weren't replaced by coal power. Powered machinery didn't reach the field until many decades later.
"The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.[13] While it took a single slave about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[14] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850.[15] By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market.[16] The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse, and – according to many historians – was the start of the Industrial Revolution".[17]
Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.[18]
Due to its inadvertent effect on American slavery, the invention of the cotton gin is frequently cited as one of the ultimate causes of the American Civil War"
Per wikipedia
Slavery will probably be back...
Why, with wind and solar power available??
Interesting - this Wiki reference says "Whitney's gin revolutionised the cotton industry in the United States, but also led to the growth of slavery in the American South, and has been identified as a contributing factor to the outbreak of the American Civil War."
Recall that Abolitionism was a product of the more highly industrialized North. The article Slavery in the United States says this: "...there was a gradual spread of abolitionism in the North, while the rapid expansion of the cotton industry from 1800 caused the South to identify strongly with slavery, and attempt to extend it into the new Western territories."
The point, which you are weaving around, is that slavery was doomed by economics and not by human good will. Abolitionism only worked after the economic circumstances were right. The machinery required to produce the cotton gin was industrial, and industry was in the process of shifting, both in Europe and the USA, away from human power to more productive sources such as coal.
Slavery has never left the planet, and it will probably come back even stronger because industry will have a harder and harder time operating as climate change knocks the pins out from under industrial civilization. That could leave many regions of the globe without wind turbines or solar power - but with lots of people. Not will, but could; not everywhere, but in many places.
I am sorry people, but you are wrong.
You are morally right, but economically and historically you are wrong.
Slavery was more efficient in the South than has been given credit for.
Robert Fogel, American Nobel Prize in Economics, the father of Cliometrics, says that in his controversial work,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10118804/Robert-Fogel.html
“There is such a thing as morality, and morality is higher than economics.” Fogel
And about the railroads he also has some cold water to throw on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fogel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliometrics
Interesting. So, social movements can lead to sudden change:
"Fogel, who had been a Marxist in his youth, saw the forces of morality trumping economic logic as a major cause of historical development. In The Fourth Great Awakening (2000), he argued that repeated cycles of religious evangelism in American history had played a crucial role in pushing and shaping social and political change. The first “Great Awakening” began in the 1730s and ripened into the American Revolution; the second began around 1800 and spawned the antislavery movement that precipitated the Civil War; the third began at the end of the 19th century, leading to the Social Gospel movement and the rise of the welfare state. A conservative fourth awakening which began around 1960 was still being played out, though he predicted that its legacy would be voluntarism, “self-realisation” and a commitment to equality of opportunity for all."
The point, which you are weaving around, is that slavery was doomed by economics and not by human good will.
Actually, if you look back you'll see that I made that point directly: "Slavery was a losing business proposition for the United States. Much of Europe had already abolished it. The free worker was simply better, and it was only in the interest of a class of slave owners that it be kept. "
So, slavery was doomed by economics (or not - see the comment below about Fogel), but there was a class of slave owners which was violently opposed to abolition. Abolition required a major war.
And, that's the point: abolition happened, and far faster than anyone anticipated in 1858.
industry was in the process of shifting, both in Europe and the USA, away from human power to more productive sources such as coal.
This isn't really relevant to the slavery metaphor, but it's an interesting separate question. And, I just don't see it: farm work was manual and horse-driven until tractors arrived. Coal made very little difference to farm life. With or without the cotton gin...
industry will have a harder and harder time operating as climate change knocks the pins out from under industrial civilization.
hmmm. Agriculture, maybe. Industry? I don't really see how.
TOD cracks me up.
Optimist: Look, big changes are possible . . . we got rid of slavery.
Pessimist: Slavery only went away because we got fossil fuel energy slaves. And real slavery is gonna make a come-back.
BTW, my original point was about the hysteresis. By the time we finally get serious about climate change there will already be decades worth of carbon by-products in the atmosphere that will keep climate change going even if we went cold turkey (which would never happen).
I think mankind is unable to understand and deal with problems that operate on timescales of hundreds of years or longer. That is why Fukushima happened. That is why so many people don't believe in evolution.
By the time we finally get serious about climate change there will already be decades worth of carbon by-products in the atmosphere
True, though they could be sucked back out by a determined effort.
I think mankind is unable to understand and deal with problems that operate on timescales of hundreds of years or longer.
Well, you and I understand such problems, which means that humans are genetically capable of doing it. Now societies sometimes change slowly, and determined minorities can sometimes block change. Will that happen indefinitely? Could be. Our current trajectory isn't very encouraging.
But...massive, society-wide change can happen very fast. Look at Japan in 1870. Look at the US in 1776, 1860, or December 07, 1940. Look at Russia, in 1990. Sometimes change occurs with a long period of saturation, and then a sudden moment of crystallization (to use a chemistry metaphor).
It's way too early to give up.
@Nick: Your comment stopped short of the end game for slavery in the US. Wikipedia: 'American Civil War' -
"America's first industrial war".
While only a small fraction of the US population owned slaves at the beginning of the Civil War, I expect the number who own, and rely on (are enslaved by?) fossil fuel energy slaves is closer to 100%. What percentage realize any moral imperative to emancipate themselves?
Back to the topic, the people of Egypt are less reliant upon fossil fuels than are 'entitled' Americans, yet are on the brink of civil war, if not there already. In the US, folks having been fed myths of 'energy independence' and American exceptionalism, I'm not sure a transition will go as smoothly as you suggest. Best hopes for no major oil shocks.
number who own, and rely on (are enslaved by?) fossil fuel energy slaves is closer to 100%.
The average US citizen would be better off with a hybrid, and no worse off with an EREV like the Volt. They wouldn't be hurt at all by a transition. The people who are dependent are those whose career and investments depend directly on FF.
Net FF exports are a factor in Egypt, but far from the most important. It's highly unrealistic to suggest that ELM is the central problem in Egypt.
US citizens follow their leaders remarkably obediently. So far, those leaders have told them to stay with FF, for the most part. When that changes, the citizens will follow.
It could be argued that a major cause of the troubles in Egypt is the wheat imports. Bread represents a large fraction of the diet for the lowest paid citizens in Egypt, those who live on less than ~$3 a day. The Egyptian government has provided subsidies for wheat in the market, but those subsidies were paid for from monies gained via their exports, especially their oil. Oil products were also subsidized, keeping the market price low.
As the oil available for export declined, the trade balance became negative and those import bills had to be paid to keep the wheat and oil flowing into their nation. The IMF wanted those subsidies to disappear as a condition for providing loans and one result has been the civil strife. From this perspective, I think this situation is in fact a clear example of the Jeffery Brown's ELM at work...
E. Swanson
There's no question that ELM is one of several factors working here.
If you have the time, it would be helpful to analyze it quantitatively and see just how large their oil export earnings were, and how large a factor they were in the overall Egyptian economy.
It would be useful to quantify the contribution of oil & gas exports to Egypt's economy, if someone had the time.
I'd say that's a necessary first step to argue that ELM was a primary contributor to Egypt's problems.
Yes, it would be useful to go deeper into the structure of Egyptian economics. For example, what other sources of foreign exchange do they have to supplement the lost revenue from oil exports? To really get down to that level would likely take considerable effort, I would think. I'm sure not going to attempt it, it's much easier to watch events play out. Hand me another beer and pass the peanuts...
Egypt Plans Energy-Subsidy Reforms Before IMF Visit, Al Mal Says"
IMF abandons plan to provide $4.8 billion loan to Egypt
Arab Republic of Egypt and the IMF
Google is your friend, right?
E. Swanson
This article from October, 2012 is highly informative:
Egypt's Unbalance of Payments
I am sorry, dears, but you are wrong.
Slavery was more efficient in the South than has been given credit for.
Robert Fogel, American Nobel Prize in Economics, the father of Cliometrics, says that in his controversial work,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10118804/Robert-Fogel.html
“There is such a thing as morality, and morality is higher than economics.” Fogel
And about the railroads he also has some cold water to throw on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fogel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliometrics
Canada is very cold.
What?! You guys think you're better than Ötzi, the iceman, eh? >;-)
Right now where I am in Sao Paulo Brazil, wonderful tropical country that it is, no one has heating. Indoor temperature is hovering around 52 F. Would that be warm enough for your average Canadien? By coincidence I was talking to a Canadian just last week and he admitted he had never felt as cold in Canada as he did indoors in Sao Paulo.
Here in western North Carolina the temperature this AM was about 54F (12C). Some 65 other locations from AR to WI set or tied record low maximum temperatures yesterday, 27 July, and there were 50 on the 26th. There were also 57 record low minimums set or tied. It's supposed to be Summer, so this seems a bit cool. Meanwhile, Europe and Russia are said to be in a heat wave...
E. Swanson
These are a kind of Mourning Dove that we have around here. The temps this morning were in the low 40s these birds aren't used to that and there were about 50 of them on top of an electric pole that was in the sun.
I snapped this picture.
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/Sao%20Paulo/Coldbirdsin...
WOW!!! less than a whopping 100 heating degree days a year in Sao Paulo (65° F base). Wouldn't make much of a carbon footprint dent if everyone there did heat those realively few hours when it is down to 52 there. The average low in Sao Paulo bottoms at 55 while the average daily high never drops below 71. Yeah I know how averages work but still...
some little northern cities come in at around 14,000 heating degree days a year. You really are out of your element when talking about cold. Until you've worked 7/10s outdoors for a few months with highs ranging from maybe zero to minus 30 or 40 F (with a steady stiff breeze in some locals) you won't understand why northerners have come to like to keep the indoors a bit on the toasty side.
From what I can tell, every war has been a banker's war.
We may blame it on religion, but I firmly believe it was a bunch of bankers stoking the fires behind the scenes.
The stake: rental income ( taxes, tribute, whatever can be extracted from those who need resources by those who "own" them, where ownership can be changed either by law or by force. )
War is a racket. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm
baseline Human Equivalent based on caloric intake of early hunter gatherers
So when is the shut off for early homo sapiens hunter gatherers, 40,000 years ago? No doubt Inuit hunter gathers (Kabloona by Poncins is worth the read) feeding the team of 5-7 sled dogs needed to chase down the seals on the arctic ice pack so a family of four to six (adults and children) could survive would have far higher caloric intake than even the remnant groups of hunter gatherers roaming parts of Africa now.
Just where are the baseline hunter gatherers living and what tech have they harnessed?
Well . . . reducing consumption is painful but can be done. Reducing population is known as genocide and is more than painful. I'd rather have high-consumption low-population-growth states than low-consumption high-population-growth states. Those low-consumption states will do everything they can to increase their consumption.
It's a question of rates.
As Nick says, nearly all advanced countries have below-replacement fertility and trivial immigration. (Quite a few developing countries are in the same position, btw.)
In the absence of policy changes (allowing mass immigration from Nigeria...or Egypt, say), their populations will inevitably reduce. No genocide is required, besides that performed by the Grim Reaper.
Energy consumption has also peaked in most advanced countries, the major exceptions being Australia and Canada -- although the latter looks close to peaking.
If you're not in too much of a hurry, reducing consumption is just a matter of pricing things correctly and allowing people to make investments accordingly.
Heck, proper pricing can get you there mighty quickly if people have certainty about future pricing.
A lot of the delays we've seen are the result of people waiting to be sure that higher prices are permanent before they make big changes.
In the current US political environment, even really aggressive policies, like a really stiff carbon tax, would be subject to fears that a future administration would reverse them. Real change would be helped by a strong national consensus - something that's developing, but definitely isn't here yet.
We could see **very** fast change once it became clear to everyone that a consensus had crystallized. Kind've like the moment when Walter Cronkite came back from a tour of Vietnam and said on his national pulpit that he didn't believe in the Johnson Vietnam policy.
As I understand US politics, the more direct and aggressive a policy is, the more prone to reversal it would be. Any new taxes would be prone to reversal, too.
I like the idea of declaring coal ash hazardous waste, just as I like the effect of the Clinton administration's regulation of mercury emissions, which finally came into effect two (?) years ago. (And after coal ash, diesel particulates...)
No money is mentioned with these actions, and they seem quite motherhood-and-apple-pie to most voters. But they send investors the desired message.
Perhaps it's a pity that such indirect and slow methods are needed in order to level the playing field. But hey, people are ... people. I don't think we'd like a world filled exclusively with economists.
The United States is in a depression/recession whatever you want to call it...take out the FED actions and we don't have an economy.. I think that people are mistaking our condition as peak consumption but we can't stay here forever; I am afraid our economy needs to grow and consume to survive...swim or die
Economies die. Ours is comitting suicide. I suggest you begin disconnecting from it.
The sensible path is declining commodity consumption combined with economic growth. E.g., a laptop that uses 25% as much power, and is twice as fast. Or, an EV that's faster and handles better, but uses no fossil fuels. Or, a heat pump that maintains a more level temperature, but uses half the power. Etc., etc,...
$$$, scale and the thought process of the Average Joe. Three chunky obstacles to be sure.
Hmm. You might want to narrow that down.
$$$: wind and solar are already cheaper than (new) coal. EVs are as cheap as ICEs. Both are *much* cheaper if you factor in pollution and security costs.
scale: wind and solar are immensely scalable, much more so than fossil fuels.
thought process: for better or worse, we're a hierarchical and specialized society: the average joe takes his cues from his leaders and his media. If they change their message, the average joe will change his thinking.
Nick: 81 comments on this post as I type, 25% of them yours. I'm wondering if you ever find time to venture into the real world?
"$$$: wind and solar are already cheaper than (new) coal. EVs are as cheap as ICEs. Both are *much* cheaper if you factor in pollution and security costs."
I can only comment from an Australian POV: All these so-called "renewables" are heavily subsidised by the government. Heavily. Additionally, cost of living continues to rise; rates, insurance, car registration, school fees, etc have doubled in a few short years, so the extra dollars available to my fellow Joes and Janes simply aren't there. Solar panels and electric cars are off the table for the vast majority. They're a luxury item. And many would question whether they're up to par anyway.
"scale: wind and solar are immensely scalable, much more so than fossil fuels."
Renewables are built and maintained with FF equipment, using materials dug from the ground with FF machines. They also ultimately have a lifespan, so in time will need to be replaced (using FF equipment/machines). Again, many would question whether renewables are truly sustainable, whatever "sustainable" means (100 year life span? 1000 years? 50?)
"thought process: for better or worse, we're a hierarchical and specialized society: the average joe takes his cues from his leaders and his media. If they change their message, the average joe will change his thinking."
You've got it backwards: Average Joes are extremely cynical of politicians. Just today it was announced that our state's pre-eminent sporting venue would host the final of the world cup (cricket). Commercial confidentially prevents discloser of the cost to tax payers (probably many millions). One example of our leaders pushing BAU, one of (10's of?) 1000's of such decisions made by our "leaders" globally each year. You muse, "If they change their message"? Not likely any time soon, IMO, not while there's (fingers crossed) money to be made on some level. As for taking cues from the media, give me a break! Ultimately, we watch our own backs, look after loved ones as best we can. A selfish existence to be sure, but it is what it is.
It'd be nice to have your optimism, Nick, but it needs to be based a little more in reality. Still, at least you keep the comments section lively! :)
Regards, Matt
Joe,
If you talk to somebody under 25, they'll tell you that this really is a part of the real world. I can do this quickly most of the time, because I've been working with energy issues for several decades personally and professionally. Plus, I tend to stick with one Post until it freezes, rather than commenting on every Drumbeat as it appears - makes it easier to find conversations, and continue them until some semblance of consensus is reached.
I do happen know more about the US and Europe than Australia. Anyone else who wants to chime in here with some answers for Australia, feel free.
OTOH, I think it's clear that solar power is affordable in Australia. IIRC, provinces with the best insolation have just about the highest solar installation rate in the world. I'll attach a related reference (in another comment below to deal with moderation).
There's lots of mining and construction that's electrically powered, and there will be more as it makes sense. And, of course, liquid fuels don't have to come from fossil fuels.
Yes, solar power is sustainable – it's going to be around for billions of years.
As far as cynicism of the average citizen goes, what I'm really talking about is information, mostly in the media. People tend to believe what they read and hear. How else would they be so misinformed about so many things, including PO and Climate Change?
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/07/solar-electricity-now-under-half-the...
Well Joe . . . if that is what you think then what do you believe is the endgame? . . . human extinction? The FFs will eventually peak and run out. What then? I'd like to know your view as to how humanity secures its future.
That's a good question, and I'm curious about the answer.
On the other hand, its important to point out that fossil fuels are realistically not necessary in that way: mining, manufacturing, construction and ground transportation are all pretty straightforward to electrify (we'll probably use non-FF fuels in the small percentage of applications where they're most convenient).
Nick, Spec,
The difficult thing from my POV is that I'm just your average shmoe, living the mainstream way of life, so trying to explain myself to the average TODer often proves a difficult thing. I've stated on many occasion over the years visiting here I'm all in favor of solar power golf carts replacing ICE vehicles (or some such), holidays spent locally, all that's needed to slow things down, make the world a more livable, friendly place. A legacy for my kids: Less is more. But everyone has to come along for the ride (or at least the vast majority). IMO, that's simply not going to happen.
Mainstream is a grossly entrenched place, with an unquenching thirst of wanting more. Growth is good. Greed is good. And the primary concern of my fellow Joes and Janes (globally) is having enough $$$ - enough to pay bills, enough to purchase Christmas presents, enough to have a holiday every now and then, to be comfortable now and in retirement. The average punter doesn't give a toss about PO or Peak Anything for that matter; it's simply not an issue, not on the radar, not a consideration for the vast majority. Not even the greenies talk much about "peaks" coz the bloke in the street would wonder what they're on about. Our politicians aren't trusted, so why would we listen to them even if they did begin explaining a few home truths. Sure things are bad in places like Greece, terrible. But what will wind farms and solar panels really do for the average punter there, who'd rather have meaningful employment? Oh, how nice, a wind turbine... Just give me a job, godammit!
And so wastefulness remains part of mainstream life. Sure things can be done, electrifying this and what have you, but it won't be achieved to any significant degree on a global scale because no-one (in mainstream, where most of us exist) believes the age of cheap energy has an end. So why go to all the trouble? Yes, there'll be countries that do better than others, but not too many of us will leave our tribe. Why would we when economists tell us things will get better?
How will humanity secure it's future, Spec? From my armchair, it won't. The fossil fuels will be depleted (even the expensive stuff) as BAU continues along the bumpy plateau until the cliff arrives. We'll continue to drive one person to a vehicle, pushing a billion cars on the road, to jobs that for the most part do little to advance humanity itself. We'll continue to travel by jetliner to far away places for a holiday. Continue to buy cheap goods from countries that embrace woefully cheap labor. Until the pumps stop pumping and the realisation that man's alternatives just can't match mother nature.
Nick, I hope you, Spec and all the other optimists prove me wrong, but I fear *my* reality is THE reality. Too little too late. So until the Black Swan arrives, I'll continue to live in a state of flux, believing the worst, hoping for the best. Fingers crossed. A stupid existence I know, but strewth, that's kinda what life's about for most of us anyway; just passing the time. ;)
My 2c rant.
Cheers and a shoulder shrug, Matt
PS. Yes, I know many 20 to 30 year olds (I've been video-taping weddings for 25 years, about 1400 of them). I can assure you there's very little sign of a "green wedding" business firing up anytime soon. Razzle-dazzle is as strong as ever these days. I visit their homes and having all the mod-cons (and associated debt) is par for the course. Coz the youngin's know best, always have. ;)
Joe, you've gotten the wrong idea about alternatives to oil and FFs. It's not about sacrifice - the alternatives are better and cheaper.
How much do you pay for electricity? About 25 cents per kWh? Most Australians can reduce their costs by going to PV panels on the roof (it's a good deal without subsidies - with subsidies it's a really good deal).
Have you looked into solar?
It is definitely true on an individual level that net-metered solar can be quite cheap. However, you can only have so many people do that before you have to start changing policies. We can't all just hook up solar PV do net-metering . . . there would be no one to pay for the night-time electricity then! But Germany is hard at work figuring out how to best merge solar PV and traditional generation.
Net-metering doesn't reduce the cost of solar, it expands the amount that an individual account can produce, because amounts over individual daytime consumption can be shared with others. An individual account can still produce up to around 25% of their overall consumption without net metering. If one doesn't have net metering, then production over that level will require a little creativity: moving appliance use and EV charging to the daytime, heat and power storage,etc.
At some point, of course, solar will need to be limited - perhaps around 25% of the overall grid's consumption. And, accounting will have to be adjusted to pay for the grid....but we can't let the utilities use that excuse to slow down solar's growth...
By using CSP, pumped hydro storage, and other storage techniques, solar can cover more than 25%. But it does have limits. That is why it is very important to keep wind turbine development going strong as well. And like it or not, I suspect nuclear will eventually make a comeback. Between solar, wind, and nuclear, most of our energy needs can be handled CO2 free. Only a small slice of FF energy would be needed. And even that can (and ultimately will) be replaced by solar, wind, and nuclear.
I agree.
I suspect that the sensible proportions for a 100% renewable grid are roughly 25% solar, 60% wind, 10% hydro, 5% other. But, that will vary with cost trends, local resources, etc, etc, etc. That's a SWAG, based on current tech and costs: who knows what it might really look like? And, yes, nuclear is very likely to be with us for a long time, and it could very well make a comeback.
Nick, You're missing my point completely.
I have panels (though where I live they're only effective a small amount of the time, so the regular coal-service tends to take a lot of the slack). I have water tanks. I live conservatively, try to raise my kids to live the same way (they'r now teenagers). But I still work and spend time in mainstream and it's my fellow Joes and Janes I worry about; they couldn't give a rats!! They are highly skeptical about AGW. Have no idea about PO or limits-to-growth. It's not about what WE wish to happen, it's about what my fellow Joes and Janes want (or don't want) to happen.
Voluntary change is not a realistic option, IMVHO.
Cheers, Matt
Ok, so your point is that your friends and coworkers are misinformed, and uninformed, about what's happening, right?
First, I think you're overestimating that problem. Australians know a good thing when they see it, and are installing solar very fast. Google australia massive solar growth to find this quote: "“saturation rate” has already been achieved in some areas of the owner-occupied residential sector — reaching 90 percent in some localities. Nationally, the average penetration rate is 20 percent. "
2nd, I agree that there's a *lot* of misinformed, and uninformed people. So, where does that misinformation and disinformation come from? Leadership, in the form of the media and politicians.
3rd, I agree that the leadership is pretty entrenched, having been purchased by "big FF". On the other hand, that concentration of power means that things could change quickly, if a certain critical mass was achieved. It's not happening yet, but...
What are you doing to make it happen? Are you calling your representatives and writing the newspapers??
Sorry Nick, I've had enough of you.
You're a dreamer.
So, you're just giving up? That's too bad.
Don't let the pessimism in TOD and other PO websites get you down - they're not being realistic. Climate Change is a big problem, but these websites are generally way too pessimistic about everything.
More later...
Again, why is it that you and only you are right and everybody else is wrong? You say everything is easy to fix if only the world would follow your vision. Well then, why haven't they done it?
Well, I would guess that you haven't been reading mainstream environmental literature. Only in the pessimistic world of PO websites does it look these ideas are out of step with "everybody". In fact, Germany as a country is pursuing these ideas. Germany is famous for hardheaded engineers - they're a pretty good recommendation for them.
On the other hand, only in countries that are dominated by FF industries, like the US, and FF exporters like Australia, Canada, KSA, etc., do these ideas even begin to look like "pie in the sky". In the US, a very small minority of very wealthy Fossil Fuel investors have been financing the Teaparty, framing the debate on Fox News and on talk radio, financing thinktanks like the Cato Institute that churn out endless "free-market" analyses that are hopelessly skewed toward crony capitalism.
Does that help??
Yeah, I had to browse http://www.desdemonadespair.net/ to balance the blinkered optimisim. Let's see, AU getting baked, hasn't even yet seen the changes baked in by the last few years of FF use, Germans warmly embrace coal, extinctions both animal and vegetable and mineral...hey! at least there will be plenty of free space in which to collect all that free solar energy once we eliminate that pesky biosphere. Who needs bees or soil, anyways, when you can just buy an electric tractor to trundle over the dead, dry land?
Anyways, back to automating myself out of a job in IT.
Well, the good news is that your view of us driving along BAU until we drive off a cliff just won't happen. That is what PO is all about. Things change as the situation gets harder and harder. Specifically, the prices rise and people change. They may not notice it but they do change. Just look at the VMT numbers. They have gone down. Despite the mainstream media hype of about 'energy independence' and the 'shale oil revolution' . . . people are actually driving less because they cannot afford to drive more. Job losess and higher gas prices forced people to change. And that will continue despite much of the denialism in the culture. People may go buy SUVs today but 10 years down the road, those SUVs are going to be parked and those people will be driving hybrids, PHEVs, EVs, using public transportation, etc.
That which can't go on forever won't. And it won't be a sudden drop off a cliff although there will be some painful discontinuities along the way . . . such as Egypt.
You're probably right, however no-one in mainstream seems to be thinking about "causes".
Would like to add more, but off to my mainstream job I must now go! :)
Cheers, Matt
Yes dissonance is a huge problem. Some people (the most dangerous people) spam the pages of TOD proclaiming the the benefits of electric cars, wind mills, electric trains and solar panels, then have the temerity to say that those things are not supporting BAU. They say we are not speeding towards a BAU cliff, so we should manufacture, sell and buy things that require fossil fuels to function but would never consider active restriction on their use.
We are deep water drilling, mining tar sands, searching for and using heavy contaminated oil, exploring The Arctic and fracking the hell out of everything within reach and some people say we will gradually wean ourselves off FF's with engineering and building. Those things ensure we will maintain BAU for as long as possible and burn everything in an attempt to preserve a non negotiable lifestyle.
These same people deny over population is a problem because if they did, they wouldn't continually advocate all the things that facilitate making more room for humans at the expense of the ecology of the Earth. The dangerous people continue to write that everything will be okay, electric cars will take care of CO2 emissions and overpopulation. There is no chance for any meaningful mitigation while we continue to deny we are in fact, increasing not slowing our velocity towards a very high cliff.
Some people, the most dangerous people, do the work of the oil companies and coal companies by proclaiming that eliminating fossil fuels requires enormous sacrifice - freezing in the dark while unemployed. That kind of message is unrealistic, and discredits those people and ideas that are really trying to deal with climate change.
What's easier to sell: telling people to drive an electric car made of recycled steel, or telling them to have no children and move to a subsistence farm?
Eliminating fossil fuels can be done quickly and pretty cheaply. Reducing population will take a very, very long time. Which makes more sense to focus on?
Your "realistic" solution is "educate Egypt's woman". Just sashay in educate the woman and job done. What about the damn men? Are you going to educate them first or maybe you thing they don't need, much more "realistic" to attack the woman.
"Just buy a Prius" has been your war cay for five years or more, to what result? China and India increased their pollution incrementally while the western world exports their pollution to them. During your "just buy a Prius" solution to everything bar heart disease, population has increased by 500 million and burning of fossil fuels has increased to levels only provided by limits to the resources. Yes Nick, your shill group has absolutely zero credibility. Your group spammed Gail every time she made a key post. Just as you are doing with this one.
Regarding Egypt's women: saying that women need the freedom to get education, use education, and do something besides be baby factories is not attacking women, it's supporting them. I agree that this isn't easy. On the other hand, it's the truth, and it helps one when thinking about population trends. For instance, the Muslim Brotherhood started dismantling family planning programs the moment they got into office, thus undermining their country's long term economic and social health. It's good to know that no one needs to force women to have fewer children - they're dying to do just that, ASAP!
"Just buy a Prius" has been your war cay for five years or more, to what result?
The results of such ideas:
Wind and solar power are growing very fast around the world, and falling quickly in cost. The selection of EVs is expanding very fast. US coal consumption has fallen sharply, and coal plants are being closed, and not replaced. Coal companies in the US are going bankrupt, and oil prices are stable because efficiency and substitutes are being used more and more.
Yes, CO2 emissions have been rising, mostly due to Chinese coal. Does the future of CO2 emissions look good at the moment? Not really. But it's not because of the development of hybrids, EVs, wind and solar. That's perfectly obvious: the Chinese are heavily dependent on coal right now, as are many countries, and changing that's not their highest priority. IF the US and Europe took it more seriously, it would help.
That's blocked by oil and coal companies, who are delighted when people make fun of hybrids, EVs, wind and solar - it makes their job easier.
What an strange idea, that there's a "group" on TOD evilly conspiring to promote hybrids, EVs, rail, wind and solar. Wow. What an inversion of reality.
Fortunately, it doesn't really matter who's presenting the ideas - they stand on their own.
What is your solution, Bandits? Bitch and moan at the people trying to do something? Call everyone else idiots and stew in apocalyptic scenarios?
Google" Solar Electricity Now Under Half The Cost Of Grid Power For Australian Households
" I'd rather have high-consumption low-population-growth states than low-consumption high-population-growth states."
I expect limits to growth will eliminate both of those options. All that matters is overall collective consumption and the environment's ability to support it. Mother Nature is printing up her sold out signs.
There's a lot of bargaining going on in this post.
Bargainer: Yes, Mother Nature, I do understand your point but my new laptop is twice as fast and only uses 25% as much power as my old one! And, and, and, I can drive an EV that uses NO fossil fuels! I can even put in a really good heat pump! Surely if I do all that I'll be able to continue consuming and growing the economy right? And I'll still be in compliance, right?!
Mother Nature: Page 23, Section 6, paragraph 4b, of your contract clearly states:
First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy must be conserved!
Second law of thermodynamics: An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Therefore: Perpetual motion machines of the second kind are strictly prohibited.
Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero.
Bargainer: What do you mean? I don't think I understand!
Mother Nature: Apparently not, I think you'd better hire yourself a good physicist, I can recommend Tom Murphy. You could also consult with Aiko Huckauf, He's a really good Ecosystem Thermodynamicist. Oh, and before you walk off the top of this building, I'd like to remind you that you are still subject to the law of gravity as well...
Cheers >;-)
The earth is not an isolated system - there's 100,000TW pouring in constantly.
Re: Tom Murphy, google logistic curve/function, the kind that levels off. Tom thinks you can use theoretical physics and personal experience with home energy to do systems analysis of large energy systems - that's hopelessly unrealistic.
That doesn't solve the problem!
http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html
Unfortunately the laws of physics will not change nor will we be able to magically conjure up more raw materials and natural resources forever, even if we switch to 100% renewables. That may help with reducing CO2 emissions, which is admitedly a good thing!
However, in the real world you can not infinitely recycle everything with 100% efficiency.
Just because we transition from a fossil fuel based economic growth paradigm to one where growth is powered by alternatives such as solar or wind, does not solve the main problem.
The problem is growth itself! We will have to end up in a steady state economy over the long run whether we want to or not and whether we plan for it or not, it will happen. Well, we could go extinct...
Well, first, are we agreed the laws of thermodynamics are not a problem here?? It would be nice to lay that red herring to rest.
2nd, have you googled logistic curve/function, the kind that levels off?? Thie idea that we need to "magically conjure up more raw materials and natural resources forever" is, as a practical matter, a straw man. No economist would agree with it (if you give him more than 30 seconds to think about, of course - you can't ask over dinner...).
For instance, US steel consumption has been level for decades, and it's almost entirely recycled.
regarding recycling: this would be only a theoretical concern for thousands of years. And, yes, things can be recycled infinitely - the iron molecules aren't destroyed, just dispersed a little, and they can be regathered. It just takes a little energy to reverse the scatter...
Well said, Nick. Educating and empowering women is the answer to most of the world's most dire problems, foremost among them overpopulation.
Nick's comment about educating the woman of Egypt as a solution to over population was his usual naive, childish tripe.
It requires energy and rampant consumerism to create a middle class and better education for all. Religion must also be overcome. The ratio of men to woman in the Middle East is deplorable and not accidental......Qatar 48/100, United Arab Emirates 47/100, Saudi Arabia 85/100, Oman 78/100, Bahrain 76/100, Kuwait 67/100 and with their huge populations, India 94/100 and China 95/100.
There is no simplistic solution to over population. Large families were common leading up to the adoption of fossil fuels to use as energy slaves. The elimination of childhood diseases, better water quality, better nutrition, the growth of cities with easy access to facilities and vaccination have led to couples understanding that their offspring have a great chance of surviving to adulthood and therefor they cease reproduction and even delay it until middle age.
Demonstrating how ignorance and insults often go hand in hand (if you don't have a good argument, you're tempted to resort to intimidation).
Talk to specialists in family planning in developing countries, and they'll tell you the same thing. Reduction in family size generally happens with contraception, and women who have the freedom to use that contraception, and pursue alternative opportunities. As discussed below, Egypt's fertility seems to be suddenly sharply increasing, due to the Muslim Brotherhood's anti-women policies.
Look at India - there's Kerala, that doesn't have "energy and rampant consumerism ", but has reduced pop growth (with education, contraception, and policies supportive of women, IIRC - "This apparently paradoxical "Kerala phenomenon" or "Kerala model of development" of very high human development and not much high economic development resulted due to a stronger service sector." per wikipedia). I agree that affluence, urbanization, pension systems, etc, are very helpful. But women are at the heart of the issue.
Of course this is a complex topic. On the other hand, let's not go down a different oversimplification: fossil fuel is really, really not necessary.
What's the matter Nick, hit a nerve gonna play the "picking on me card".....
But you want to blame women for over population and cherry pick to back up your childish assertion.
Egypt's population grew quickly due to a surplus of energy and the relative wealth it supported.
Egypt also had access to improved water quality, nutrition and medicine. There was also a growing middle class. Education, access to contraception, better medical facilities and immunization go hand in hand with relative increases in prosperity.
That is what happened with the western world. It seems the Middle East (and to a lesser extent China and India) is achieving the same thing with female infanticide and selective parenting.
You still don't address the phenomenon of later marriage, later childbirth and infant mortality rates. Why don't you compare infant mortality rates, life expectancy and population growth by country. See then what correlates and blame it on women.
...deep breath...
No, I'm not blaming it on the women - on the whole, the men have a little more power here. Of course, it's a systemic thing, where blame is really meaningless: both women and men participate in the social systems which restrict women.
Education, access to contraception, better medical facilities and immunization go hand in hand with relative increases in prosperity.
Yes, indeed. And yet, in some countries fertility rates go down and in some they don't.
When you talk about infant mortality, you're talking about the demographic transition. That transition requires fertility rates to fall in the second half of the process...
-------
The silly thing here is that we don't disagree on the fact that economic development is an essential building block for family planning. My point: economic development isn't enough: you also need to give women freedom to take advantage of it's benefits.
When we're back to the age of Wood after fossil fuels are gone, the carrying capacity of the United States is somewhere between 100 million (Pimentel) and 250 million (Smil 2000). Paul Erlich thinks at most 150 million. It's hard to imagine not undershooting capacity since most of the population live on the coasts, but most of our food calories (grains, meat) are grown in the interior.
Any net rate of population increase, however small, will eventually saturate the Earth. It doesn’t matter if Egyptian women have gone from having 7 to 3 children. That's still way too many children. The population needs to drop down to carrying capacity quickly, even one child per woman might be too many given the carrying capacity of Egypt and the decline rate of oil in the future.
Fossil fuels enabled the human population to grow at a rate of 2.0% for a while --133 times higher than the .00015 rate before fossil fuels and an overall average of 0.833% for the past 300 years, or 55 times higher than the growth rate of homo sapiens for millions of years before that (Hardin):
If we continue to grow at a .833% rate there’ll be 15 billion people in 2100. Cut that in half, and you’ve still got 10.5 billion people.
We need a negative growth rate of 1 child per woman or less world-wide to stay under the depletion curve of oil and other fossil fuels. It’s probably too late to do that. It would have never worked anyhow, since capitalism depends on endless growth, businessmen need more customers, religious leaders want more followers, and nations more children to out-reproduce their enemies to win battles. And ultimately it’s part of our biological nature to consume and reproduce at maximum possible levels, like all the other creatures from algae to elephants.
More exponential growth examples
1) Chapter 8 of Hardin’s Living within Limits:
Assume 2 grams of gold grows at 5% compound interest. In 2,000 years, this would grow to the equivalent of 4.78 x 1042 grams of gold, more than the mass of the earth -- 5.983 x 1027 grams – or the equivalent of 800 Trillion earths.
2) Evar Nering, in “The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply”.
In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36 years.
Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.
Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.
If you want to play around with exponential growth rates, check out an Exponential Growth Calculator. To convert an exponential number to decimal, use a Scientific notation to decimal converter.
Alice Friedemann at energyskeptic
References
Garrett Hardin. 1995. Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos. Oxford University Press
Pimentel, D. et al. 1991. Land, Energy, and Water. The Constraints Governing Ideal U.S. Population Size. Negative Population Growth.
Smil, V. 2000. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. MIT Press.
Again, infinite eponential growth is a red herring, a strawman. For instance, US steel production/consumption is flat and mostly recycled.
Fossil fuels really aren't needed. We've got to think outside the FF box...
"Fossil fuels really aren't needed."
What about agriculture? Can you feed 11 billion without fossil fuels? Agriculture used to be net energy producer for 10 000 years, but for the last 100 years it consumes 10 times more energy than it produces. The Haber-Bosch process, phosphorus mining, how would you replace these?
Can you feed 11 billion without fossil fuels?
Sure. Electric tractors will work well for low intensity, daily work. Seasonal stuff, like combines, don't use a very large percentage of overall liquid fuel consumption, and synthetic fuel and biofuel would work just fine.
consumes 10 times more energy than it produces.
That's a misleading statistic for overall food handling. Most of it's for refrigeration far from the farm, and most of the rest is transportation, which can move to rail. Farmers are net energy exporters.
Haber-Bosch process
Hydrogen can be produced from seawater, with renewable power.
phosphorus mining
mining doesn't need FF. A lot of coal mining, for instance, is electrically powered.
Source for the "10:1 energy" claim is here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
It does not consider refrigeration and similar things, only food production itself.
From the article:
" Giampietro and Pimentel found that 10 kcal of exosomatic energy are required to produce 1 kcal of food delivered to the consumer in the U.S. food system. This includes packaging and all delivery expenses, but excludes household cooking).20 "
We see that the 10:1 ratio is for the whole system, not just activities on the farm.
Today in my local newspaper: UN predicts adjusts predictions to higher population in 2100.
Nigeria, currently at 174 million, would explode to 914 million.
Sounds like a future Egypt. A rapid population rise fueled by oil & gas exports and then when the oil runs out . . . splat.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-28/guest-post-egypt-after-morsi
Todd
I keep seeing stories like these and can't quite figure out why we haven't seen more unrest in the US?
Four out of five adults is 80% right? That can't possibly continue, can it?
Well, that's "for at least parts of their lives", which means at one point or another over people lifetimes. That's very different than 80% simultaneously.
I agree that the US is suffering from "deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream". And, I'm a little surprised that we haven't seen more protesting. Fox News seems to have succeeded in "blaming the victim" - the poor are taking all the money, right?
Bread and circuses. Fast food and TV and video games and high speed internet.
This game can be played until the oil really starts to get expensive or unavailable. We're not that far off.
In Egypt, 40% of the population gets by on two dollars a day with a social safety net that consists primarily of subsidized bread and fuel.
Americans are nowhere near that level of "nothing to lose" existence.
Hey Jon, I fully agree with that. On the other hand the fabric of 'The American Dream' is getting rather frayed. So within the context of what most Americans have come to think of as normal, I would expect a bit less complacency. Perhaps it's just a prolonged calm before the storm. Maybe if the price of gas went to say $10.00 a gallon overnigh, that might bring people out into the streets. Granted that isn't going to happen any time soon. So maybe that answers my own question. We all keep plodding along, pass another cold one and change the channel... >;-)
I agree that Americans have good reason to protest. Stagnating wages are the biggest.
OTOH, fuel prices aren't a good reason to protest. Better to buy a hybrid - used ones are available pretty cheap. If prices went to $10 there might be a "rush to the exits", but Americans use carpooling more than mass transit even now - that could be expanded dramatically overnight, while hybrid production was expanded.
Now wait just a whatyamacallit moment... that pipeline map does not agree with what I heard. What I heard in the neighborhood was that the gas pipeline goes from Egypt to Ashkelon to Gaza to southern Israel to the West Bank. The logic of the route was that if any party cut off their nose, it would spite their face.
So, are the Palestinian legs of the pipeline simply missing from the map, or did the truth on the ground change?
Hamster
In the 'ham, where else would I be?
"a population that has grown 200% in the last 50 years. By last December Egypt was populated by some 83.66 million folk, with little sign of change in the growth rate"
Seems that the author isn't into demographics. During the last 50 years Total Fertility Rate in Egypt had dropped from 7 kids to less than 3. That means that instead of 5 kids above replacement levels, now Egypt is having less than one. I challenge you to find faster drops in fertility rate during said period.
Who could conclude "with little sign of change in the growth rate" given this fact?
2013; 83.66 * 0.03 = 2.5 million new mouths per year
1947; 19 * 0.07 = 1.33 million new mouths per year
I agree the growth rate is 'growing'
There is similar math to poverty and hunger, as well. Sure, the world poverty percentage is lower than it has been, but with twice as many people as mid-1900s, the absolute number suffering are larger than ever.
Dropping the rate is great, but until the net population begins to fall there is little to celebrate.
It does frame things differently, though.
If fertility is below the replacement rate, as it is in the majority of the world, then in those countries we can be quite sure that perpetual population growth has ended.
And, if the fertility rate is dropping consistently, as it in almost all of the rest of the world (the exceptions being places like KSA), then we can be pretty sure that perpetual population growth has ended there as well.
Finally, population level is the wrong place to focus. It takes a very, very long time to reduce population, while CO2 emissions can be cut dramatically overnight (relatively speaking, and in some cases literally), if we choose.
Bad news Nick, the majority of the worlds population is 'choosing' to increase CO2 emissions.
The choices are being made by a small minority.
Good point. A quibble - there are countries that reduced fertility faster - for instance, Iran and Mexico.
This indexmundi.com chart shows that Iran, Algeria and Libya all had fertility rates that dropped faster than Egypt's. If you extend this survey a little further afield I'm sure you will find other examples.
The US Census Bureau's International Data Base (IDB) does not have data for "total fertility" for Egypt but does make it easy to calculate "change in total population" which is probably more relevant than "total fertility". How early women have their first child is an important factor in population growth dynamics. The IDB also includes population changes due to migration -- people need to eat whether they were born in Egypt or moved there from elsewhere.
The Population Trends databrowser shows both total population and year-over-year change including migration. (Note that the data only extend to 2010 as I haven't had time to update to the latest, 2012 data.) Here are a few charts of interest and some of the stories they tell:
Egypt's total population growth remains quite strong even as its total fertility has fallen.
Syria, also in the news recently, has always had very strong growth with an added push in 2006-2009 from Iraqis fleeing the internecine fighting in that country. That influx of Sunnis from Iraq, combined with the recent five years of drought affecting primarily Sunni farmers has a lot to do with the situation in Syria today.
Iran, in a surprise to many and until recently, had a very effective birth control program which sent birth rates tumbling. This program, pushed by the mullahs, was perhaps the most successful population control program in any developing nation outside of China.
Egypt looks like a typical developing country with a rapidly increasing population. But something happened 10-20 years ago that led to a drop in fertility. Not sure what it was:
half the population is under 25
GNI per capita $1800
http://texasgeography.wordpress.com/tag/egypt-population-pyramid/
There was a drop in fertility to replacement rate about 20 years ago. Fertility has picked up again in recent years, though. See population pyramid below (currently in moderation).
See the May 2, NYTimes article: Egypt’s Birthrate Rises as Population Control Policies Vanish
Madness. They can't afford to feed their current population and now they are increasing the population? Madness. And as the problems stack up, they'll blame the USA, Israel, Mubarak, Copts, Europe, etc.
I'm puzzled that this article says nothing about the demand side.
The recent Egyptian government was about to sharply reduce fuel subsidies, and replace it with a far more sensible targeted quota program. That could have dramatically reduced waste and marginally valuable consumption.
For instance, Egypt could take the way of China, where passenger Electric Vehicles (in the form of E-bikes) outsell oil-powered vehicles.
16% of electrical power comes from oil! (per wikipedia, stat from 2006) It's pretty obvious that Egypt's solar potential is pretty good...
Nick, that's a bit unfair. The paragraphs below figures 2 and 3 give demand and point to the fuel subsidy as a cause of Egypt's woes.
Egypt is something of a poster child for the effects of subsidies.
Unfortunately, I can only see a suggestion that increased fuel consumption has worsened the cost of subsidies to the Egyptian government.
The focus of the rest of the article is on increased production. There is no hint that demand could be reduced.
The larger context is that this author consistently suggests in his articles that fossil fuel production needs to be protected and expanded - there's no indication of an awareness that oil consumption can be eliminated.
Well, that's just confirmation of Sinclair's little saying about getting a man to understand something.
We've all been here long enough to know Heading Out's viewpoint, and I hope we're all old enough to disbelieve propaganda about "objective reporting". Everyone has biases and beliefs, and everyone selects what is salient on the basis of them. It's up to us readers to attach our own weighting to what someone says.
Give Dave some credit. A few years ago, he wouldn't have mentioned either demand or the political background to it at all, except in population terms. That's worth positive encouragement rather than criticism, I think. And the rest of the piece is still very good to know.
I don't believe oil demand will be eliminated. That's too absolute. I believe that as the price rises, low-value uses of oil will disappear...including and especially burning it for transport, industrial heat, and electricity. But I don't think the price will rise enough that every use of oil becomes uneconomic. Not this century.
Nick:
FWIW I try and shy away from inserting much of my personal opinion in the Tech Talks. I tend to be quite pessimistic over fossil fuel supply in the medium term, particularly oil, perhaps more so than the tenor of my posts convey. With the problems that Egypt has at the moment, it is hard to see that the current government will be motivated to do much about subsidies, but the inter-tribal-sect-family conflicts that are festering in the region make it difficult to see any major investment in alternate sources of power, and telling groups that are struggling to climb up the ladder that they have to reduce energy demand is, IMHO unrealistic.
it is hard to see that the current government will be motivated to do much about subsidies
I agree. The odds were rather better with the Muslim brotherhood, as for them it was a bit of a Nixon going to China event. Now, such reform will be much more difficult.
As for investment in alternative sources, I am not sure why that would be the case. Investment in general will be more difficult, given the economic uncertainty, I'd agree.
I would strongly disagree about the message to groups climbing the ladder. I think there is an assumption there that alternative forms of energy are inferior. I would strongly disagree. Wind and solar would be domestic sources of supply, and far more reliable, secure, and cheaper.
By the way, I'd like to say that I appreciate and respect your work. Otherwise, I wouldn't invest the energy in discussing it...
It is hard to see them NOT do something about subsidies. OK, they can slide for a few more months due to charity from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. But they simply cannot continue with the subsidies. They just don't have the money.
From what I've seen in media reports, the military government in Egypt intends to continue Morsi's plan to reduce their fuel subsidy. There isn't much of an alternative, given the lack of funds to continue the old system and their declining domestic production...
E. Swanson
Why hasn't the media reported on Egypt's resource and financial problems? That is the key story behind both Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood's ouster. This is far more of an economic story than it is a political story but they keep spinning it as if it were all politics.
I know TOD is resource focused but that really is the key to the Egypt situation.
They can't admit that and will avoid admitting it at all cost. Because if they did admit that Egypt has a resources vs. population problem, it would mean that Malthus, while being ridiculed by todays economists, was 100% right in his assumptions, and furthermore, that what's happening today in Egypt, can happen anywhere else in the world tomorrow.
Regarding net oil exports, I basically made a mathematical observation, to-wit, given an ongoing production decline in an oil exporting country, unless they cut their internal consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production, or at a faster rate, the resulting net export decline rate will exceed the production decline rate, and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time. Of course, this is not an opinion, but a mathematical fact.
The UK and Indonesia basically represented the extremes regarding oil consumption (UK heavily taxes consumption, while Indonesia subsidizes consumption), but they both showed rapid--and accelerating--rates of decline in net oil exports, because neither country cut their consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production.
We have recently seen the same pattern in Denmark and Egypt (Denmark heavily taxes consumption, while Egypt subsidizes), and Denmark and Egypt both showed rapid--and accelerating--rates of decline in net oil exports, because neither country cut their consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline as production.
And of course, that's the problem. My premise is that our global net export supply base consists of countries that either now resemble, or will in the near future resemble, the UK, Indonesia, Denmark and Egypt.
Well, the production decline is independent from whether the subsidize the local market or not. The production decline depends on the available resources and the world market price.
But whether or not you have a subsidy makes a big difference in what happens in your local country when you switch from being an exporter to an importer. Without a subsidy, it is a painful economic issue as you lose a valued industry. But if you do have a subsidy, your government will teeter with bankruptcy and you'll have riots in the streets when you remove the subsidy (as both Indonesia and Egypt have had riots in the streets). So the no subsidy route is much better.
Various exporters have been addressing this. Iran has wisely worked hard to eliminate their subsidy but they were aided in the process by Nationalism since they could tell their people it was needed to help fight against those imperialist nations working against them (Yeah, us, the great satan.). Saudi Arabia is starting to move in the direction and they are trying to get their electricity generation off of oil.
The production decline will be much greater if sale prices are controlled. Saudi Arabia could use natural gas to generate electricity, but they hope to subsidize local industry with artificially low prices, so they refuse to allow domestic NG prices to rise to any where near even the level of US prices, let alone European levels. So, KSA NG production is very, very low.
Certainly subsidies affect the slope of the net export decline, but as noted--given an ongoing decline in a net oil exporting country--unless internal consumption falls at the same rate of decline as production, or at a faster rate, it's a mathematical fact that the net export decline rate will exceed the production decline rate, and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.
Regarding Indonesia and Egypt, it's interesting that they maintained their subsidies, even as they approached, or became, net oil importers.
The US maintained very low gas taxes, even as imports ballooned. On the other hand, Norway and the UK maintained high gas taxes, even as exports jumped. Canada maintains gas taxes at a much higher level than the US, even as Canadian exports to the US grow.
Historical momentum is powerful.
Both Indonesia and Egypt are trying to reduce the subsidies but both have experienced rioting due to the rising petrol prices. It is hard to get rid of those subsidies when you know that is going to cause riots.
It can be done. China has mostly removed price caps, and India has decontrolled gas prices, with plans for the same for diesel.
Nigeria dropped price controls, had riots, and only partly reinstalled controls, so they made progress.
Technique matters. If you surprise the public, they're much more likely to riot. If you explain what you're doing very carefully, get the support of public figures like mullahs, and replace it with something that makes sense like in Egypt, you'll do much better.
And, of course, oil importers can and should reduce their imports. The US has reduced it's imports by roughly 50% from the peak roughly 6 years ago. Germany, Japan, and many other importers are reducing their consumption and imports.
It's time to kick the oil habit. It will greatly improve the economic health of the importing countries. The exporters, especially Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries? They'll have to learn to do something productive, rather than living off the productive work of exporting countries.